Coming Spruce Budworm Outbreak: Initial Risk Assessment and Preparation & Response Recommendations For Maine s Forestry Community

Transcription

1 Coming Spruce Budworm Outbreak: Initial Risk Assessment and Preparation & Response Recommendations For Maine s Forestry Community Robert G. Wagner CFRU Director Keeping Maine s Forests Implementation Committee Augusta, Maine November 18, 2014

2 2014 Quebec SBW Outbreak Map Source: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec

3 Growth Spruce-fir Defoliation by SBW Outbreak in Quebec Source: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec

4 Ked Coffin, JD Irving July North of Forestville, QC. 90+% of the fir had damage. Some of the spruce was damaged. The photos don't show it, but this is the condition affecting every stand on every hill and valley in the region. Currently there are 2.5 million ha in Quebec in a similar condition. Only a stand sprayed twice with Btk was green (not shown). Quebec only sprayed 120,000 ha this year.

5 Thank You!

6 Thank You!

7 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 10,000,000 millions of acres millions of acres 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0

8 SBW Status in New Brunswick

9 Jeremy Gullison, NBDNR 9

10 SBW Trapping and Defoliation in Maine Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 10,000,000 millions of acres millions of acres 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Start of next Maine outbreak 0

11

12 Maine s SBW Preparation & Response Strategy

13 SBW Preparation & Response Plan Approach Develop risk assessment for Maine (wood supply impact analysis began by CFRU in 2010) Focus on those that will be directly affected (large landowners / mills) Role of public institutions: State government (MFS) Legislated forest protection mandate University of Maine (research, education, and outreach mandate) Workout landowner and state roles and responsibilities Develop joint industry (MFPC), state (MFS), and university (CFRU) preparation and response recommendations Recognized that plan will need to be revised and augmented with feedback from others that will be impacted or have strong interest in issue: Family forest owners Municipalities Recreation and tourism groups Environmental groups Interested members of public

14 Maine SBW Task Force Task Force Leaders: University of Maine Bob Wagner, CFRU Director Maine Forest Service Doug Denico, Director Maine Forest Products Council Patrick Strauch, Executive Director

15 Maine SBW Task Force Objectives: Develop Risk Assessment Develop Preparation & Response Recommendations for: forest managers/landowners, forest products industry, state government, wildlife biologists, and forest researchers Solicit feedback from others that will be impacted or have strong interest in SBW Raise awareness about coming outbreak

16 SBW Task Teams

17 SBW Task Teams

18 SBW Task Teams

19 >65 Expert Contributors! SBW Task Team Wood Supply & Economic Impacts Monitoring & Protection Forest Management Strategies Policy, Regulatory, & Funding Strategies Wildlife Habitat Issues Public Communications & Outreach Research Needs Task Team Contributors Chris Hennigar (UNB), Erin Simons (UMaine), Kasey Legaard (UMaine), Ken Laustsen (MFS), William McWilliams (FIA), Aaron Weiskittel (UMaine), Ernest Bowling (Sewall Co.), Peter Triandafillou (Huber), Ian Prior (7-Islands), Todd Gabe (UMaine), Rob Lilieholm (UMaine), Lloyd Irland (The Irland Group) Louis Morneau (MFFP QC), Blake Brunsdon (Irving), Brian Sturtevant (UMN), Mike Devine (MFS), Gary Fish (MBPC), Lebelle Hicks (MBPC), Gordon Mott (USFS, retired), Bud Brown (Consulting Entomologist), Charlene Donahue (MFS) Kip Nichols (7 Islands), Tom Charles (BPL), Kenny Ferguson (Huber), Gordon Mott, (USFS, retired), Dave Wilson (Katahdin Forest Management) Joel Swanton (FRA), Mark Doty (Plum Creek), Jim Contino (Verso), Doug Denico (MFS), Don Mansius (MFS), Peter Triandafillou (Huber), Don Tardie (Consultant), Marcia McKeague (Katahdin), Bill Ferdinand (Plum Creek), John Cashwell (Consultant), Michele MacLean (MFPC), Tom Doak (SWOAM) Don Mansius (MFS), Blake Brunsdon (Irving), Chuck Gadzik (LandVest) Ryan Robicheau (MDIFW), Walter Jakubas (MDIFW), Phillip demaynadier (MDIFW), Joe Wiley (MDIFW), Erin Simons (UMaine), Ray Ary (Plum Creek), John Gilbert (JD Irving), Henning Stabins (Plum Creek), Jennifer Vashon (MDIFW), Andrew Cutko (MNAP), Merry Gallagher (MDIFW) Roberta Scruggs (MFPC), Kevin Doran (MFS), Sherry Huber (Maine Tree) Bill Livingston (UMaine), Michel Huot (MFFP QC), Dave MacClean (UNB), Vince Nealis (CFS), Dave Struble (MFS), Andrew Willette (JDI), Lloyd Irland (Irland Group), Brian Sturtevant (UMN)

20 SBW Task Force Timeline Task Force Formed (Summer 2013) Task Teams formed (September 2013) Task Team work (October 2013 May 2014) Task teams complete draft report sections (June 1, 2014) 1 st DRAFT completed (August 1, 2014) 1 st DRAFT review by Task Team members completed (October 15, 2014) Publicly reviewable DRAFT completed (November 9, 2014) Public review period begins with Keeping Maine s Forest (November 18, 2014) Feedback solicitation from SWOAM, municipalities, recreation and tourism groups, others (Nov 2014 Feb 2015) Final report completed (April 2015)

21 Publicly Reviewable DRAFT Report Complete!

22 Risk Assessment

23 Risk Assessment 5.8 million acres of spruce-fir stands at risk of some level of defoliation, leading to reduced tree growth and mortality over wide areas. Distribution of Spruce-Fir Forest Type in Maine counties, 2008 (Source: McCaskill et al. 2011). Balsam fir concentrations (as depicted on map) by average volume (ft 3 /acre) by county in Maine, (Source: McCaskill et al. 2011)

24 Risk Assessment Water/no data Non-host for est Mixed with red/black spruce Mixed with fir/white spruce Red/black spruce Young fir/white spruce Matu re fir/white spruce Low Susceptibility High Susceptibility Map of approximately 10 million acres of northern Maine showing areas of forestland classified based on susceptibility to defoliation by SBW. (Source: Legaard et al. 2013)

25 Impact similar (both severity and rate of recovery) regardless of when outbreak occurs over next few decades Potential Spruce-fir Yield Reductions Two studies completed: Hennigar et al CFRU Legaard et al NSRC Both studies conclude: 15% to 30% maximum annual reduction in spruce-fir volume or biomass for moderate to severe SBW outbreak Slow (40-year) recovery of spruce-fir following peak impact of outbreak

26 Good News! Hennigar et al. (2013) concluded that nearly all spruce-fir volume losses can be prevented by: Adaptive harvesting Reducing area of high-risk stands (i.e., those with high balsam fir and white spruce composition) ahead of outbreak Foliage protection B.t. applications to high risk and valuable stands Only 20% of area of affected area needs to be treated Salvage logging Dead and dying trees

27 From Hennigar et al Projected Cumulative Spruce-fir Volume Reductions Under Various Management Scenarios Spruce-fir volume reduc on (million cords) Sam e as 1970s-80s outbreak 50% of 1970s-80s outbreak No M anagem ent W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning only W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on + Par al Salvage W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on + Salvage

28 Projected Maximum Annual Sprucefir Volume Reduction Under Various Mitigation Scenarios Spruce-fir volume reduc on (thousand cords) Spruce rela ve to Harvest Levels Sam e as 1970s-80s outbreak % of 1970s-80s outbreak No M anagement W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning only W ith Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on With Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on + Par al Salvage With Adap ve Harvest Planning + 20% Bt Protec on + Salvage From Hennigar et al. 2013

29 Economic Impact - Projected Maximum Annual Spruce-fir Loss SBW Outbreak Scenario Forest Management Response Scenario Estimated Total Direct Economic Impact to Forest Products Industry Estimated Total Indirect Economic Impact to Maine Estimated TOTAL Economic Impact to Maine Same as 1970s- 80s outbreak on current forest Worst Case No Management -$505 million -$290 million -$795 million Approximately 50% of 1970s- 80s outbreak on current forest Worst Case No Management -$252 million -$145 million -$397 million ASSUMPTIONS: No substitutions made for lost spruce-fir volume during outbreak No change in market price of spruce-fir wood with increased supply during outbreak No real price change in spruce-fir stumpage over time

30 Many Factors Different Today Than During 1970s Outbreak Less spruce-fir forest Younger spruce-fir forest TIMO & REIT ownership Better road system Better forest management technology More diverse forest products Higher mill capacity More diverse markets Less dependence on spruce-fir Better logging technology Better protection technology More policy & regulations Lower funding levels in government & industry More sensitive political environment Less entomology expertise Challenges during coming outbreak will be very different than in 1970s-80s

31 Coming outbreak may not be as severe as last one Less spruce-fir forest Younger spruce-fir forest More mixedwood stands due to partial cutting Pattern of alternating moderate and severe outbreaks (1970s was severe) Current outbreak center further north and out of prevailing winds compared to 1970s Reduced dependency on spruce-fir as mill furnish Climate models suggest less favorable conditions in Maine (However, QC outbreak is severe) Strictly speculative at this stage, but interesting indicators

32 Preparation & Response Recommendations

33 Recommendations >70 specific recommendations provided on: Monitoring strategies Forest management strategies Protection options Policy, regulatory & funding issues Wildlife habitat issues Public communications & outreach Research priorities

34 Monitoring Recommendations Engaging public in SBW monitoring Increasing number of pheromone traps in across northern Maine Continuing current light trapping system across northern Maine Conducting targeted aerial surveys (plane-based observers) across northern Maine Conducting egg mass or L-2 larval survey if pheromone trapping and/or defoliation surveys indicate a high probability of population intensification

35 Forest Management Recommendations 6-level stand risk categories based on species composition, productivity, age, value, access, and location Map location, condition, and concentration of highrisk stands Shift harvesting now and in coming years towards merchantable high-risk stands Stop precommercial and commercial thinning in stands where balsam fir and white spruce make up >50% of the composition Prepare action plans to salvage (or pre-salvage) trees that will likely be lost Seek and encourage markets for low-value trees

36 Protection Recommendations 12 insecticide products with 3 active ingredients (B.t.k., tebufenozide, and carbaryl) are approved by MBPC for aerial application over naturally regenerated forests to control SBW Assess and map high-risk and high-value stands that they may be candidates for insecticide protection MFS should develop plans for providing technical assistance on SBW management to landowners MFS, MFPC, and UMaine should work collaboratively to develop a communications strategy about the SBW, its effects, and the need for insecticide applications for forest protection in some situations

37 Policy, Regulatory & Funding Recommendations Review Spruce Budworm Management Act to determine whether changes are needed given changes in roles and responsibilities of MFS and private landowners Determine personnel, financial, and timing needs for SBW monitoring within MFS and landowners Building and expanding MFS training programs and protocols for a joint state and landowner monitoring program Large landowners anticipating need for insecticide applications should explore cooperative organization for delivering aerial insecticide applications MBPC and MFS should work with insecticide manufacturers to ensure that products are available in sufficient quantities, and all regulatory compliance requirements have been met

38 Wildlife Recommendations Specific recommendations provided for: Mature softwood songbirds Deer wintering areas (DWAs) Riparian zones and coldwater fish habitat Early/mid-successional species of concern (lynx / snowshoe hare / moose) Rare northern butterfly habitat High-elevation habitats and bird species

39 Public Communications & Outreach Recommendations Specific recommendations provided for: Public media Family forest owners Schools Environmental NGOs Government Forest industry Recreation and tourism groups

40 Research Recommendations Short, medium, and long-term priorities provided for: SBW monitoring Protection Forest management Wildlife habitat management

41 Questions?