overview of SBW draft report - Maine Forest Products Council

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 3.2 MB
First found Feb 4, 2016

Document content analisys

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Coming Spruce Budworm Outbreak:
Initial Risk Assessment and
Preparation & Response
Recommendations
For Maine’s Forestry Community
Maine Forest Products Council Annual Meeting
September 7-8, 2014
Bar Harbor, Maine
Quebec 2013 SBW Outbreak Map
2007-13 SBW Outbreak in Quebec
July 2013 -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.
Ked Coffin, JD Irving
Thank You!
Thank You!
SBW Status in New Brunswick
SBW Trapping and Defoliation in Maine
1955-2013
numbers of
moths
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Spruce Budworm
10
mod-severe
Population Indicators
8
defol
Maine - 1955-2013
Start of next
6
millions of
acres
5.0
Maine 4
outbreak
2
0.0
0
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Maine SBW Task Force
Task Force Leaders:
• University of Maine
• Bob Wagner, Director, CFRU Director
• Maine Forest Service
• Doug Denico, Director
• Maine Forest Products Council
• Patrick Strauch, Executive Director
Maine SBW Task Force
Objectives:
• Develop Risk assessment
• Develop Preparation & Response
recommendations:
• State government, forest managers,
forest products industry, forest
researchers, and wildlife biologists
• Raise awareness about coming
outbreak for media and interested
members of public
SBW Task Teams
SBW Task Teams
SBW Task Teams
DRAFT Report Complete
Timeline
• DRAFT currently being
reviewed by Task Team
members
• Publically reviewable DRAFT
available this fall (~Nov-Dec)
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.
Balsam fir concentrations (as depicted on map) by average volume
(ft3/acre) by county in Maine, 2008. (Source: McCaskill et al.
2011)
Risk Assessment
Water/no data
Non-host forest
Low
Susceptibility
Mixed with red/black spruce
Mixed with fir/white spruce
Red/black spruce
Young fir/white spruce
Mature fir/white spruce
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)
Potential Spruce-fir
Yield Reductions
• Two studies completed:
•
Hennigar et al. 2013 – CFRU
•
Legaard et al. 2013 – 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
•
Impact similar (both severity and rate of
recovery) regardless of when outbreak occurs
over next few decades
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
Projected Cumulative Spruce-fir
Volume Reductions Under Various
Management
Scenarios
Poten al
Cumula ve Wood Supply Impact
on Balsam Fir and Spruce
rela ve to 2006-10 Harvest Levels
Spruce-fir volume reduc on (million cords)
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.3
-1.5
-4.0
-3.7
-2.6
-3.1
-6.0
-6.4
-8.0
-7.4
-10.0
Same as 1970s-80s outbreak
50% of 1970s-80s outbreak
-12.0
-14.0
-12.7
-16.0
No Management
With Adap ve
Harvest Planning
only
With 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
Projected Maximum Annual Spruce-fir
Volume Reduction Under Various
Poten al Mitigation
Maximum Annual Wood Supply
Impact on Balsam Fir and
Scenarios
Spruce rela ve to 2006-10 Harvest Levels
Spruce-fir volume reduc on (thousand cords)
100
0
0
0
-100
-90
-166
-200
-333
-202
Same as 1970s-80s outbreak
50% of 1970s-80s outbreak
-400
-600
-181
-247
-300
-500
-101
-494
No Management
With Adap ve
Harvest Planning
only
With 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
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
Coming outbreak may not be
as severe as last one
• Less spruce-fir forest
• Younger spruce-fir forest
• 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
Strictly speculative at this stage, but
interesting indicators
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
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
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 ality
• Seek and encourage markets for low-value trees
Protection Recommendations
• 13 insecticide products with 4 active ingredients
(B.t.k., tebufenozide, carbaryl, and flubendiamide)
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
• Landowners with FSC certification and wishing to
apply tebufenozide, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos,
esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, and naled)
should apply for temporary derogation from FSC
Board of Directors
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
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
Public Communications &
Outreach Recommendations
Specific recommendations
provided for:
•
•
•
•
Public media
Family forest owners
Schools
Environmental NGOs
Research Recommendations
Short, medium, and long-term
priorities provided for:
•
•
•
•
SBW monitoring
Protection
Forest management
Wildlife habitat management
Thank You!

Similar documents

×

Report this document