Self Introduction 5 questions for the audience – ie Know your audience. This power point is full of information. If you would like a copy – send me an e-mail or contact Dean Feldman for a copy. I see my job today as setting the stage for the more detailed discussions that will follow in the next two days.
What’s the state of the Upper Great Lakes forests? Trends in the Upper Great Lakes states and examples from Wisconsin’s 2010 Statewide Forest Assessment Begin things with the end in mind and put first things first. What can we do to address the issues, threats, and opportunities? Wisconsin’s Statewide Forest Strategy & Forestry Division’s Strategic Direction as an example
The World is Changing Changing demographics: Example: People retiring and moving into Forested Areas Accelerating globalization: We are all connected on this small planet Look at what the financial troubles in tiny Greece did to you 401 K balance last week! Expanding impact of technology This one is everywhere Mechanization in the forest in harvest operations Increasing environmental/natural resource concerns Water quality NHI Insects/Disease Invasives
Introduce the challenges of our new realities: In the last five years we experienced major socio-economic change. Forest industries have re-invented themselves. No longer do these industries own or manage land, but they depend on the flow of raw materials through procurement processes. The procurement more often requires third party certification with no increase in $ paid for the raw materials or the products produced. New markets are being deliberated but economic values are difficult to quantify – ecosystem services include not only raw materials, but also carbon, shade, clean water, habitat for wildlife etc. The “in short” bottom line conclusion is that we decided to develop a proposed road map, with roles, niches, intentions and hard choices about who we are, what we will be in the next five years, knowing full well, that change within DNR and with the Forestry Community as a whole is extremely difficult. As part of the forestry community, our partners want more, but struggle trading off or giving up any of the traditional services. We have always had economic constraints providing services, uncertain, but likely that these constraints will escalate.
So lets take a look at the process that the State of Wisconsin Used to assess the state of its Forests and work with stakeholders to define a course moving forward.
07/10/12 The Assessment Process Sustainability Framework- 2007 Council on Forestry – How do we measure Sustainable Forestry? Analysis Current conditions and trends Threats and issues Major conclusions Priorities Public comment and review
These were the 5 themes that immerged from the assessment: Fragmentation & Parcelization Forest Composition & Structure Energy & Climate Change Forests as Economic Contributor Protection of Life & Property in Forested Areas
Lets first take a look at how much forest we have in the Lake States and the trends in that acreage. There is a lot of this slide – but the main message is 43% of the Upper Great Lakes States is covered by Forests
The amount of forest land in Wisconsin steadily increased over 24 years, from 14.7 million acres in 1983 to 16.4 million acres in 2007. Today, over 47% of the state is covered by forests. Based on FIA data, 99% of all of Wisconsin’s forest land in 2007 was productive timberland Based on estimates of vegetation type and cover in the mid-1800’s, forest area probably ranged from 22 to 26 million acres (not including barrens or savannas).
**Native American lands have been exclusively in the nonindustrial private owner group since 1997. For 1997 and earlier years, these lands may be included in the other public owner group. Approximately 59% of forests in the Great Lakes States are in private ownership Vern – add acres of tribal lands for each state here
The continuing evolution of private forest holdings is revealed in 1997-2006 figures. The number of private landowners jumped from an estimated 263,000 in 1997 to 362,000 in 2006, a 37.64% increase . The portion of land owned by forest products companies fell from 62% in 2002 to 24% in 2008 after transfer primarily to Real Estate Investment Trusts. The number of small forest owners (1-9 acres) increased by 84,000 owners (91%) between 1997 and 2006. (Think of the challenges this presents for obtaining wood in an economical way off these parcels!) The number of small parcels less than 50 acres grew – parcels in the smallest 1-9 acre category nearly doubled – and area in ownership categories over 100 acres dropped.
In WISCONSIN… Total non-industrial private forest acreage rose 14.23% and forest industry ownership fell 51.50% during the 38 year span (1968-2006) as land was transferred to other ownership categories. Why is this significant? Ease of access to raw forest products – increasingly challanging.
Wildfires in the Lake states Each State Fights Fire Differently in the Lake states based on the land base they are trying to protect (Different Strategies in the three Great Lakes States) MN- use air resource due to a general lack of access WI- highly mechanized- tractor plow and engines because we have good access; good road systems state-wide (Largest Fleet of JD 450’s in the world.) MI- blend of both: mostly mechanized but there are access issues. (Duck Creek Fire) Heavy reliance on Volunteer Fire Departments in all states Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact – train together – help each other out.
Wildfires in Wisconsin High Risk Landscapes: The most cost effective approach to support general suppression capabilities in areas of lower wildland fire risk and exposure is to enhance the capacity of agencies such as local fire departments. The areas with a high risk of large, destructive wildland fires, from an ecological, social and/or historical perspective, should have the greatest wildland fire-specific capabilities. 2) The challenges presented by wildland fires are changing, and adjustments in how managers respond will be needed to continue to effectively address the threat caused by wildland fires. The principle causes of wildfires have changed over time. Because of technological improvements, railroads are causing fewer fires. The number one cause of wildland fires is debris burning of various kinds. A new automated burning permit system is intended to reduce the number of fires caused by debris burning.
(info from slides presented by from Maria Janowiak at NAICS) Shifts are likely to lead to changes in forest function and composition Suitable habitat may move northward Dominant species may decline Successional trajectories may change Interactions of multiple stressors may effect forest productivity Climate change may relieve some stressors while exacerbating others Increasing temperatures & longer growing seasons Altered precipitation patterns Changes in soil moisture Altered disturbance dynamics Increases in pests and diseases
(info from slides presented by from Maria Janowiak at NAICS) It is uncertain whether this decline is of concern for harvesting birch bark: Even though the cover type is in decline, a greater percentage of trees have moved into the medium and large diameter size classes.
Long-term climate related changes in temperature and precipitation will directly and indirectly impact the health and vitality of Wisconsin’s forests. Based on observed and modeled climate change, Wisconsin will become warmer in the decades to come. Affects could be most dramatic in the northern half of the state. Wisconsin’s forests occupy a unique position in the Great Lakes region because many of its tree species exist on the edge of their natural ranges. Transitions are likely as temperature and precipitation change. Some species could be pushed outside of their genetic limits, and others afforded a more favorable growing environment. Spread and persistence of invasive and exotic species are likely to increase if climate change results in additional stress on Wisconsin’s native vegetation. Increased winter temperatures and frequencies of extreme precipitation events will likely result in additional tree stress and increases in the amount and frequency of forest disease and pest infestations in Wisconsin. The combination of higher temperatures and land-use changes could increase the fuel loads in Wisconsin’s forest increasing the likelihood of wildfire and the need for the strategic use of prescribed fires and other fuel reduction management activities. Air quality restrictions related to human health concerns could increase under warmer climatic conditions and restrict the extent and timing of prescribed fire. Wisconsin’s cities experience an urban heat island effect, and climate changes could exacerbate the problem. The urban tree canopy will be important in helping mitigate this effect.
Need Pictures Assessment Conclusion: The greatest threat to Wisconsin’s Forest = Invasives! Non-native invasive species have the potential to reduce forest diversity and cause huge economic and ecological damage to forests. Example: Think about Wisconsin’s Wooded swamps – Elm is gone, Ash is threatened – Silver Maple, Swamp White Oak, and Cottonwood remain. Insect species such as the Emerald Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth and Asian Long Horned Beetle have already caused major damage in forests and in urban areas in the Midwest. Non-native disease causing organisms that cause mortality from White Pine Blister Rust, and Dutch Elm Disease are well documented historically. More recent examples include Beech Bark Disease and Sudden Oak Death.
Example in the Great Lakes States: Red Dots – Where the Emerald Ash borer has been found Blue Boundary: Where the USDA has quarantined movement of Ash wood. Slow the spread
Emerald Ash borer as an example in Wisconsin The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis , is an exotic insect that was first observed in Wisconsin in 2008. Approximately 5.2 million urban trees, about 20% of all trees in Wisconsin’s cities and villages, are ash. 33% of the street trees in the Green Bay metro area are ash.
Over 10 million acres of Wisconsin’s 16 million acres of forest land have a management focus that includes protection of soil and water resources. (ie Forest Certification) This is a huge focus of third party certifiers during audits in Wisconsin. We have an excellent track record of protecting our water resources through voluntary BMP’s for water Quality in Wisconsin.
When the ratio is greater than 1.0, net growth exceeds removals. When the ratio is less than 1.0, removals exceed net growth.
Growth exceeded removals by at least 30% on Wisconsin timberlands from 1983 to 2007. 50 of the 55 commercial species in Wisconsin have a growth rate greater than their removal rate. Their growing stock volume is increasing. Four major commercial species have declined significantly in growing stock volume since 1983. These species include: jack pine (45% decline), paper birch (40% decline), balsam fir (27% decline) and quaking aspen (14% decline). Balsam fir (found mainly in the northern third of the state) is not an early successional species, but its mortality rate is over 4% and its removals to growth ratio is over 100%.
1) The total value of all forest products harvested from Wisconsin forests slowly declined from a peak in 2000. The 2008-2009 recession exacerbated a decline. As the economy rebounds, the industry is expected to recover, but not necessarily with the same players or mix of commercial products as before. New markets for certified wood, biomass and bio-fuels could influence growth. Wisconsin remains the #1 paper producer in the nation, a position it has held for over 50 years. Although the paper sector experienced mill closures as a result of global competition, it still reports $13.8 billion in shipments and 9% of Wisconsin’s manufacturing value of shipments. Of five forest products sectors, wood furniture manufacturing suffered the most substantial (-35%) decline in shipments due to overseas competition. (How many mills did we loose? Where were they? (Conners at Laona) The total forest products industry payroll dropped 31.6% after adjustment for inflation since its peak in 1996. Employment dropped by about the same amount (30.51%). What was the drop in MI and MN?) New markets are developing in biomass, bio-energy, and recycled material, presenting the paper sector with both challenges and opportunities. Growing demand for certified wood products from responsibly managed forests helped stabilize paper and solid wood sectors in the Great Lakes region due to a concentrated supply relative to the rest of the country, according to industry executives. Wisconsin harvests more of its forest growing stock per year than is consumed by its residents, providing evidence that the forest products industry as a whole is an export industry that brings in new dollars into Wisconsin’s economy.
Forest management positions will see over 50% of the workforce turn over in the next decade due to the baby boomer generation entering retirement and at a time when the number of forestry graduates in the Lake States is declining. The shortage could result in prolonged vacancies, increased labor costs, or acceptance of less qualified replacements. The forest products industry employs over 68,000 people, but the number of jobs and the payroll in the wood products industry have fallen 30% since 1996. While new forest-based industries may emerge, it is not clear if they will employ as many people as in the past. One of the weakest links in the responsible forestry chain is the status of the logging sector. The average logging firm has been in business for over 20 years and the average firm owner is 47 years old. There are relatively few new firms entering the sector. Among firms with employees, over 85% reported difficulty finding skilled and reliable workers.
So based on these facts and trends – what are we going to do about it??
2010 Wisconsin Statewide Forest Strategy Focus everyone on the big issues – agreement on the goals and strategies How do we move forward? Forestry community – anyone can decide to implement a strategy or action
THEMES (5) Priority issues identified in the Assessment (Who can remember what those 5 were?) Fragmentation & Parcelization Forest Composition & Structure Energy & Climate Change Forests as Economic Contributor Protection of Life & Property in Forested Areas GOALS These are desired conditions for each Theme STRATEGIES These are ideas to address the issues/ trends/ opportunities in each Theme ACTIONS These are possible activities to enact the Strategies
Example: Theme 1 Parcelization and Fragmentation Goal: Large blocks of forest are maintained/increased Strategy: Pursue the conservation and protection of large, unfragmented blocks of forest lands Latest Example: Possible Action: Continue to identify opportunities to purchase easements and encourage investment in working forests through the Forest Legacy program. Data from the assessment: - parcel size, change in ownership size - change in ownership category - housing density changes - Latest Example: DNR poised to make largest recreational and forest land acquisition in state history An easement on 67,346.8 forest acres in Douglas, Bayfield, Burnett and Washburn counties from the Lyme St. Croix Forest Company. To be known as the Brule-St. Croix Legacy Forest Located at the headwaters of the St. Croix and Bois-Brule rivers in the state’s northwest sands area and contains 80 small lakes and ponds, 14 miles of streams, and a globally significant Pine Barrens habitat. About 20,000 acres of the purchase are located within the Brule River State Forest boundaries. Natural Resources Board approved the purchase at its May 23 meeting. Has now been forward to lawmakers and to the Governor for final approval. Assures public recreational access for the future. All future generations can enjoy hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, skiing, bird-watching, ATV and snowmobile trails, portions of the North Country Trail Protects extensive habitat for deer, bear, wolves, woodcock, migratory songbirds and grouse At the same time, the land remains in private ownership, on the tax rolls and will be managed sustainably for forestry purposes. It’s a win-win for everybody that will help maintain the celebrated forested character of the north The Lyme Timber Company seller Lyme has a long history of owning and managing large forestland properties under conservation easements that provide a steady flow of wood to local mills, regular employment for forest managers and logging contractors, while allowing public recreational access.” Stein credited The Conservation Fund for assisting with the transaction. This acquisition provides wood products to 12 pulp, saw timber and telephone pole processing mills and other supporting industries in the region. The forest products industry employs 60,000 workers and provides $18 billion in economic value in wood and paper products. Wisconsin leads the nation in employment and the value of shipments in the forest products industry.
Example 2: Forest Composition and Structure due to Forest Health What is this map telling us? Convergence of invasives and exotic species on the landscape? Goal: The spectrum of native and exotic invasive species is being addressed to minimize loss of forested ecosystem function. Strategy: Strive to prevent infestations of invasive species before they arrive. Possible Action: Work in public/private partnerships to conduct species risk assessments and identify priority invasive species for regulatory action consistent with NR 40. 1. Managing and reducing threats to forest and ecosystem health. Throughout the state, Wisconsin’s forests are at risk of mortality from both native and exotic insects and diseases, invasive plants, deer, damaging storms, climate and air pollutants. The threats to forest trees have long played an important role in forest succession, reducing tree density in overstocked stands, creating openings in the canopy that encourage successful regeneration and providing down woody material. In some cases, tree diseases or insect infestations can cause such high levels of mortality that a species may be reduced to only a few individuals on a site or over an extensive area. This map, considered with other information from research, surveys and monitoring, helps determine which issues are the most critical to address. The following criteria identify areas at risk of experiencing 25% or more tree mortality over 15 years from a combination of insects and diseases. Insects and Disease : Native forest insects and diseases contributing to risk of mortality include forest tent caterpillar, jack pine budworm, red pine pocket mortality and pine bark beetle. Exotic insects and diseases contributing to risk of mortality include gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, beech bark disease, sudden oak death, oak wilt and emerald ash borer. In order to evaluate risk for any particular insect or disease, a list of contributing factors needs to be determined. Factors are different for each insect and disease. Sources of input factors include census data (population density, median housing value, density of campgrounds), species density maps (normal range, canopy cover or basal area maps), climate data (mean annual temperature or precipitation), historical presence of the particular disease or insect in the area, and habitat type. Once these factors are weighted, every acre of land then has a value representing the overall risk of the particular disease or insect occurring on that acre. Invasive Plants (not mapped): Some threats, such as invasive plants, have not been consistently mapped to date. Efforts are underway for a coordinated database of species present and their location. There are three basic principles that apply to invasive plant prioritization efforts: prevention, rapid response, and control. Depending on what species and threat to a location is being considered, the action and area for addressing the species will be different. At this point in time, these are difficult variables to map. Invasive Species Identification, Classification and Control rules (NR40) act as a prioritization tool in that the two regulatory categories, prohibited and restricted, determine the course of action upon discovery. Prohibited species are intended to be controlled and ideally eradicated, whereas restricted species are not, although control is encouraged. Similarly, if an invasive species is detected in an area not previously found, rapid response to attempt to eradicate or at least manage the population is important to limit the spread. Prioritization of control efforts for a particular invasive plant species is based on the potential threat to a site, as follows. State Natural Areas Conservation lands- those owned and managed by Federal, State, County and Local governments and agencies. Critical plant community types under greatest threat of spread (i.e. barrons, black spruce swamp, etc). Populations along rivers for those species that easily spread via water. Deer (not mapped) : Another criterion that is difficult to map is deer damage to forest regeneration due to over-browsing. There are several trials across the state that have documented the connection between deer and forest health but no statewide data exist. Possible proxy data to use are locations where deer populations are over goal (See a map of over population areas at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/post_hunt_pop.pdf ). Deer can cause forest damage anywhere, but over-populated areas could have a greater impact on forest regeneration.
Goal: Wisconsin is a hub of green forest product markets, producing a diversity of value added solid wood, fiber, energy and ecosystem services. This is not the case every where. Example: Colorado has one saw mill left in the State. Strategy: Support existing forest products companies so that they are competitive domestically and internationally. Possible Action: As part of Strategic Direction the Division is reallocating three positions into the Utilization and Marketing team to assist with developing District markets for wood. Develop Great Lakes regional branding to market sustainably produced products with the organizations like the Great Lakes Forests Alliance
Strategic Direction Implementation – what is the State going to do in the next 5 years?
Criteria to figure out our role: Does the Division have a certain expertise? Is/isn’t a partner capable of doing it? What are the pros/cons, risks, return on investment? Do we have a statutory obligation? Should we? Is this a service government is in the best position to supply? What’s the value the Division brings that can’t be replaced by an outside entity?
County Forest Program: 29 County Forests; 2.3 million acres Important partnership for meeting mission We’re providing greater flexibility to customize services provided State Lands 1. Important to meet the Annual Allowable Harvest on all state owned lands not just on state forests. We felt forest management of &quot;other state lands&quot; was a Division responsibility. 2. Reforestation is critical to forest sustainability. 3. Recreation/LE: Need to increase to meet user demand and protect the user experience. Rec/LE are scaled proportionally.
Change order on slides (and pictures) to: Allocate resources based on an updated assessment of risk as defined by fire landscapes. This will require aligning our resources – moving them. This will require more state foresters having Fire in their position descriptions – more training – more depth. Value partnerships in accomplishing mission: fire departments and other agencies Training Grant Funding for equipment Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact An investment in Integrated Incident Management Teams – that can respond to ALL Risks Continued partnerships with local fire departments New approach = Fire Risk Landscapes Value partnerships in accomplishing mission: fire departments, other federal agencies and cooperators (i.e. TNC): maintain FFP grant program for fire departments and continuing/updating agreements/MOU’s with the fire departments and agencies Enhanced prevention programs
Provide technical expertise in the prevention, detection, assessment, management and monitoring of invasive plants, insects and diseases. Maintain education and training and partnership emphasis. Maintain our existing capacity to assist public and private forest landowners. We currently have 7 Forest Health Specialists located around the state. We are converting Gypsy Moth Specialists to general forest health specialists and shrinking the territory that they serve.
Increase investment in reaching private landowners who have not received professional assistance DNR’s niche is getting in the woods with every landowner that has not had a walk in the woods with a resource professional What are your long and short term goals Are you aware of cost share programs? Do you have a forest management plan? Is the MFL program right for you? Facilitate the ability of private landowners to manage their forest land sustainably. Complement the work accomplished by private sector professionals Maintain financial investment in cost-sharing, shifting focus to those who are not in the MFL. Increased focus and prioritization of state cost share $ on non-MFL properties. Use targeted large scale management programs to inform landowners of management opportunities. Become more relevant to those landowners who are not part of any formal program. Increase use of cooperating foresters to build private sector capacity. (We currently have ___ Cooperating Consultant Foresters and ___ Certified Plan Writers) Require industrial transfers to have a management plan done by a consultant
Public comments support: Shifting emphasis to an integrated ‘community canopy’ model vs a street tree model. Goal: 40% crown cover in the urban Forest. When that happens the Social, Ecological, and Economic benefits kick in in urban environments. I-Tree Focus Urban Forestry Grants on larger projects rather than spreading the funding across so many communities. Important that small communities still be served
Comments support: Increasing the Division’s assistance to wood-producing and wood-using companies around the stateFocus on We reallocated three more positions to this part of the program During the economic down-turn, States that had retained their utilization and Marketing sectors faired far better than those that didn’t during that time period. Focus on increasing employment in forestry sector Focus on developing new markets for wood supply.
The Upper Great Lakes and Wisconsin in general is a hot-bed for Certified wood. We are hearing from industry that this has kept mills in Wisconsin rather than relocating to places where that certified source of wood exists. Yes there are costs associated with Certification – but it is also a continuous quality improvement process inherent in Certification. Do we want to mention that the Govs Council is studing alternatives to FSC and SFI?
I hope you can find yourself on this list, if you can’t, send me an email or let me know – I’ll get you on our list.
Forests are a critical asset in the Great Lakes States and will continue to be. Many challenges that exist that we, as the regional forestry community, must address together to enhance that asset.
ASSESSING THE DIRECTION OF THEFOREST RESOURCECURT WILSON- REGIONAL FORESTRY LEADERNORTHEAST REGION-GREEN BAY, WDNRJUNE 2012
QUESTIONS FOR TODAY1. What’s the state of the Upper Great Lakes forests? • Trends in the Upper Great Lakes states and examples from Wisconsin’s 2010 Statewide Forest Assessment• What can we do to address the issues, threats, and opportunities? • Wisconsin’s Statewide Forest Strategy & Forestry Division’s Strategic Direction as an example
THE WORLD IS CHANGING• Changing demographics• Accelerating globalization• Expanding impact of technology• Increasing environmental/natural resource concerns
FORESTRY IN THE REGION IS CHANGING• Demographic of our customers - citizens and landowners – is changing.• Capacity of partners is evolving.• Globalization is affecting the extent and make-up of forest industry.• Demand for the benefits forests provide is increasing.
THE FOREST RESOURCEIN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES AND WISCONSIN
THEMES1. Fragmentation & Parcelization2. Forest Composition & Structure3. Energy & Climate Change4. Forests as Economic Contributor5. Protection of Life & Property in Forested Areas
FOREST AREA -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES- • Currently, 43% of the% Total Forest Land and Non Forest Land in Upper Great LakesMichigan, Minnesota, & Wisconsin in 2007 States are covered by forests. Upper Great Forest Cover % Forest Lakes State Acreage Cover Michigan 19,544,598 54 Minnesota 16,391,465 32 Wisconsin 16,274,666 47 Upper Great Lakes 52,210,729 43 States Data Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
FOREST AREA-WISCONSIN- • Over 47% of Wisconsin is covered by forests. Forest land Area Land use Type 1983 acres 1996 acres 2007 acres Timberland 14,759,400 15,700,877 16,181,993 Reserved Forest Land 260,900 201,428 93,266 Other Forest Land 331,000 60,714 132,711 Total Forest Land 15,351,300 15,963,019 16,407,970 (USFS, FIA, 2007)
FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES- Forest Ownership in 2011 COUNTY OR PRIVATE FOREST PRIVATE NATIVE TOTAL State(s) FEDERAL STATE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRY NONINDUSTRIAL AMERICAN FORESTLANDMichigan 3,061,815 4,165,809 406,636 999,447 11,452,548 25,644 20,127,049Minnesota 2,989,628 3,878,943 2,750,159 665,138 6,530,682 549,006 17,370,394Wisconsin 1,616,442 1,148,165 2,337,810 879,970 10,592,099 397,949 16,980,084Upper Great 7,667,885 9,192,917 5,494,605 2,544,556 28,575,329 972,600 54,477,527Lakes States% of Total 14% 17% 10% 5% 52% 2%ForestlandSources: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis • 59% of forests in the Upper Great Lakes States are under some form of private ownership
FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP -WISCONSIN-37% increase in non- Number of owners of private forest in Wisconsin by parcel size class industrial land owners Ownership # Owners (thousands)• 263,000 (1997) Parcel Size Change• 362,000 (2006) 1997 2006 from 1997 to 2006 1-9 92 176 84 10-19 40 46 6 Acres in WI Forest Tax Laws under Industrial Status 20-49 69 77 8 by year 50-99 37 36 -11,080,000 100-199 17 19 21,030,000 200-499 7 7 0 980,000 500-999 1 1 0 930,000 1000-4999 <1 <1 0 880,000 ≥5000 <1 <1 0 Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in 1999 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 Total 263 362 99 (USDA, FIA, NWOS, 2006)
FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP -WISCONSIN- • Total non-industrial private forest acreage rose 14.23% and forest industry ownership fell 51.50% during the 38 year span (1968-2006) as land was transferred to other ownership categories.
WILDFIRE -GREAT LAKES STATES-• Wildfires are a natural force, State(s) Acres of Land Burned by Wildfire in 2010 influencing--and even Michigan 11,357 renewing--forest ecosystems. Minnesota 27,000 Wisconsin 2,093 Great Lakes States 40,450• Different suppression strategies Data Source: USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management are used in each of the Great Lakes States and among Amount of land burned by wildfire in MI, MN, WI various landholders• Short term weather conditions are the major driver of fire risk; blow downs and ice storms result in fuel accumulations in the Great Lakes States
WILDLAND FIRE -WISCONSIN- • Specific areas have a high risk of large, destructive wildland fires, from an ecological, social and/or historical perspective • The principle causes of wildfires have changed over time. Railroads are causing fewer fires and the no. 1 cause of wildland fires is debris burning.
CLIMATE CHANGE -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-• Shifts are likely to lead to changes in forest function and composition• Climate change may relieve some stressors while exacerbating others
CLIMATE CHANGE -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-Trends among models show: • Northern and boreal species decrease in extent and/or abundance • Species highly likely to show severe declines include balsam fir, paper birch, and white spruce • Species likely to show some decline include red pine, jack pine, northern white-cedar, quaking aspen, and yellow birch • Species with potential to increase include bur oak, black oak, and bitternut hickory
CLIMATE CHANGE -WISCONSIN- • Long-term climate related changes in temperature and precipitation will directly and indirectly impact the health and vitality of Wisconsin’s forests.
INVASIVE SPECIES -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-• Non-native invasive species have the potential to reduce forest diversity and cause huge economic and ecological damage to forests. • Insect species such as the Emerald Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth and Asian Long Horned Beetle have already caused major damage in forests and in urban areas in the Midwest. • Non-native disease causing organisms that cause mortality from White Pine Blister Rust, and Dutch Elm Disease are well documented historically. More recent examples include Beech Bark Disease and Sudden Oak Death.
INVASIVE SPECIES -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-National map of emerald ash borer detections as of May, 2012. Areas outlined in blue are under federal quarantine for emerald ash borer.http://www.emeraldashborer.wi.gov/
INVASIVE SPECIES -WISCONSIN-EAB Infestation in Wisconsin as of 2011 • The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, is an exotic insect that was first observed in Wisconsin in 2008. • Approximately 5.2 million urban trees, about 20% of all trees in Wisconsin’s cities and villages, are ash.http://www.emeraldashborer.wi.gov/
WATER PROTECTION -WISCONSIN- • Over 10 million acres of Wisconsin’s 16 million acres of forest land have a management focus that includes protection of soil and water resources.
GROWTH & REMOVALS -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-Net annual growth and removals of growing stockon timberland in the Upper Great Lakes States • In 1996, the growth to removal ratio was 1.56; By 2011, the ratio had jumped to 1.88 • Michigan has the highest ratio (2.22 in 2011), while Minnesota has the lowest ratioData Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (1.52 in 2011).
GROWTH & REMOVALS -WISCONSIN-• In Wisconsin, growth exceeded removals by at least 30% from 1983 to 2007.• Four major commercial species have declined significantly in growing stock volume since 1983: • jack pine (45% decline) • paper birch (40% decline) • balsam fir (27% decline) • quaking aspen (14% decline). 700 Million cubic feet 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1983 1996 2007 Growth Removals
FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES-Value and Rank of Wood Product Shipments in 2011 Shipments: Wood Shipments: Paper Total Rank State (x1000) (x1000) (x1000) 1 Wisconsin $3,158,895 $13,042,346 $16,201,241 2 Pennsylvania $3,474,938 $10,502,906 $13,977,844 3 California $3,913,781 $9,102,976 $13,016,757 4 Georgia $3,057,691 $9,800,444 $12,858,135 5 Alabama $2,419,280 $7,718,266 $10,137,546 6 Texas $3,772,821 $5,933,975 $9,706,796 7 Washington $2,648,765 $4,942,873 $7,591,638 8 Oregon $4,042,191 $3,037,137 $7,079,328 9 Minnesota $2,228,235 $4,790,624 $7,018,859 10 Illinois $1,293,843 $5,238,658 $6,532,501 11 Tennessee $1,576,702 $4,696,630 $6,273,332 12 Kentucky $1,468,913 $4,795,787 $6,264,700 13 Virginia $2,706,036 $3,459,180 $6,165,216 14 Michigan $1,645,015 $4,482,035 $6,127,050 15 New York $1,032,431 $5,022,060 $6,054,491 - Lake States 7,032,145 22,315,005 29,347,150AFPA, 2011
FORESTRY PROFESSIONALS -UPPER GREAT LAKES STATES- Forestry Related Degrees Granted by U.S. Colleges 2002-2008 • The average logging firm has been in business for 2500 over 20 years and the 2000 average firm owner is 47 years old. 1500 Doctoral Number Masters 1000 Baccalaureate • Forest management 500 positions will see over 50% of the workforce turn over 0 in the next decade. 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year • Currently, WI has 55Wisconsin Certified Master Loggers Master Loggers and 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2011 Michigan has 28. Minnesota does not have# Master Loggers 21 36 39 49 52 55 an Master Logger program
STATEWIDE FOREST STRATEGY Focuses everyone on the big issues – agreement on the goals and strategies How do we move forward? Forestry community – anyone can decide to implement a strategy or action
STATEWIDE FOREST STRATEGY THEMES (5) Priority issues identified in the Assessment GOALS Desired conditions for each Theme STRATEGIES Ideas to address the issues/ trends/ opportunities in each Theme ACTIONS Possible activities to enact the Strategies
Goal:Large blocks of forest aremaintained/increasedStrategy:Pursue the conservation andprotection of large,unfragmented blocks of forestlandsPossible Action:Continue to identifyopportunities to purchaseeasements and encourageinvestment in working foreststhrough the Forest Legacyprogram.
Goal:The spectrum of native andexotic invasive species isbeing addressed to minimizeloss of forested ecosystemfunction.Strategy:Strive to prevent infestationsof invasive species beforethey arrive.Possible Action:Work in public/privatepartnerships to conductspecies risk assessments andidentify priority invasivespecies for regulatory actionconsistent with NR 40.
Goal:Wisconsin is a hub of greenforest product markets,producing a diversity of valueadded solid wood, fiber,energy and ecosystemservices.Strategy:Support existing forestproducts companies so thatthey are competitivedomestically andinternationally.Possible Action:•Develop Great Lakes regionalbranding to market sustainablyproduced products with theorganizations like the GreatLakes Forests Alliance.
DIVISION OF FORESTRY STRATEGIC DIRECTION What is our role in theDIVISION OF FORESTRY Statewide Forest STRATEGIC DIRECTION Strategy? Of the many roles we have/could have, what is our Strategic Direction? Division’s niche Partners’ roles Existing resourcesDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES May 2011
PUBLIC LANDS• Maintain our strong partnership with the counties with more efficient use of resources• Meet annual allowable harvest goals on State Lands and invest more in reforestation.• Improve recreation opportunities and visitor safety on State Forests
FIRE PROTECTION • Allocate resources based on an updated assessment of risk as defined by fire landscapes. • Value partnerships in accomplishing mission: fire departments and other agencies • Maintaining our Fire Department Grant Program • Increasing our investment in prevention and our Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) program
FOREST HEALTH & INVASIVES• Provide technical expertise in the prevention, detection, assessment, management and monitoring of invasive plants, insects and diseases.• Maintain education and training and partnership emphasis.• Maintain our existing capacity to assist public and private forest landowners.
PRIVATE FORESTRYIncrease investment in reaching private landowners who have not received professional assistanceFacilitate the ability of private landowners to manage their forest land sustainably.Complement the work accomplished by private sector professionals.
URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTSShift emphasis from a public ”street tree” model to an integrated ”community canopy” model.Facilitate bringing interests together and building partnerships.
FOREST PRODUCTS SERVICESIncrease our capacity to provide assistance to wood-producing and wood-using companies around the state to increase economic output for the forest sector.Increase new business and forest sector employment.
CERTIFICATIONThe Division remains committed to its investment in third-party certification of state lands, county forests and lands in the Managed Forest Law program
PARTNERSHIPS ARE CRITICAL -WE CAN’T DO THIS ALONE-
PARTNERS (~350 SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS) • Conservation• Government & Research • The Nature Conservancy • State Agencies (Agriculture, Wildlife, Endangered Resources, • Dovetail Partners Parks & Rec) • Wildlife groups (e.g., Ruffed • Federal Agencies (USFS, NRCS) Grouse Society) • Wisconsin County Forest • Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Association • Regional Planning Commissions • Advisory Boards • Universities, Extension Agents • Wisconsin Council on Forestry & • Conservation Districts Council on Urban Forestry • Stewardship Committee • Tribes • Water Quality BMP Advisory• Private Business Committee • Consulting Foresters • Others • Forest Products Companies • Great Lakes Forest Alliance • Wisconsin Paper Council • Society of American Foresters • Timber Professionals • Private forest owners • And many others…
CONCLUSION• Forests are a critical asset in the Great Lakes States and will continue to be.• Many challenges that exist that we, as the regional forestry community, must address together to enhance that asset.