COMTF – May 15, 2002

Petaluma, CA.

Minutes of the joint Monitoring and Management Committees

The meeting was chaired by Monitoring Committee Co-chairs Wally Mark and Maggi Kelly, and Management Committee Co-chairs Don Owen and Jack Marshall. Those who signed the sign-in sheet totaled 33 Monitoring Committee members, 15 Management Committee members, and 4 Education Committee members.

After co-chair introductions, Don Owen gave a run-down of the agenda, noting the few topics which would be added to the printed agenda provided in the registration packet.

Monitoring Committee

DRAFT Survey and Monitoring Program

Wally Mark handed out 30 copied of the draft document and introduced the objectives of the program which are to determine the distribution, incidence, and impact of sudden oak death and Phytophthora ramorum in California. Methods used to obtain information to meet objectives will be threefold: spatial analysis, aerial survey, and ground-based plots.

• Spatial Analysis. Wally introduced Ross Meentemeyer of Sonoma State University who will be working with Maggi Kelly and Karin Tuxen of UC Berkeley. Ross will develop SOD host vegetation maps to be used in developing geographical models of disease risk. Kelly and Meentemeyer will also evaluate the utility of remote sensing techniques for monitoring the distribution and spread of SOD, quantifying impacts, and detecting early stages of infestations.

ð Public Question: Will remote sensing data be available to others (i.e., CSUMB remote sensing projects)? Answer: Likely.

• Aerial Survey. Wally Mark noted that nearly 21 million acres will be covered from Santa Barbara County to Oregon, and along the Sierra Nevada foothills. Detected mortality will be ground checked and lab tested for P. ramorum. Jeff Mai (USDA FS) says a letter has been sent to Agricultural Commissioners notifying them of the ground crews who will likely be sampling in their counties. Flights have yet to begin, but will finish in early summer to avoid late summer issues with defoliating buckeye and leaf scorch symptoms in droughty areas.

ð Public Question: Will field crews spread SOD into new areas? Answer: No. Crews will sterilize shoes and equipment with Lysol. Wally said that UCCE – Santa Cruz horticulturist Steve Tjosvold has successfully tested Lysol as a product which will kill P. ramorum.

ð Public Question: Will the study use control areas around aerially detected mortality spots to also sample for SOD? Answer: Wally pointed to another project (p. 5 of handout) which will use systematic ground-based surveys to sample areas not known to be infested.

ð Public Question: What level of infection can be detected from the air? Answer: Wally said aerial surveyor can readily detect mortality, dieback, or fading color of crowns.

ð Public Question: Who will be receiving that samples from the ground checking? Answer: Wally and CDFA’s Cheryl Blomquist said samples collected within the currently regulated area will be sent to CDFA’s lad in Sacramento, while samples from outside the regulated area will be forwarded to Dave Rizzo’s lab at UC Davis.

ð Public Question: How soon will the local Ag. Commissioner be notified of aerially detected spots? Answer: Wally said there is no exact schedule for that, but the Ag. Commissioner may be notified prior to crews conducting ground-checking.

• Ground-based surveys. Wally discussed the addition of SOD data collection within existing Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots maintained by USDA Forest Service. Plot remeasurement is normally every 10 years. Remeasurement interval will be shortened for plots with multiple SOD hosts. Also, plots will be added to 4 more known or high-risk counties this year.

Since aerial surveys cannot detect condition of understory plant communities, a systematic ground-based survey will be conducted in areas not known to be infested, but known to have SOD hosts. Crews will look for presumed early infestation signs such as foliar infections and new stem cankers.

ð Public Question: If crew samples a suspect plant, what is the protocol if the sample comes back negative? Answer: Wally said the intent is to resample if the plant was suspect.

ð Public Question: If the sample comes back positive, will someone resample to make sure? Answer: No. CDFA’s Cheryl Blomquist added support as to why there is little risk of obtaining any false positives.

• Nursery survey. CDFA’s Kathy Kosta said the nursery surveys of non-regulated counties has been completed. For statewide urban areas, local Ag. Commissioner staff insect trappers will be on the lookout for SOD symptoms during their course of work.

ð Public Question: How wide of a buffer around nurseries did CDFA sample for SOD? Answer: The buffer size was not predetermined, but host-presence driven.

• Early detection in the Sierra Nevada. Susan Frankel, USDA FS, said there is a $25,000 project to survey high-risk target areas. Crews will concentrate on tanoak, coast live oak, and other SOD hosts. The survey will attempt to address whether SOD is more widespread in CA than currently thought. Susan passed out handout of the survey protocol and data collection forms.

• GIS database and map support. Maggi Kelly and Karin Tuxen of UC Berkeley will coordinate with Lisa Levien and Jeff Mai of USDA FS to maintain the statewide GIS SOD database.

• Oregon’s aerial surveys. Ellen Goheen, USDA FS, R-6, said Oregon plans to continue with their aerial surveys of black oak and tanoak types. As with CA, Oregon will also use their local insect trapping personnel (mostly gypsy moth trappers) to assist in surveying for SOD-symptomatic plants.

Ellen also discussed the federal program. On a national scale, a risk map of the U.S. is being developed. Both Overstory and understory hosts will be mapped. The U.S. will be divided into high risk and low risk areas. The aerial surveys will look for dead oaks, while ground crews will survey around nurseries. Particular attention will be given nurseries receiving host plants from CA, OR, and Europe. Preliminary information points to the southern Appalachians and the Gulf Coast as likely high-risk areas.

Jack Marshall moved to have the DRAFT 2001-2002 Survey and Monitoring Program document approved as written (and handed out). Maggi Kelly seconded the motion. As a point of discussion, Maggi noted that Susan Frankel’s handout on the protocol for Early Detection in the Sierra Nevada was supporting information for a portion of the Survey and Monitoring Program. Wally Mark called for a verbal vote. The motion was carried by a unanimous chorus of “aye.” (Either that, or there were a lot of displaced sailors in the room.)

• OakMapper status. Maggi Kelly explained the process of adding new sites to the COMTF Web site (www.suddenoakdeath.org). Maggi and Karin Tuxen work closely with CDFA to add any newly confirmed sites. People are encouraged to visit the site to check out the maps and digital photographs.

Management Committee

Don Owen brought up the topic of “free from” surveys, and led a discussion of how they are used for regulatory purposes in forest settings instead of nurseries. Don addressed the training recently given RPF’s, and sought comments on the minimal level of survey coverage (host area percentage) the committee members thought practical. The current training has borrowed the APHIS guideline of 2 percent or greater, as used in nursery protocols. Current thought by CDF is that RPF’s will cover well over 2 percent in surveys of all host types over representative areas of a proposed timber harvest. Lengthy discussions included how to sample to obtain information to characterize infestations (percent host, percent area, stem infections v. foliar symptoms, etc.), but no one could substantiate or agree on what the minimum percent coverage should be for forest surveys. Don Owen suggested the topic be shelved for further debate in a future Management Committee forum.

ð Public Question: Regarding free-from establishment, from where did the 1/4 –mile buffer measurement come to include as being infected around known infected sites? Answer: Maggi Kelly said the 1/4 –mile buffer is a CDFA protocol to identify infected/infested areas.

ð Public Question: Where did the 2% survey minimum originate? Answer: Don Owen said it was an established APHIS guideline for nurseries.

ð Public Question: Is there a protocol on where the 2% is surveyed? Answer: No, but Jack Marshall explained that CDF’s Review Team looks to see if the survey was conducted over representative areas of host type over the area on which timber operations will be conducted.

Wally Mark and Don Owen clarified that for regulatory purposes, we’re just concerned with presence or absence of SOD, not intensity.

• Eradication. Don Owen presented the concept of eradication, and that California does not have any eradication protocol in place. Wally Mark said we should look at eradication possibilities if SOD is found in isolated areas of new counties such as Del Norte, and the importance of deciding how to monitor success should eradication attempts be implemented.

Ellen Goheen gave an update of Oregon’s eradication efforts. All but one of the sites around Brookings, OR, has had infected hosts and hosts within surrounding buffers cut and burned. Oregon will continue to monitor the sites for infections on tanoak sprouts and on hosts surrounding the buffer zones. Ellen was to give a full report to the Task Force as part of the afternoon agenda.

Yana Valachovic, UCCE Humboldt-Del Norte Counties, said we should review Oregon’s eradication protocol when considering one for CA, but that local vegetation types, site locations, and various agency regulations may dictate a somewhat different eradication protocol for CA .

Pavel Svihra, UCCE Marin County, disagreed on the concept of eradication, noting failure of previous exotic pest eradication programs. Instead, Pavel said we should concentrate our efforts in developing sanitation protocols to eliminate SOD-symptomatic trees.

• Water drafting. Don Owen addressed CDF&G’s concerns over a lack of protocol or specific management recommendations for their 1600 series permits regarding drafting water from watercourses in SOD-infested drainages. Other than not drafting water from infested drainages and applying as dust abatement in uninfested drainages, CDF&G would like to know if the water tanks need to be cleaned or sterilized prior to use elsewhere. Also, do the drafting vehicles need to be cleaned or sterilized?

Jack Marshall noted that CDF is currently suggesting the harvest plan recommendation of not transporting water to uninfested drainages, but no recommendations exist for the tanks. The vehicles should have large deposits of soil and organic matter removed prior to leaving the infected area (as with other vehicles on such harvest plans).

The Management Committee will pass the water tank sterilization question on to the Research Committee.

• Don Owen wrapped up the Management Committee portion by encouraging people to participate in the Task Force at any level, whether that be the two full COMTF meetings each year, or involvement in one or more of the Committees.

Education Committee

• Co-chairs of the Education Committee, Kim Keirnan (UCCE-Marin County) and Doug McCreary (UC Berkeley, IHRMP), addressed our meeting to solicit educational concern and needs from both the Monitoring and Management Committees. Anyone wishing to express educational needs of the COMTF as a whole should contact Doug McCreary and Kim’s replacement, Katie Facino. Their e-mail addresses are on the COMTF Web site.

Doug McCreary also encouraged people to get involved with the Education Committee. The trailhead posters issued by the committee are being distributed to various land managers. The Education Committee is also making a series of posters to loan out to folks conducting training or information sessions. Informational trifolds are in draft stages and should be available soon. Lastly, people are encouraged to revisit the Web site, as www.suddenoakdeath.org is being revamped to add more items and be easier to navigate.

· OakMapper Update (Maggi Kelly):

- The OakMapper website is up and running at: http://hilda.espm.berkeley.edu.

- There you can view latest SOD confirmation, see photographs of symptoms from around the state, query the SOD database, and report trees that might have SOD.

- Maps of SOD are also available at: http://camfer.cnr.berkeley.edu/oaks.

The joint Monitoring and Management Committee thusly terminated at 1100 hours as mandated by the program agenda.

jm