Full text of "A range-wide assessment of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) on federal lands"

See other formats

BLM LIBRARY

88054390

Range-wide
Assessment of
Port-Orford-Ce^i

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)'

on Federal Land:

494.5

.C975

R24

2003

Cover Photo: Stand of Port-Orford-cedar displaying a variety of age groups and levels of health on the
South Fork of the Coquille River, Oregon

/"! I

05l r

A Range-Wide Assessment of

Port-Orford-Cedar

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)

on Federal Lands

O^cft*1

gPVW

A Range- Wide Assessment of

Port-Orford-Cedar

(Chamaecy parts lawsoniana)

on Federal Lands

October 2003

Edited by:

Frank Betlejewski

Kirk C. Casavan

Angel Dawson

Donald J. Goheen

Kristi Mastrofini

Donald L. Rose

Diane E. White

111

Authors

Peter A. Angwin is a plant pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northern California Shared Service Area, Redding, California.

Thomas Atzet is the area ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Richard N. Barnes is a forestry consultant, Barnes and Associates, Roseburg, Oregon.

Frank Betlejewski is the Port-Orford-cedar program manager, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service
Center, Central Point, Oregon.

Kirk C. Casavan is the Port-Orford-cedar coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Roseburg, Oregon.

Laura M. Chapman is the rural community assistance coordinator, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Leslie J. Elliot is a forestry technician, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Umpqua National Forest, Dorena Genetic Resource Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon.

Donald J. Goheen is a plant pathologist/entomologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, Central
Point, Oregon.

James E. Hamlin is the area geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, Oregon.

Lisa D. Hoover is a botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers
National Forest, Eureka, California.

Thomas M. Jimerson is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Jay Kitzmiller is the regional geneticist, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Chico, California.

John T. Khejunas is the regional pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

Claude C. McLean is a forestry consultant, Barnes and Associates, Roseburg, Oregon.

Kathy McClellan-Heffner is a tribal relations specialist, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Elizabeth A. McGee is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six
Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Michael G. McWilliams is a forest health monitoring specialist, Oregon Department of
Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Christopher S. Park is a forest hydrologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Donald L. Rose is an environmental coordinator, Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon (formerly Port-Orford-cedar program manager, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon).

Richard A. Sniezko is the center geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service Umpqua National Forest, Dorena Genetic Resource Center, Cottage Grove,
Oregon.

Roderick D. Stevens is a geneticist, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Roseburg District, Roseburg, Oregon.

Maria T. Ulloa is a forest botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Diane E. White is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rogue
River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following people who provided ideas and support for this
document:

Allen Agnew, Andrew Bower, Jeffrey Jones, Erik Jules, Matthew Kaufmann, Debra
Kroeger, Joseph Linn, Eric Martz, James Nielsen, Michael Martischang, Julie Nelson,
Jodie Sharpe, Douglas Snider and Ralph Wagnitz, among others.

We would also like to give special thanks to Dr. Everett Hansen and Dr. Donald Zobel.
Each provided ideas and support with their unique perspective. The quality of this
document was substantially improved by their input.

Thank you to Torry Casavan and Patricia Martinez for the difficult task of word
processing.

Note Regarding Dates

The completion date for all chapters other than Chapter Seven is June 2001.
The completion date for Chapter Seven is February 1999.

Table of Contents

Authors v

Acknowledgements vi

Note Regarding Dates vi

Table of Contents vii

Table of Figures x

Table of Tables xii

Executive Summary xlll

Chapter 1 — Introduction 1

Literature Cited 4

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar 5

Introduction 7

Distribution 9

Ecoregion and Subsection Descriptions 10

Northern Coast 10

North Inland 11

Mid-Coast 11

Mid-Range 12

East Disjunct California 12

Southern Range 12

Diversity 13

Species Diversity 13

Plant Series and Plant Association Diversity 13

Productivity Indices 24

Snags and Down Wood - California 25

Snags 25

Down Wood 27

Function in Riparian Systems 29

Port-Orford-Cedar Plant Associations with Unique Species and Regional

Endemic, Rare or Sensitive Plants 30

Literature Cited 31

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar . 33

Introduction 35

Taxonomy 35

Life Cycle 35

Mode of Transport 38

Genetic Variation 40

Disease Identification and Detection 41

Characteristics of Long-Term Infestation 42

Additional Agents Affecting Port-Orford-Cedar 42

Literature Cited 43

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytophthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar 47

Introduction 49

Extent of Infestation 49

Geographic Information System Mapping Methodologies 51

Location by Land Allocation 51

California Port-Orford-Cedar Plant Associations with More Than 10 percent

P. lateralis Infestation 52

Rate of Spread 52

Status of Infestation Relative to Roads 57

Landscape Level Impacts of Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease 59

Coquille River Falls Research National Area 59

Powers Roads 59

Smith River Watershed 60

Literature Cited 60

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar 61

Introduction 63

Importance of Genetic Resources 63

Genetic Structure of a Species 63

Measurement of Genetic Structure: genetic tests 64

Genetic Variability 65

Allozyme Studies 65

Common Garden Studies 66

Seed Zones and Breeding Zones 71

Port-Orford-Cedar Breeding Block Designations 71

Implications for Genetic Conservation 73

Literature Cited 73

Chapter 6 — Breeding For Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis 75

Introduction 77

The Resistance Screening Process 77

Resistance Screening Results 81

Validation of the Screening Process 82

Common Garden Study 83

Geographic Variation in Resistance Traits 83

Phenotypic Correlations Among Traits 84

Variation in Disease Resistance at the Watershed Level 84

Variation in Disease Resistance at the Breeding Zone Level 84

Breeding Program 85

Controlled Pollination 85

Vegetative Reproduction 86

Summary 86

Literature Cited 88

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar 91

Introduction 93

Inventoried Standing Volume 93

Effects of the Northwest Forest Plan 94

Export of Port-Orford-Cedar 94

Export Volume 94

Export Values 96

Domestic Use of Port-Orford-Cedar 97

Domestic Volume 98

Domestic Value 98

Combined Export and Domestic Volume and Value 98

Value Added Components 99

Specialty Products 99

Arrow Shafts 99

Boughs 101

Employment 102

County and State Revenues 103

Literature Cited 104

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar 105

Introduction 107

Native American Values 107

Asian Values 108

Local Values, Case Study 1: The Williams Port-Orford-Cedar Management Project 109

Background 1 09

Project Description 109

Late-Successional and Riparian Reserve Management 109

Strategies 110

Treatments 110

Monitoring Ill

Reactions of Williams Residents Ill

Landscape Approach to Managing Port-Orford-Cedar 114

Local Values, Case Study 2: Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in High Plateau . . 114

Public Values and User Conflicts 115

Disease Management in the Smith River Basin and High Plateau .... 116

The Controversy Heats Up: The Six Rivers Forest Plan 116

Taking a Strategic Approach 118

Special Interest Area (SIA) Management Strategy 119

Assessing the Level of Risk to Port-Orford-Cedar in High Plateau . . . 120

Why Propose A Year-Round Closure? 120

The Public Response 121

Literature Cited 122

Chapter 9 — Methods of Assessing Risk 125

Components of Risk Assessment 127

Introduction 127

Four Elements of Risk 1 27

The Social Context of Risk 128

Range of Possible Strategies 129

No-Action 129

Slow the Rate of Infection 129

Stop the Spread 130

Eliminate P. lateralis 130

Evaluating Risk for Port-Orford-Cedar 130

After the Risk Analysis 132

Quantification of Risk Factors 132

Literature Cited 133

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges 135

Introduction 137

General Management Techniques 137

Operational Planning and Scheduling 137

Integrating Disease Treatments with Road Design, Engineering,

and Maintenance 138

Water Source Selection and Treatment 141

Regulating Non-Timber Uses 141

Educational Efforts 142

Prescribed Fire Potential 143

Genetic Resistance Breeding Development 144

Specific Management Techniques 144

Vehicle Exclusion 144

Temporary Road Closures 146

Roadside Sanitation 147

Vehicle and Equipment Washing 149

Case Studies 152

Effectiveness Monitoring of Port-Orford-Cedar Roadside Sanitation

Treatments in Southwest Oregon 152

Effectiveness of Vehicle Washing in Decreasing Transport of

P. lateralis Inoculum 153

Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in Areas Not Favorable to the Pathogen 154

Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in Areas Favorable to the Pathogen 155

Manipulating Species Composition 156

Management Challenges 156

Difficulty of Monitoring Effectiveness of Management Activities .... 156
Few Opportunities to Obtain New Management-Related Research

Results 156

Public Opposition to Agency Management Activities 157

Coordination Difficulties 157

Funding Uncertainties 157

Literature Cited 158

Appendix A

The Relationship of the Port-Orford-Cedar Range-wide Assessment to Other

Legal Documents and Authorities 161

Literature Cited 162

Appendix B

Occurrence of Plant Associations with Port-Orford-Cedar by Ecoregion or

Subsection 163

Appendix C

Unique Species and Regional Endemic, Rare or Sensitive Plants Found in
Ecology Plots Used for Classification of Port-Orford-Cedar and Species

Known to Occur with Port-Orford-Cedar 169

Appendix D

Port-Orford-Cedar Short-term Raised Bed Common Garden Study Analysis

of Variance Tables and Means 171

Appendix E

Details of Resistance Screening Process 175

Appendix F

Field Validation Plantings of Potentially Resistant Port-Orford-Cedar 177

Appendix G

Development of the Interagency Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease
Management Coordination Effort: A Brief History 179

Table of Figures

Figure 1.1 — Dense understory of Port-Orford-Cedar near Coos Bay, Oregon 3

Figure 1 .2 — Infected Port-Orford-Cedar 4

Figure 2.1 — The native range of Port-Orford-Cedar 7

Figure 2.2 — The world's largest Port-Orford-Cedar growing near Powers, Oregon 8

Figure 2.3 — The world's largest Port-Orford-Cedar growing near Powers, Oregon 8

Figure 2.4 — Ecoregions and subsections with Port-Orford-Cedar occurrence 10

Figure 2.5 — The relationship of species commonly found in association with

Port-Orford-Cedar 14

Figure 2.6 — The relationship of plant series to environmental factors 14

Figure 2.7 — Port-Orford-Cedar-White Fir/Herb plant association 15

Figure 2.8 — The Port-Orford-Cedar-Western White Pine /California Pitcher Plant

plant association 15

Figure 2.9 — Port-Orford-Cedar skeleton 28

Figure 2.10 — Down logs in a Port-Orford-Cedar stand 29

Figure 2.11 — Port-Orford-Cedar in a riparian area 29

Figure 2.12 — Port-Orford-Cedar in Pipe Fork Research Natural Area (Williams

Watershed, Josephine County), the eastern-most extent of the species in Oregon .... 30

Figure 3.1 — Spore types of Phytophthora lateralis 36

Figure 3.2 — Phytophthora sporangia containing zoospores 37

Figure 3.3 — Favorable conditions for spreading Phytophthora lateralis by vehicles 38

Figure 3.4 — Phytophthora lateralis infected root 39

Figure 3.5 — Cambial stain on infected Port-Orford-Cedar 41

Figure 4.1 — Port-Orford-Cedar killed by Phytophthora lateralis 49

Figure 4.2 — Healthy and infected Port-Orford-Cedar on federal lands 50

Figure 4.3 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1980 53

Figure 4.4 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1983 54

Figure 4.5 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1993 55

Figure 4.6 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1999 56

Figure 4.7 — Condition of Port-Orford-Cedar in National Forests in California relative

to factors that influence disease spread, 2001 57

Figure 4.8 — Condition of Port-Orford-Cedar in the Siskiyou National Forest relative

to factors that influence disease spread, 2001 58

Figure 4.9 — Condition of Port-Orford-Cedar in the Elk River Watershed, Siskiyou

National Forest, relative to factors that influence disease spread, 2001 59

Figure 5.1 — Port-Orford-Cedar branch bearing cones 63

Figure 5.2 — Raised bed, short-term common garden study at the Humboldt Nursery

site, McKinleyville, California 67

Figure 5.3 — Raised bed, short-term common garden at the Dorena Tree Improvement

Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon 68

Figure 5.4 — Long-term out-planting site at Weaverville-Trinity Lake, California 70

Figure 5.5 — Long-term out-planting site at Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville,

California 70

Figure 5.6 — Port-Orford-Cedar breeding blocks 72

Figure 6.1 — Resistant Port-Orford-Cedar trees growing with infected

Port-Orford-Cedars in a natural stand 78

Figure 6.2 — Field selection and mapping of a Port-Orford-Cedar candidate tree 78

Figure 6.3 — Collecting branches for resistance screening 79

Figure 6.4 — Stem dip technique for inoculating samples for testing resistance to

Phytophthora lateralis 80

Figure 6.5 — Seedlings being monitored for survival after inoculation with the root

dip technique 80

Figure 6.6 — Field plantings of high resistance genotypes 73

Figure 6.7 — Pollen shed by Port-Orford-Cedar growing at Dorena Tree Improvement

Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon 85

Figure 6.8 — Containerized seed orchard at the Dorena Tree Improvement Center,

Cottage Grove, Oregon 87

Figure 7.1— Volume of Port-Orford-Cedar exported 1961 - 1997 95

Figure 7.2 — Harvest levels by ownership sector in the United States 95

Figure 7.3— Value of exported Port-Orford-Cedar 1990 - 1997 96

Figure 7.4— Domestic values of milled Port-Orford-Cedar 1990 - 1998 96

Figure 7.5 — Logging decks of Port-Orford-Cedar in the Coquille area of Oregon, 1939 . 97

Figure 7.6 — A cabin built of Port-Orford-Cedar near Powers, Oregon 97

Figure 7.7— Value of domestic and exported Port-Orford-Cedar 1990 - 1997 98

Figure 7.8 — Arrow shafts awaiting grading and sorting 100

Figure 7.9 — Bolts of Port-Orford-Cedar to be used for producing arrow shafts 100

Figure 7.10 — Port-Orford-Cedar being cultivated for bough production 101

Figure 7.11— Number of jobs associated with Port-Orford-Cedar 1990 - 1997 102

Figure 8.1 — Teresa Gallager-Hill, BLM Realty Specialist, discussing reciprocal

right-of-way and road use agreements on a public tour near Williams, Oregon 112

Figure 9.1 — The four aspects of risk assessment 127

Figure 9.2 — The relationships of strategy to the risk, effort, and acceptance of

implementing that strategy 129

Figure 10.1 — Surfaced roads reduce the likelihood of spreading Phytophthora lateralis . 139

Figure 10.2 — Reciprocal Right of Way Agreements 140

Figure 10.3 — Road closure sign 145

Figure 10.4 — Road closed to prevent the spread of Phytophthora lateralis

(permanent closure) 145

Figure 10.5 — Road closed to prevent spread of Phytophthora lateralis

(temporary closure) 146

Figure 10.6 — Roadside sanitation treatment to help prevent the spread of

Phytophthora lateralis 147

Figure 10.7 — Cleaning rippers 149

Figure 10.8 — Washing equipment to remove soil potentially infested with

Phytophthora lateralis 150

Figure 10.9 — Washing a log truck to remove soil potentially infested with

Phytophthora lateralis 150

Figure 10.10 — Vehicle washing station 151

Figure 10.11 — Boots are cleaned to avoid spreading Phytophthora lateralis 154

Table of Tables

Table 2.1 — Important variables in gradient analyses which describe the distribution

of Port-Orford-Cedar by ecoregion and subsection 9

Table 2.2 — Significant environmental factors affecting Port-Orford-Cedar by

ecoregion/subsection 11

Table 2.3— Number of species by layer found on Port-Orford-Cedar plots in

Oregon and California 13

Table 2.4— Productivity indices for 26 California Port-Orford-Cedar plant associations

(Jimerson and Daniels 1994, Jimerson et al. 2000) 25

Table 2.5 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-Cedar plant

associations which occur on ultramafic soils 26

Table 2.6 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-Cedar plant

associations which occur in cool, dry environments 26

Table 2.7 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-Cedar plant

associations that are codominant with western hemlock 27

Table 2.8— Snag densities (snags per acre) in Port-Orford-Cedar Series and Tanoak-

Port-Orford-Cedar Subseries in California 27

Table 2.9— Down wood densities (pieces per acre) in Port-Orford-Cedar Series and

Tanoak-Port-Orford-Cedar Subseries in California 28

Table 4.1— Approximate percentages of acres in different federal land allocations

over the range of Port-Orford-Cedar and percentage of those acres inhabited by

Port-Orford-Cedar that are infested by P. lateralis 51

Table 4.2— Port-Orford-Cedar plant communities at risk (more than 10 percent

infested by P. lateralis) in California (Jimerson et al. 1999) 52

Table 5.1 — Port-Orford-Cedar population samples by watershed for the common

garden study (ecological model) 67

Table 5.2 — Port-Orford-Cedar population samples by tentative breeding zones for the

common garden study (breeding model) 67

Table 5.3 — Description of location and seed zones for Port-Orford-Cedar breeding

blocks 72

Table 6.1 — Number of Port-Orford-Cedar selections for breeding from initial

resistance screening 81

Table 6.2— Percent mortality after one year for three test methods for six of 44 open-
pollinated seedling families tested in 2000 82

Table 7.1— Port-Orford-Cedar inventory from Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management lands 93

Table 7.2 — Summary of Port-Orford-Cedar timber taxes (1997 tax year) 103

Table 7.3— Annual regional economic contribution of Port-Orford-Cedar (1997 tax year) 104
Table 9.1— Factors that influence risk of infection of Port-Orford-Cedar by P. lateralis,

their level of risk (high, medium, or low), and our ability to change or control the

level of risk (high, medium, or low) 131

Table D.l— Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for height traits for watershed and breed

zone models 171

Table D.2 — Least square means and standard errors main effects and some interactions

for the watershed model for height (in centimeters) traits 172

Table D.3 — Least square means and standard errors main effects and some interactions

for the breed zone model for height (in centimeters) traits 173

Table D.4 — Distribution of variance components (%) for height traits using the

watershed model 174

Table D.5— Distribution of variance components (%) for height traits using the breed
zone model 174

Xll

Executive Summary

This assessment, a coordinated effort between the U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, describes associated ecological factors, pathology, and genetics of Port-Orford-
cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). It also explores social and economic factors that may
influence potential management strategies for the species on federal lands.

Port-Orford-cedar is a valuable tree with a limited natural range in southwestern Oregon
and northwestern California. Port-Orford-cedar occurs on five National Forests, three
BLM Districts, one National Park, and one National Monument, as well as on tribal, state,
county, and private lands.

Port-Orford-cedar plant associations display some of the richest and most varied
shrub and herbaceous plant associations in the region. Eleven rare and sensitive plant
species are found exclusively in Port-Orford-cedar associations. Many of these plant
associations in the southern part of the tree's range occur in very restricted areas, mostly
in wetlands or riparian areas, where the impacts of Port-Orford-cedar root disease can
have noteworthy effects. Port-Orford-cedar can contribute a high percentage of stream
shading. Loss of this ecosystem function can detrimentally impact other resources such
as water quality and fish habitat.

Port-Orford-cedar is affected over much of its range by Phytophthora lateralis, a virulent,
non-native root pathogen that is believed to have been introduced into the host's native
range in the early 1950s. P. lateralis kills Port-Orford-cedars of all ages that are growing
on sites favorable for disease development. Once an area becomes infested, it is difficult,
if not impossible, to eradicate the pathogen.

P. lateralis can spread rapidly if preventive actions are not taken to slow or stop it. Most
spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease occurs in the cool, rainy months of the year,
usually from October 1 through May 31. The greatest disease impacts are encountered
among hosts growing in wetlands and riparian zones. Port-Orford-cedars growing in
upland situations often escape infection even when the pathogen is established in low-
lying areas or nearby drainages.

Approximately 91 percent of Forest Service and BLM land within the range of Port-
Orford-cedar in Oregon and California is uninfested with P. lateralis. Within the Riparian
Reserve land allocation, it is estimated that 87 percent of the area is uninfested.

Low genetic variability— measured by differences in survival, growth, and vigor—has
been demonstrated within populations growing in different parts of the tree's range.
Growth differences are most noteworthy at different elevations and on different soil
types. Breeding zones, within each breeding block, based on elevation bands have been
delineated for the purpose of maintaining site adaptability in the Port-Orford-cedar
breeding program.

A small amount of natural resistance to P. lateralis has been shown to exist in some Port-
Orford-cedar populations and appears to be heritable. An effort is underway by the
federal agencies and Oregon State University to further identify and enhance root disease
resistance in Port-Orford-cedar.

A variety of management techniques are used to decrease the probability, or prevent the
spread, of P. lateralis in existing Port-Orford-cedar stands on federally-administered land.
These include: planning access routes and timing projects to minimize the likelihood of
P. lateralis spread; vehicle and equipment washing; vehicle exclusion; temporary road

closures; integrating disease treatment with road design, engineering and maintenance;
roadside sanitation; using care in water source selection and treatment; educational
efforts; and genetic resistance breeding.

Port-Orford-cedar root disease management may involve a combination of disease
management techniques that reduce the probability of disease spread and intensity across
a landscape. Major factors to consider with root disease management are the occurrence
and distribution of Port-Orford-cedar and P. lateralis in a planning area, the occurrence,
locations and use patterns of roads, and the locations of streams and drainage patterns.

The objective of this document is to provide information to assist managers in
maintaining Port-Orford-cedar throughout its range, both in presence and ecological
function.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Authors: John T. Kliejunas and Donald L. Rose June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [A. Murr.] Pari.) is an ecologically and
economically important tree species. Its natural range is geographically limited to
southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, but within that area, it occupies a
broad environmental range (fig. 1.1). Port-Orford-cedar can be an important component
of the riparian community providing stability and shading. It can be found on ultramafic
soils as well as non-ultramafic soils. Top quality Port-Orford-cedar logs have been
valued as high as $12,000 per thousand board feet. Some of the properties of the wood
that make it noteworthy are its precise machining capability, decay resistance, resistance
to chemical corrosion, and aromatic quality. It is particularly prized in Japan.

Port-Orford-cedar is affected by an exotic root pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis (fig.
1.2) (Tucker and Milbrath), which was first documented in a nursery near Seattle,
Washington, in 1923. The pathogen is believed to have spread south via infected nursery
stock and infested soil, and was first reported in the natural range of Port-Orford-cedar in
1952 near Coos Bay, Oregon. By 1960, infected trees were found on the Siskiyou National
Forest, and surveys in 1964, 1974, 1983 and 1986 showed increasing levels of infestation
and tree mortality. Infected trees were first identified in California in 1980. The pathogen
now infects Port-Orford-cedar on about nine percent of the acreage of federally-
administered lands within the range of the species. Most of this acreage is on sites of
high risk to spread the pathogen, i.e., along streams and roads.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, public awareness of Port-Orford-cedar and the root
disease affecting it reached a high level. In response to public interest and the agencies'
own concerns, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department
of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) greatly increased their efforts to

conserve Port-Orford-cedar
and reduce the occurrence of
P. lateralis.

In 1985, Zobal et al. produced
a monograph, Ecology,
Pathology, and Management
of Port-Orford-Cedar, which
reviewed the then current
information on distribution,
physiology, genetics,
autecology, and pathology
of Port-Orford-Cedar. They
also proposed management
options to limit the impacts
of P. lateralis.

This range-wide assessment
is intended to supplement
the information Zobel et
al. (1985) presented. It
focuses on the status of
Port-Orford-cedar on federal
lands throughout the range
of the species. Chapter 2,
Ecological Factors Associated
with Port-Orford-cedar,
describes the distribution

Figure 1.1 — Dense
understory of Port-Orford-
cedar near Coos Bay, Oregon

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

of Port-Orford-cedar, as well as the geographic units and the broad climatic regimes in
which it occurs. It also describes the high diversity of plant associations that make up the
Port-Orford-cedar plant series, and lists some of the endemic, rare or unique plants that
grow in association with it. Chapter 3 outlines the biology of the pathogen, P. lateralis.
The impact of P. lateralis on Port-Orford-cedar is summarized in Chapter 4. It shows
disease locations over time and rates of spread at local and landscape scales. Chapter
5 describes the genetic variability of Port-Orford-cedar across its range and the tests
for genetic differentiation. Developing resistant genotypes of Port-Orford-cedar is an
important strategy in conserving the species in its natural range. Chapter 6 describes the
resistance-screening program that allows selection of resistant genotypes and how they
may be propagated.

Chapter 7 discusses the economics of the species and compares domestic and imported
volumes and values. Chapter 8 presents the value of Port-Orford-cedar particularly to
Native American and Asian peoples. It includes two examples of local community or
public involvement in Port-Orford-cedar management. Chapter 9 shows the components
of risk analysis and discusses how such analyses may be used in management decisions.
Management techniques and challenges are described in Chapter 10.

The objectives of this document are to assemble the known scientific information on Port-
Orford-cedar and P. lateralis for federal lands since Zobel et al. (1985) and review current
societal values and associated considerations for management of Port-Orford-cedar.

This assessment is not a decision document. It contains information that could be used
to guide future supplements or revisions of Forest Service or BLM management plans. If
new plans are developed or current plans revised, public comment will occur during the
process as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Appendix A shows the
relationship of this document to other legal documents and authorities.

Literature Cited

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

Figure 1.2 — Infected Port-Orford-Cedar

Chapter 2

Ecological Factors

Associated with

Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction 7

Distribution 9

Ecoregion and Subsection Descriptions 10

Northern Coast 10

North Inland 11

Mid-Coast 11

Mid-Range 12

East Disjunct California 12

Southern Range 12

Diversity 13

Species Diversity 13

Plant Series and Plant Association Diversity 13

Productivity Indices 24

Snags and Down Wood - California 25

Snags 25

Down Wood 27

Function in Riparian Systems 29

Port-Orford-Cedar Plant Associations with Unique Species and Regional

Endemic, Rare or Sensitive Plants 30

Literature Cited 31

Authors: Thomas M. Jimerson, Diane E. White, Thomas Atzet, Christopher S. Park,
Elizabeth A. McGee, Donald L. Rose, Lisa D. Hoover and Maria T Ulloa

June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar is found from southwestern Oregon to northwestern California,
primarily in the Coast Ranges and Siskiyou and Klamath Mountains, with a small
disjunct population in the Scott Mountains of California (fig. 2.1).

Although it has a narrow geographic distribution, it occupies many different
environments. It is found at elevations from sea level to 6,400 feet. It may be found
in glacial basins, along stream sides, on terraces, and on mountain side-slopes from
lower to upper one-third slope positions. Soils where Port-Orford-cedar is found are
derived from many parent materials, including sandstone, schist, phyllite, granite,
diorite, gabbro, serpentine, peridotite, and volcanics. They are primarily Entisols,
Inceptisols, Alfisols and Ultisols included in the mesic and frigid temperature regimes.
Port-Orford-cedar shows adaptability to a wide range of summer evapo-transpiration
stress, from very high humidities along the coast to very low summer humidities inland.
The great ecological amplitude of Port-Orford-cedar is believed to reflect a geographic
concentration of genetically based characteristics that developed in a larger geographic
range that included parts of Idaho, Montana, California, Oregon, and extended as far east
as Nebraska, 10 to 52 million years ago (Edwards 1983).

Range of Port-Orford-cedar

/V Highway

*£^ CNtes

■B Port-C-rto«'<J-c*<*»r

I""* 1 Stat* lln«

OoM tttiacilt

P&cific
Ocean

m 2*2000

Figure 2.1 — The native range of Port-Orford-cedar

A Range-Wide Assessment of P or t-Or ford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 2.2 — The world's largest Port-
Orford-cedar growing near Powers,
Oregon

Figure 2.3 — The world's largest Port-Orford-cedar growing near Powers, Oregon

Port-Orford-cedar plant associations characterize the broad range of habitats in which
Port-Orford-cedar is found. These plant communities display some of the richest plant
species diversity of all forest types in the region (Jimerson and Creasy 1991).

Port-Orford-cedar can be found with a variety of species with differing ecological
requirements. These species change across the range of Port-Orford-cedar. For instance,
in the northwestern portion of the range, Port-Orford-cedar is found in association with

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Qrford-Cedar

western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla [Raf.] Sarg.), in the southwest with coastal redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens [D. Don] Endl.) and tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflora [H. & A.] Rehd.),
in the central portion with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.J Franco.), and at
higher elevations in the eastern portion of its range with white fir (Abies concolor [Gord. &
Glend.] Lindl.), western white pine (Pinus monticola DougL), Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica
var. shastensis) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana [Bong.] Carr.). Port-Orford-
cedar has been noted as a component of more than 88 plant associations in Oregon and
California (Atzet et al. 1996, Jimerson and Daniel 1994, Jimerson et al. 1995, Jimerson et
al. 1996, Jimerson and Creasy 1997, Jimerson et al. 2000).

The wide ecological amplitude of Port-Orford-cedar is also reflected in the climatic
diversity of the ecoregions and subsections in which it is distributed. These ecological
units are defined based on biotic and environmental factors that directly affect ecosystem
function (McNab and Avers 1994).

Distribution

Overall, the ecological units with unique plant associations are in the cooler, wetter
(more northern) environments (Mid-Coastal Sedimentary and Southern Oregon
Coastal Mountains), the inland (Inland Siskiyous/ Siskiyou Mountains) or inland, high
elevation environments (Upper Scotts Mountains). Gradient analyses showed different
environmental variables were important in describing the distribution of Port-Orford-
cedar between the different ecoregions and subsections (table 2.1).

Table 2.1 — Important variables in gradient analyses which describe the distribution of Port-
Orford-cedar by ecoregion and subsection7

Ecoregion/Subsection

Axis 1 Variable

Axis 2 Variable

Northern Coast

Mid-Coastal Sedimentary
Southern Oregon Coastal

North Inland

Inland Siskiyous
Siskiyou Mountains

Mid-Coast

Coastal Siskiyous

Mid-Range

Serpentine Siskiyous
Gasquet Mountain Ultramafics

Western Jurassic

East Disjunct California

Eastern Klamath Mountains
Lower Scott Mountains
Upper Scott Mountains

Southern Range

Eastern Franciscan

Pelletreau Ridge
Rattlesnake Creek

Ultramafic parent material
Elevation

Elevation
Macroposition

Ultramafic parent material
Surface coarse fragments

Distance to ocean

Surface rock

Ultramafic parent material

Ultramafic parent material
Macroposition

Elevation

Moisture stress

Mean annual temperature

Microposition

Not analyzed

Precipitation
Moisture stress
Metamorphic parent material
Ultramafics

Metamorphic rock
Microposition

Surface coarse fragments
Mean annual temperature

Elevation

Aspect

Direct solar radiation

Elevation
Microposition

1 Jimerson, T.M. 1999. Personal communication. Ecologist, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501 .

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Two types of ecological units were used to describe the distribution of Port-Orford-cedar,
level IV ecoregions in Oregon (USEPA 1998) and subsections in California (Miles and
Goudey 1997). The ecological subsections are the lowest division of regional ecosystems
mapped in California and the level IV ecoregions are the lowest division of ecoregions
mapped in Oregon. Ecoregions and subsections are configured and delineated
differently because they are based on two different methods of mapping ecosystems. The
main difference between these two approaches is that land use or human disturbance is
used as a factor in separating ecoregions, while subsections are separated by differences
in management prescriptions. The ecoregions and subsections are shown in figure 2.4
and characterized in table 2.2.

Ecoregion and Subsection Descriptions

Northern Coast

The Mid-Coastal Sedimentary and Southern Oregon Coastal Mountains — These
ecoregions are part of the Oregon Coast Range. This is an area of low mountains
with high rainfall and dense coniferous forests. It has moderately sloping, dissected
mountains and sinuous streams. The most important characteristic in terms of species
composition is the occurrence of western hemlock as a dominant or codominant species.
Ten plant associations with Port-Orford-cedar were identified in these ecoregions, and
five were found only in these ecoregions.

Ecoregions /Subsections wititi Part-Orfcard-cedar

4 !2r

CtiZSttii Wiumife;

5**i>r«a£*-.
M4UJitt£u ,

is y ?
IfJ V

!..

r?t?.

,-. Sfft
'ft \ *J?unEi(ra.

W att&a Sit/Til f'j- i

,\ Tat s J^yti %-r<* •

Swept •„ -r? sf-l '"i {>> •<"'

/jo^-Sir \ v?s ****** ^>-

Srtj. \ '■-.

ffirtniWitiV^

■tftft

J j-«.

-^ CJwJ.

\w^

t» W

nw \

-A

Figure 2.4 — Ecoregions and subsections with
Port-Orford-cedar occurrence

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Table 2.2 — Significant environmental factors affecting Port-Orford-cedar by ecoregion/
subsection

Mean

Distance

July

Jan.

Area

Elevation

Precipi-tation.

to Ocean

Temp.

Predominant

Ecoregion/Subsection

(acres)

(feet)

(inches)

(miles)

(F.)

Parent Material

Mid-Coastal
Sedimentary

2,303,227

300-2000

60-130

3-45

48-78

32-48

siltstone
sandstone

Southern Oregon
Coastal Mountains

443,116

0-3400

70-140

0-28

52-76

36-52

complex

Coastal Siskiyous

545,604

1000-4800

70-140

7-30

50-76

38-50

conglomerate w/
sandstone

Eastern Franciscan

1,251,951

1200-8092

40-120

data gap

metaclastic rocks

Serpentine Siskiyous/

Gasquet Mountain

400,980

200-4800

45-140

6-45

ultramafic

Ultramafics

Western Jurassic

data gap

250-4000

50-120

7-45

ultramafic
sedimentary

Inland Siskiyous/
Siskiyou Mountains

1,862,497

1000-7309

35-100

13-57

metasedimentary

peridotite

granitics

Pelletreau Ridge

73,915

1500-5000

60-80

20-25

sedimentary

Rattlesnake Creek

312,703

400-5881

40-60

20-25

metavolcanic

Eastern Klamath

data gap

1950-3000

metavolcanic
metasedimentary

Lower Scott Mountains

127,297

1500-5000

40-60

60-90

ultramafic
granitic

Upper Scott Mountains

389,795

4000-9025

30-70

60-90

ultramafic
granitic

North Inland

Inland Siskiyous and Siskiyou Mountains — This ecoregion and subsection has higher,
steeper terrain than the other ecoregions and subsections. It has a high diversity of
conditions, which is reflected in the vegetation. The vegetation is dominated by the
Douglas-fir Series at low elevations, Jeffrey Pine Series on ultramafic soils, and White Fir
and Red Fir Series at higher elevations. Sixty-two plant associations containing Port-
Orford-cedar were identified in this ecoregion and subsection, and many are exclusive or
have their greatest extent here.

Mid-Coast

The Coastal Siskiyous — The Coastal Siskiyous Ecoregion is located in Oregon and is an
area with highly dissected mountains and high gradient streams, as well as a few, small,
alpine glacial lakes. The climate is wetter with more maritime influence than elsewhere
in the Klamath Mountains bioregion. This area has tanoak, Douglas-fir, and some
Port-Orford-cedar. Western hemlock is not a dominant overstory species. Nine plant
associations were identified in this ecoregion that contain Port-Orford-cedar, with a high
frequency of plant associations on serpentine soils.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Mid-Range

The Serpentine Siskiyous/Gasquet Mountain Ultramafics — This ecoregion and
subsection is dominated by the Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries (Port-Orford-cedar
is codominant with tanoak). In Oregon, the White Fir Series and the Port-Orford-cedar-
White Fir Subseries are fairly common and occur at relatively high elevations (up to 4800
feet) and a long distance inland (up to 45 miles). The Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir and
Port-Orford-cedar- Western White Pine Subseries are more common in California, the
latter being correlated with ultramafic rock.

The Western Jurassic — Marine air moderates temperatures in the western portion of this
subsection creating a temperate to humid climate. The Douglas-fir and Tanoak Series
dominate this subsection. Twenty-two plant associations containing Port-Orford-cedar
are described in this subsection, none are found only here. This subsection has the
second highest amount of Port-Orford-cedar of all subsections in Northern California.

East Disjunct California

Eastern Klamath Mountains — This subsection is located on the farthest southeastern
corner of the Klamath Mountains. It has two plant associations with Port-Orford-cedar;
neither is unique to this subsection.

Lower Scott Mountains — This subsection comprises the low elevation portion of the
Eastern Klamath geologic belt of the Klamath Mountains. Ultramafic rocks of the Trinity
Terrane and intrusions of granitic rocks dominate the geology of this area. The Jeffrey
Pine, Ponderosa Pine, White Fir, and Douglas-fir Series are the dominant vegetation in
this subsection. Five Port-Orford-cedar plant associations are present.

Upper Scott Mountains — This subsection comprises the high elevation portion of the
Eastern Klamath geologic belt of the Klamath Mountains. The geology is the same as the
Lower Scott Mountains Subsection. Thirteen plant associations with Port-Orford-cedar
are found here, seven are unique to this subsection, and three additional Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations are predominantly found here.

Southern Range

The Eastern Franciscan — The Eastern Franciscan Subsection represents the high
elevation portion of the northern California Coast Ranges. There are 16 Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations in this subsection. None of the plant associations are unique
to the subsection, and most are extensions of what is found in the Gasquet Mountain
Ultramafics, Western Jurassic, and Siskiyou Mountain subsections.

Pelletreau Ridge — This subsection is a narrow, arcuate strip of land along the southwest
edge of the Klamath Mountains. Port-Orford-cedar stands here are 20 miles south and 50
miles west of the nearest other stands of Port-Orford-cedar, although there are no unique
plant associations here. The vegetation in this region is dominated by Douglas-fir and
Tanoak Series, with White Fir Series at higher elevations (Miles and Goudey 1997).

Rattlesnake Creek — This is also an arcuate subsection that is within the Western
Paleozoic and Triassic belts of the Klamath Mountains. The Douglas-fir, White Fir, and
Ponderosa Pine Series dominate this subsection, with Jeffrey Pine Series on serpentinized
peridotite (Miles and Goudey 1997). This subsection has a very small amount of Port-
Orford-cedar. There are no Port-Orford-cedar plant associations that are unique or reach
their greatest extent here.

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Diversity

Species Diversity

Species diversity within Port-Orford-cedar stands is exemplified by the high number of
species found per layer (table 2.3)

In the overstory tree layer alone, 29 species were identified. The shrub layer included
93 species, and the forb layer 446 species. Members of the tree and shrub layers were
considered indicator species for environmental change. Species found in the shrub
and forb layers help define the major and minor gradients and are used in the plant
association classifications.

This high species diversity is typified by the wide ecological gradients in which Port-
Orford-cedar and its associated species are found. A gradient analysis, displayed in
figure 2.5, shows the first and most prominent gradient (axis 1) is most highly correlated
with elevation (r = 0.93). This was evidenced by mountain hemlock occurring on the
extreme negative side of the axis and coast redwood on the extreme positive side. The
X coordinate may also be thought of as distance to the ocean (r = -0.54), December
minimum temperature (r = 0.69), mean annual temperature (r = 0.61), indirect solar
radiation (r = 0.49), and sedimentary rock (r = 0.33). Distance to the ocean incorporates a
host of environmental factors including temperature extremes, humidity and fog.

Axis 2 was most highly correlated with ultramafic rock (r = -0.32) and microposition
(r = 0.30). These graphics demonstrate the wide environmental gradient included within
the Port-Orford-cedar communities and are assumed, based on the work of Millar et al.
(1991) using allozyme research, to represent genetic diversity. The species depicted in
the figures help to define the major environmental gradients used to describe vegetation
series and subseries.

Plant Series and Plant Association Diversity

The wide ecological amplitude of the Port-Orford-cedar Series is shown in figure 2.6. It
occurs over similar environmental ranges as the Douglas-fir, White Fir, Jeffrey Pine, and
Western White Pine Series and in portions of the environmental range of the Tanoak and
Western Hemlock Series (figs. 2.7 and 2.8).

Table 2.3 — Number of species by layer found on Port-Orford-cedar plots
in Oregon and California

(n = 1076 plots)

Layer

Number of Species

Overstory trees

Understory trees

Shrubs

Forbs

Grasses

32
93
446
44

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 2.5 — The relationship of species commonly found in association with
Port-Orford-cedar

Multivariate statistical analyses of data from plots in Oregon and California from the
Port-Orford-cedar Series have resulted in a classification with 43 plant associations,
eight from Oregon and 35 from California (Atzet et al. 1996, Jimerson and Daniel 1994,
Jimerson, et al. 2000). The Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries is made up of 13 plant
associations with moderate to high amounts of Port-Orford-cedar. Thirty-two additional
plant associations with Port-Orford-cedar occur in other plant series (Appendix B).

Figure 2.6 — The relationship of plant series to environmental factors

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Figure 2.7 — Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Herb plant association

Figure 2.8 — The Port-Orford-cedar- Western White Pine/California Pitcher Plant
plant association

A Range- Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Port-Orford-cedar plant associations occur in environments where Port-Orford-cedar
is competitive relative to other tree species. The overall range of Port-Orford-cedar,
however, includes plant associations from other plant series: western hemlock, Douglas-
fir, Jeffrey pine, tanoak and white fir. The species itself is more widely distributed than
would be suggested by examining only the series distribution. Appendix B shows plant
associations that contain significant amounts of Port-Orford-cedar and where they occur.

Some Port-Orford-cedar Series plant associations are described below.

In Oregon, two plant associations are described that occur on serpentine soils.

CHLA/QUVA/XETE

Port-Orford-cedar / Huckleberry Oak / Beargrass

Elevation mean: 4150 feet

Aspect: primarily northwest

Overstory: Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Douglas-fir, Port-Orford-cedar, white fir and western white pine

Shrubs: huckleberry oak

Herb cover: 18 percent

CHLA/LOHI/FESTU

Port-Orford-cedar /Hairy Honeysuckle /Fescue

Elevation mean: 1690 feet

Aspect: primarily southwest

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, sugar pine, Jeffrey pine, and

occasionally California black oak

Shrubs: hairy honeysuckle and western azalea

Herb cover: 59 percent

Two plant associations are found in cool, dry environments, towards the east side of the
range of Port-Orford-cedar in Oregon.

CHLA-ABCO/BENE2

Port-Orford-cedar- White Fir /Dwarf Oregon-grape

Elevation mean: 4165 feet

Aspect: all aspects

Overstory: Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir

Shrubs: dwarf Oregon-grape and bald hip rose

Herb cover: 27 to 32 percent

CHLA-LIDE3/GASH

Port-Orf ord-cedar-Tanoak / Salal

Elevation mean: 3330 feet

Aspect: all aspects

Overstory: Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, tanoak, Douglas-fir, and occasionally white fir

Shrubs: salal

Herb cover: 11 percent

Two Oregon plant associations have western hemlock as a co-dominant tree species.
These are on the wet end of the environmental gradient for the Port-Orford-cedar Series
in Oregon.

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

CHLA-TSHE/POMU

Port-Orford-cedar- Western Hemlock/Swordfern

Elevation mean: 1810 feet

Aspect: all aspects

Overstory: Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and tanoak

Shrubs: Salal, Oregon-grape, and red huckleberry

Herb cover: 14 percent

CHLA-TSHE/LEDA

Port-Orford-cedar- Western Hemlock/Sierra-Laurel

Elevation mean: 3700 feet

Aspect: generally west

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and often western hemlock and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and western hemlock

Shrubs: Sierra laurel and salal, often Pacific rhododendron and red huckleberry

Herb cover: 5 percent

Two additional plant associations are found in Oregon.

CHLA/VAOV2/POMU

Port-Orford-cedar /Evergreen Huckleberry /Western Swordfern

Elevation mean: 265 feet

Aspect: generally north

Overstory: Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and often western hemlock

Shrubs: Often evergreen huckleberry, salmonberry, red huckleberry, Pacific

rhododendron, dwarf Oregon-grape

Herb cover: very high

CHLA/RHMA3-GASH

Port-Orford-cedar/Pacific Rhododendron-Salal

Elevation mean: 1834 feet

Aspect: primarily north

Overstory: Douglas-fir, often Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, often tanoak

Shrubs: often Pacific rhododendron, salal, Oregon-grape

Herb cover: 10 percent

California. There are 35 Port-Orford-cedar plant associations in northern California
(Jimerson and Daniel 1994, Jimerson and DeNitto 2000), 21 from northwestern California
and the remainder from the Trinity and Sacramento River drainages.

CHLA/GASH

Port-Orford-cedar / Salal

Elevation range: 2800 to 3740 feet

Aspect: north

Overstory: Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, often tanoak

Shrubs: salal

Herb cover: 11 percent

Grass cover: 1 percent

CHLA/RHMA3-GASH

Port-Orford-cedar/Pacific Rhododendron-Salal
Elevation range: 2700 to 3600 feet
Aspect: northwest to northeast

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Soils: may be derived from serpentine parent rock
Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, frequently chinquapin
Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, occasionally tanoak and chinquapin
Shrubs: Pacific rhododendron and red huckleberry, frequently salal
Forb cover: 8 percent

CHLA/RHOC

Port-Orford-cedar / Western Azalea

Elevation range: 2500 to 3940 feet

Aspect: northeast

Soils: derived from peridotite and serpentine

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently tanoak and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: Western azalea, frequently red huckleberry and trailing blackberry

Forb cover: 6 percent

Grass cover: 2 percent

CHLA-ABCO/QUVA

Port-Orford-cedar- White Fir /Huckleberry Oak

Elevation range: 2980 to 4620 feet

Aspect: northeast and west

Soils: derived from peridotite, greenstone, and serpentine

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, white fir, frequently sugar pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir, frequently Douglas-fir

Shrubs: Huckleberry oak

Forb cover: 14 percent

CHLA-ABCO-PIM03/QUVA

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir-Western White Pine/ Huckleberry Oak

Elevation range: 4360 to 5180 feet

Aspect: northwest

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, white fir, western white pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, white fir

Shrubs: Huckleberry oak, frequently pinemat manzanita, Sadler oak, wild rose

Forb cover: 8 percent

CHLA-ABCO/RHOC

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/ Western Azalea

Elevation range: 3740 to 4320 feet

Aspect: northeast and south

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, white fir

Understory trees: white fir, Port-Orford-cedar

Shrubs: western azalea, frequently huckleberry oak and trailing blackberry

Forb cover: 6 percent

Grass cover: 1 percent

CHLA-ABCO//Herb

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/ /Herb

Elevation range: 3600 to 4540 feet

Aspect: northwest, northeast, southwest

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently white fir and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir are frequent

Shrubs: variable; trailing blackberry, wild rose, hazelnut, and Sadler oak may be present

Forb cover: 13 percent

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

CHLA-ABCO/QUSA

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sadler Oak

Elevation range: 3220 to 4360 feet

Aspect: northwest and northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir, frequently white fir

Understory trees: frequently Port-Orford-cedar, white fir and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: Sadler oak, frequently red huckleberry, dwarf Oregon-grape, Oregon boxwood

Forb cover: 22 percent

CHLA-ABMAS/QUSA-VAME

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sadler Oak-Thinleaf Huckleberry

Elevation range: 4400 to 5270 feet

Aspect: north

Soils: occasionally soils derived from peridotite parent rock

Overstory: white fir and Port-Orford-cedar, frequently red fir and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, red fir and white fir

Shrubs: Sadler oak, frequently thin-leaved huckleberry and dwarf Oregon-grape

Forb cover: 23 percent

CHLA-PSME/QUVA

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/Huckleberry Oak

Elevation range: 2520 to 3720 feet

Aspect: northwest and east

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir, frequently sugar pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently Douglas-fir

Shrubs: huckleberry oak, frequently red huckleberry

Forb cover: 9 percent

CHLA-PIM03/QUVA

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine /Huckleberry Oak

Elevation range: 1500 to 3840 feet

Aspect: east and west

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir and western white pine

Understory trees: western white pine, frequently Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: huckleberry oak, frequently red huckleberry, occasionally dwarf tanoak and

boxleaf maple

Forb cover: 14 percent

Grass cover: 4 percent

CHLA-LIDE3/ALRH

Port-Orford-cedar-Incense cedar- White Alder

Elevation range: 3220 to 3390 feet

Aspect: southeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir and white alder

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar

Forb cover: 3 percent

CHLA-ABCO/ALSI2

Port-Orford-cedar-White fir/Sitka alder

Elevation range: 3920 to 5050 feet

Aspect: mainly west and east

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, white fir, and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, white fir, and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: Sitka alder, Sadler oak, wood rose

Forb cover: 33 percent

Grass cover: 5 percent

r 19

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

CHLA-PIM03/RH0C-LIDEE-LEGL1

Port-Orford-cedar- Western white pine /Western azalea-Dwarf tanbark-Labrador tea

Elevation range: 1320 to 3480 feet

Aspect: mainly southeast and west

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, western white pine, and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, western white pine, and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: western azalea, dwarf tanbark, and western Labrador tea

Forb cover: 4 percent

Grass cover: 11 percent

CHLA-PIM03/LEGLl/DACA2//Coastal

Port-Orford-cedar-Western white pine/Labrador tea/California pitcher plant/ /Coastal

Elevation range: 550 to 3660 feet

Aspect: mainly southwest

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and western white pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and western white pine

Shrubs: western Labrador tea, western azalea, and dwarf tanbark

Forb cover: 15 percent

Grass cover: 25 percent

CHLA-ABCO/ACCI

Port-Orford-cedar-White fir/Vine maple

Elevation range: 2750 to 4420 feet

Aspect: mainly north

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, white fir, and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, white fir, and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: vine maple and dwarf Oregon-grape

Forb cover: 36 percent

Grass cover: 1 percent

CHLA-ABMAS-PIBR/QUSA-QUVA

Port-Orford-cedar-Shasta red fir-Brewer's spruce /Sadler oak-Huckleberry oak

Elevation range: 4850 to 5500 feet

Aspect: mainly northwest and northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and Brewer's spruce

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and Brewer's spruce

Shrubs: huckleberry oak, Sadler oak, thinleaf huckleberry

Forb cover: 12 percent

Grass cover: 1 percent

CHLA-ABMAS/ALSI2-QUSA

Port-Orford-cedar-Shasta red fir/Sitka alder-Sadler oak

Elevation range: 4520 to 5300 feet

Aspect: mainly north and northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: Sitka alder, Sadler oak, thinleaf huckleberry

Forb cover: 25 percent

Grass cover: 4 percent

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

CHLA-PSME-ALRU2/ACCI-BENE1

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir-Red alder/Vine Maple-Oregon-grape
Elevation range: 1890 to 3140 feet
Aspect: mainly north

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, and red alder
Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, Douglas-fir, and red alder
Shrubs: vine maple, dwarf Oregon-grape, and California hazelnut
Forb cover: 32 percent
Grass cover: 2 percent

CHLA-PSME/COCOC

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/California Hazelnut
Elevation range: 2740 to 4320 feet
Aspect: mainly east

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir
Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir
Shrubs: California hazelnut and Pacific blackberry
Forb cover: 49 percent
Grass cover: 1 percent

CHLA-ABMAS/ALSI2/DACA2

Port-Orford-cedar-Shasta red fir/Sitka alder/California pitcher plant

Elevation range: 5250 to 5480 feet

Aspect: mainly northwest and south

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and mountain hemlock

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, Shasta red fir, and mountain hemlock

Shrubs: Sitka alder, western azalea, slender salal

Forb cover: 53 percent

Grass cover: 48 percent

The following plant associations are unique to the Trinity and Sacramento River
drainages. They occur on high elevation, inland sites; almost all are over 80 miles from
the coast.

CHLA-PSME/CAOC5

Port-Orf ord-cedar-Douglas-fir / Spicebush

Elevation range: 1940 to 2550 feet

Aspect: east

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir, frequently canyon live oak

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and canyon live oak

Shrubs: Spicebush and frequently western azalea and coffeeberry

Forb cover: 4 percent

Grass cover: 5 percent

CHLA-MCON/RHOC-LIDEE

Port-Orford-cedar-Mixed Conifer/Western Azalea-Dwarf Tanbark

Elevation range: 2600 to 4160 feet

Aspect: east, south, and west

Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir, and frequently white fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and frequently Douglas-fir

Shrubs: frequently western azalea and dwarf tanbark

Forb cover: 6 percent

Grass cover: 4 percent

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

CHLA-MCON/QUVA-RHOC

Port-Orford-cedar-Mixed Conifer/Huckleberry Oak-Western Azalea

Elevation range: 2480 to 5180 feet

Aspect: south and southeast

Soils: derived from ultramafic parent material

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and Douglas-fir

Shrubs: frequently western azalea and huckleberry oak

Forb cover: 4 percent

Grass cover: 6 percent

CHLA-ABCO/RHOC-OUVA

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Western Azalea-Huckleberry Oak
Elevation range: 4810 to 5920 feet
Aspect: northeast and northwest
Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir, frequently western white pine and Douglas-
fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir

Shrubs: western azalea and frequently huckleberry oak and serviceberry
Forb cover: 9 percent
Grass cover: 3 percent

CHLA-ABCO/LEDA-CASE3

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sierra Laurel-Bush Chinquapin

Elevation range: 4980 to 5660 feet

Aspect: northwest

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and frequently white fir

Shrubs: Sierra laurel and frequently bush chinquapin

Forb cover: 9 percent

Grass cover: 3 percent

CHLA-ABCO/CASE3-RHOC

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/ Bush Chinquapin- Western Azalea

Elevation range: 4950 to 5750 feet

Aspect: northeast and west

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir, frequently Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and white fir

Shrubs: bush chinquapin and frequently western azalea

Forb cover: low

Grass cover: 3 percent

CHLA-PIM03/LEGL1/DACA2

Port-Orford-cedar- Western White Pine/Labrador Tea/ California Pitcher Plant

Elevation range: 4300 to 5950 feet

Aspect: northwest and east

Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently western white pine, Shasta red fir, and white fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently western white pine and white fir

Shrubs: western Labrador tea

Forb cover: 9 percent

Grass cover: 11 percent

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

CHLA-PIM03/ALSI2

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/Sitka Alder

Elevation range: 4640 to 5700 feet

Aspect: northwest and northeast

Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford -cedar, white fir, western white pine, frequently Douglas-fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar

Shrubs: Sitka alder

Forb cover: 16 percent

Grass cover: 25 percent

CHLA-PIM03/VAME

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/Thinleaf Huckleberry

Elevation range: 4920 to 6000 feet

Aspect: northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and western white pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently western white pine

Shrubs: thinleaf huckleberry

Forb cover: 15 percent

Grass cover: 2 percent

CHLA-PIM03//Wet Herb Complex

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/ /Wet Herb Complex

Elevation range: 4860 to 6000 feet

Aspect: northeast

Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently white fir and western white pine

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently white fir

Shrubs: variable

Forb cover: 37 percent

Grass cover: 14 percent

CHLA-PIM03//Dry Herb Complex

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/ /Dry Herb Complex

Elevation range: 4860 to 6000 feet

Aspect: north

Soils: some derived from ultramafic parent rock

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar and western white pine, frequently white fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar and western white pine, frequently white fir

Shrubs: frequently huckleberry oak and serviceberry

Forb cover: 34 percent

Grass cover: 3 percent

CHLA-TSME/CASE3

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Bush Chinquapin

Elevation range: 6080 to 6310 feet

Aspect: northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, western white pine, mountain hemlock, and Shasta red fir

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar, mountain hemlock, and Shasta red fir, frequently

western white pine

Shrubs: bush chinquapin, huckleberry oak, pinemat manzanita, littleleaf huckleberry

Forb cover: 5 percent

Grass cover: 1 percent

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

CHLA-TSME/LEGL1

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Labrador Tea

Elevation range: 5700 to 6350 feet

Aspect: northeast and west

Overs tor y: Port-Orford-cedar and mountain hemlock, frequently Shasta red fir

Understory trees: mountain hemlock, frequently Port-Orford-cedar and Shasta red fir

Shrubs: western Labrador tea

Forb cover: 9 percent

Grass cover: 3 percent

CHLA-TSME/LEDA

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock /Sierra Laurel

Elevation range: 4360 to 5180 feet

Aspect: north and northeast

Overstory: Port-Orford-cedar, frequently western white pine, Shasta red fir, and

mountain hemlock

Understory trees: Port-Orford-cedar

Shrubs: Sierra laurel

Forb cover: 10 percent

Grass cover: 3 percent

Productivity Indices

Site productivity among the described plant associations varies considerably, with the
lowest productivity in those plant associations found on soils derived from ultramafic
parent rock and those on high elevation sites. Table 2.4 shows productivity indices for 26
California plant associations.

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Table 2.4 — Productivity indices for 26 California Port-Orford-cedar plant associations
(Jimerson and Daniels 1994, Jimerson et al. 2000)

Plant Association

Cubic Soft Wood
Volume (ft3/acre)

Dunning Site

Class

Stand

Density

Index

Large Conifers*
per Acre

CHLA/GASH

CHLA /RHMA3-G ASH

CHLA/RHOC

CHLA-ABCO/QUVA

CHLA-ABCO-PIM03 / QU VA

CHLA-ABCO/RHOC

CHLA-ABCO//Herb

CHLA-ABCO/QUSA2

CHLA-ABMAS/QUSA2-VAME

CHLA-PSME/QUVA

CHLA-PIM03/QUVA

CHLA-LIDE3-ALRH

CHLA-PSME/CAOC5

CHLA-MCON/RHOC-LIDEE

CHLA-MCON / QU VA-RHOC

CHLA-ABCO/RHOC-QUVA

CHLA-ABCO/LEDA-CASE3

CHLA-ABCO/CASE3-RHOC

CHLA-PIM03/LEGL1 /DACA

CHLA-PIM03/ALSI2

CHLA-PIMQ3/VAME

CHLA-PIM03/ / Wet herb

CHLA-P1M03//Dry herb

CHLA-TSME/CASE3

CHLA-TSME/LEGL1

CHLA-TSME/LEDA

14697

12498

10751

11867

11043

11173

15044

11425

9766

9821

6374

8280

7217

8055

6169

8353

10017

7045

29971

7885

14832

10389

8380

11063

7110

9161

1
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
4

592
490
498
508
540
496
521
457
454
454
404
459
7'13
587
482
697
639
432
772
592
758
734
501
1001
655
652

unknown

h Large conifers are greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH).

Snags and Down Wood - California

Snags

Snag and down wood information is shown in tables 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7.

Snag analyses for the Port-Orford-cedar Series and the Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar
Subseries were conducted using 139 ecology plots (table 2.8). Densities of large snags
ranged from 3.7 to 1 .9 per acre. The density of snags was higher in the Port-Orford-cedar
Series than in the Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries.

Snag species were primarily Douglas-fir or Port-Orford-cedar, with small percentages of
15 other species. Decay classes were well represented in the Port-Orford-cedar Series,
with percentages of decay classes 1 through 5 of 15.5, 30.9, 31.9, 15.8, and 5.9 percent
respectively. The Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries had fewer decay class 1 snags (4.1
percent).

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Table 2.5 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations which occur on ultramafic soils (CHLA/QUVA/
XETE, CHLA/LOHI/FESTU)

Decay Class

Diameter*

Length (feet)

6-9 inch

10-19 inch

20+ inch

Down Wood (n = 2)

Pieces/Acre

Decay Class 1

0(0)

Decay Class 2

16 (23)

18 (26)

1(2)

Decay Class 3

32 (46)

2(3)

0(0)

37 (24)

Decay Class 4

0(0)

—

Decay Class 5

0(0)

—

Tons/Acre

Decay Class 1

0.0 (0)

Decay Class 2

0.5 (1)

0.0 (0)

Decay Class 3

2.0 (3)

1.0 (2)

0.0 (0)

Decay Class 4

0.0 (0)

Decay Class 5

0.0 (0)

Snags/Acre (n = 3)

Decay Class 1

0(0)

1(0)

Decay Class 2

0(0)

Decay Class 3

0(0)

4(4)

1(2)

Decay Class 4

0(0)

Decay Class 5

0(0)

"'Size classes for down wood

were measured at

point of transect intercept

and at DBI I for

^iags. Figures given

are means and one standard deviation for each,

in parenthesis.

Table 2.6 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations which occur in cool, dry environments (CHLA-
ABCO/BENE2, CHLA-LIDE3/GASH)

Decay Class

Diameter*

Length (feet)

6-9 inch

10-19 inch

20+ inch

Down Wood (n = 13)

Pieces/Acre

Decay Class 1

0(0)

2(5)

0(0)

29 (15)

Decay Class 2

20 (32)

8(19)

1(3)

30 (28)

Decay Class 3

21 (25)

7 (13)

11 (19)

36 (20)

Decay Class 4

22 (30)

43 (75)

9(17)

27 (27)

Decay Class 5

3(8)

9(22)

6(13)

21 (13)

Tons/Acre

Decay Class 1

0.0 (0)

0.6 (2)

0.0 (0)

Decay Class 2

0.8(1)

0.7 (2)

4.3 (11)

Decay Class 3

1.5(1)

2.9 (5)

16.4 (25)

Decay Class 4

0.8(1)

5.8 (10)

12.5 (16)

Decay Class 5

< 0.1(1)

1.0(2)

5.0 (11)

Snags/Acre (n = 13)

Decay Class 1

1(5)

6 (11)

1(2)

Decay Class 2

5(17)

4(6)

1(1)

Decay Class 3

0(0)

2(4)

1(1)

Decay Class 4

0(0)

1(3)

2(2)

Decay Class 5

0(0)

2(4)

0(1)

*Size classes for down wood were measured at

point of transect intercept

and atDBHfor

snags. Figures given

are means and one standard devit

ition for each

in parenthesis.

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Table 2.7 — Snag and down wood characteristics for Oregon Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations that are codominant with western hemlock
(CHLA-TSHE/POMU, CHLA-TSHE/LEDA)

Decay Class

6-9 inch

Diameter*
10-19 inch

20+ inch

Length (feet)

Down Wood (n - 13)
Pieces/Acre

Decay Class 1

2(5)

5(15)

3(7)

56 (51)

Decay Class 2

16 (46)

7(9)

4(9)

35 (39)

Decay Class 3

23 (36)

15 (20)

6(9)

30 (20)

Decay Class 4

28 (74)

21 (23)

3(6)

25 (16)

Decay Class 5

19 (63)

22 (34)

2(6)

12(7)

Tons/ Acre

Decay Class 1

0.2 (1)

0.6(1)

7.5 (16)

Decay Class 2

0.3(1)

2.5 (3)

13.6 (25)

Decay Class 3

1.0(2)

3.7 (4)

11.9(13)

Decay Class 4

0.6 (1)

4.8 (4)

7.3 (13)

Decay Class 5

0.2(1)

1.9 (3)

0.6 (2)

Snags/Acre (n = 13)

Decay Class 1

2(8)

3(6)

1(2)

Decay Class 2

1(6)

3(5)

Decay Class 3

0(0)

3(7)

1(2)

Decay Class 4

0(0)

2(4)

1(2)

Decay Class 5

2(8)

0(0)

1(1)

*Size classes for down wood were mea
are means and one standard deviation

sured at point of transect intercept and at DBH for snags. Figures given
for each, in parenthesis.

Table 2.8 — Snag densities (snags per acre) in Port-Orford-cedar Series
and Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries in California

Series or Subseries

Number Size* Mean Standard

Deviation.

Tanoak-Port-Orf ord -cedar

Port-Orford-cedar

25.4

15.6

2.9

4.1

1.9

3.2

25.8

17.3

3.2

4.2

3.7

4.6

*LS=large snag=greater than or equal to 20" DBH and greater than or equal to 50 feet tall
MS=medium snag=greater than or equal to 20" DBH and greater than 10 feet tall
SS=small snag=all snags that do not meet the requirements of medium or large snags

Down Wood

Analyses of down wood were conducted for the Port-Orford-cedar Series and the
Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries, using 149 ecology plots (table 2.9). Pieces per acre
were greater in the Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries than in the Port-Orford-cedar
Series. The majority of the down wood was in decay class 3, and the least was in decay
class 1. The down wood was composed primarily of Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar,
with 13 additional species represented at low percentages. Considering all down wood,
the number of cavities per piece averaged 0.3 for the Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries
and 0.6 for the Port-Orford-cedar Series.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

The density of logs is high and the standard deviations large, possibly a reflection of
summarization over an entire series or subseries with a wide environmental range.
Because of their resistance to decay, dead Port-Orford-cedars would be expected to
remain in an ecosystem for a longer period of time than most other conifers when the
frequency and extent of wildfires are controlled. The relatively low number of cavities
per piece likely reflects the resistance to decay (figs. 2.9 and 2.10).

Figure 2.9 — Port-Orford-cedar skeleton.

Table 2.9 — Down wood densities (pieces per acre) in Port-Orford-cedar
Series and Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar Subseries in California

Series or Subseries

Number

Size*

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar

Port-Orford-cedar

10-14"

22.5

23.9

15-19"

11.5

11.1

20-29"

10.9

13.4

>30"

6.9

9.0

100

10-14"

17.2

24.2

100

15-19"

11.4

12.8

100

20-29"

12.6

13.2

100

>30"

4.2

6.9

iameter. A piece is at least

one foot in length.

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

Figure 2.10 — Down logs in a Port-Orf ord-cedar stand

Function in Riparian
Systems

Port-Orford-cedar is an important
species in riparian ecosystems (fig.
2.11). Where present, it plays a role
in maintenance of water quality.
It can provide shade and thereby
lower stream temperatures. It
may also provide bank stability,
and when it dies and falls into
the stream, aquatic structure (fig.
2.12). Since Port-Orford-cedar is
highly resistant to decay, it may
be expected to have a longer
residence time in streams than other
associated conifers. This may be
especially important on serpentine
soils where Port-Orford-cedar may
be the only, or most abundant, tree
species growing on a site.

Figure 2.11 — Port-Orford-cedar in
a riparian area

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 2.12 — Port-Orf ord-cedar in Pipe Fork Research Natural Area (Williams
Watershed, Josephine County), the eastern-most extent of the species in Oregon

Port-Orf ord-Cedar Plant Associations with
Unique Species and Regional Endemic, Rare
or Sensitive Plants

Port-Orford-cedar plant associations contain unique species and regional endemic,
rare or sensitive plants. At least 30 plant species considered sensitive in Forest Service
Regions 5 and 6, of special status to the Bureau of Land Management, or rare by the
California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) or the Oregon Natural Heritage
Program (2001) are found in plant associations that contain Port-Orford-cedar. A list of
these plants associated with Port-Orford-cedar is shown in Appendix C. Eleven of these
rare or sensitive plant species are found only within Port-Orford-cedar plant associations,
predominantly on wetland/seep or riparian areas. Plant associations with the highest
diversity of rare plants are those that capture microhabitat extremes, from continually
wet soils to dry soils in exposed sites. The plant association with the highest number of
rare plants is Port-Orf ord-cedar-California Bay/ Evergreen Huckleberry.

A majority of rare or sensitive plants in Port-Orford-cedar associations occupy habitats
with surface (perennial or intermittent) or sub-surface water in the form of spring or
seep flow. The unique California pitcher plant (Darlingtonia californka) is the most
commonly noted hydrophytic species, followed by California lady's slipper {Cypripedium
californicum). These species are endemic to serpentine wetlands (fens, riparian areas,
seeps) and are represented in various associations across the range of Port-Orford-cedar.

In comparison to the California pitcher plant and California lady's slipper, there are
other wetland species associated with Port-Orford-cedar that are more localized in their
distribution. For example, the narrow endemic Western bog violet (Viola primulifolia

Chapter 2 — Ecological Factors Associated with Port-Orford-Cedar

var. occidentalis) occurs in fens and other serpentine wetland habitats in the Gasquet
Mountain Ultramafics Subsection in California and the Serpentine Siskiyous Ecoregion
in Oregon. The large-flowered rush lily (Hastingsia bmcteosa) is a narrow endemic found
in the Eight Dollar Mountain area of the Inland Siskiyous Ecoregion of Oregon. It occurs
in riparian and wetland settings along with Oregon willow herb (Epilobium oreganum)
(Kagan 1990a, 1996). Waldo gentian (Gentium setigem) is found in the gently sloping
serpentine wetlands across the Gasquet Mountain Ultramafics Subsection, Coastal
Siskiyous Ecoregion of Oregon, and the Inland Siskiyous Ecoregion of Oregon. Waldo
gentian is also found in two, high elevation associations: Port-Orford-cedar-Shasta Red
Fir-Brewer's Spruce /Sadler Oak-Huckleberry Oak and Port-Orford-cedar-Shasta Red
Fir/Sitka Alder-Sadler Oak. This occurrence of Waldo gentian in montane habitats has
been noted by Kagan (1990b) in his management guide for this species. Port-Orford-
cedar plant associations in the Lower and Upper Scott Mountain subsections of eastern
California support rare plants distinctive to this area including Scott Mountain phacelia
(Phacelia dalesiana), showy raillardella (Raillardella pringlei), and crested potentilla
(Potentilla cristae).

Literature Cited

Atzet, T; White, D.E.; McCrimmon, L.A.; Martinez, P.A.; Fong, P. Reid; Randall, V.D.
1996. Field guide to the forested plant associations of southwest Oregon. R6-NR-ECOL-
TP-17-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region. 353 p.

Edwards, S.W. 1983. Cenozoic history of Alaskan and Port Orford Chamaecyparis cedars.
Berkeley, CA: University of California. 271 p. PhD dissertation.

Jimerson, T.M.; Creasy, R.M. 1991. Variation in Port-Orford-cedar plant communities
along environmental gradients in northwest California. In: Harris, R.R.; Erman,
D.C.; Kerner, H.M., tech. coords. Proceedings of the symposium on biodiversity of
northwestern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 122-133 p.

Jimerson, T.M.; Creasy, R.M. 1997. Series, subseries and plant association codes for
northwest California. Eureka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six
Rivers National Forest. 13 p.

Jimerson, T.M.; Daniel, S.L. 1994. A field guide to Port-Orford-cedar plant associations
in northwest California. R5-ECOL-TP-002. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 154 p.

Jimerson, T.M.; DeNitto, G. 2000. A supplement to: a field guide to Port-Orford-cedar
plant associations in northwest California. R5-ECOL-TP-002. San Francisco, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 117p.

Jimerson, T.M.; Hoover, L.D.; McGee, E.A.; DeNitto, G.; Creasy, R.M.; Daniel, S.L. 1995. A
field guide to serpentine plant associations and sensitive plants in northwest California.
R5-ECOL-TP-006. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region. 338 p.

Jimerson, T.M.; McGee, E.A.; DeNitto, G. 2000. A supplement to: a field guide to Port-
Orford-cedar plant associations in northwest California. R5-ECOL-TP-006. San Francisco,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Jimerson, T.M.; McGee, E.A.; Jones, D.W.; Svilich, R.J.; Hotalen, E.; DeNitto, G.; Laurent,
T.; Tenpas, J.D.; Smith, M.E.; Heffner-McClellan, K.; Daniel, S.L. 1996. A field guide to the
tanoak and the Douglas-fir plant associations in northwest California. R5-ECOL-TP-009.
San Francisco, CA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Region. 546 p.

Kagan, J. 1990a. Draft species management guide for Epilobium oreganum Greene.
Developed for the Siskiyou National Forest and Medford District of the Bureau of Land
Management. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers
National Forest Supervisor's Office, Eureka, CA.

Kagan, J. 1990b. Draft species management guide for Gentiana setigera Wats. Developed
for the Siskiyou National Forest and Medford District of the Bureau of Land
Management. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers
National Forest Supervisor's Office, Eureka, CA.

Kagan, J. 1996. Draft Conservation Agreement for Hastingsia bracteosa, H. atropurpurea,
Gentiana setigera, Epilobium oreganum, and Viola primulifolia var. occidentalis and serpentine
Darlingtonia fens and wetlands from southwestern Oregon and northwestern California.
On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest
Supervisor's Office, Eureka, CA.

McNab, H.W.; Avers, P.E., comps. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section
descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service. 267 p.

Miles, S.R.; Goudey, C.B., comps. 1997. Ecological subregions of California. R5-EM-TP-
005. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Region. 233 p.

Millar, C.I; Delany, D.L.; Westfall, R.D.; Atzet, T.; Jimerson, T.; Greenup, M. 1991.
Ecological factors as indicators of genetic diversity in Port-Orford-cedar: applications
to genetic conservation. Administrative report. 3 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon
Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Rare, threatened and endangered plants and
animals of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 94 p.

Skinner, M.W.; Pavlik, B.M., eds. 1994. California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare
and endangered vascular plants of California. Sacramento, CA..

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Ecoregions of western Washington and
Oregon. Map, 1:1,350,000. Corvallis, OR: National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory.

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

Chapter 3

Phytophthora lateralis and
Other Agents that Damage

Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction 35

Taxonomy 35

Life Cycle 35

Mode of Transport 38

Genetic Variation 40

Disease Identification and Detection 41

Characteristics of Long-Term Infestation 42

Additional Agents Affecting Port-Orford-Cedar 42

Literature Cited 43

Authors: Donald J. Goheen, Michael G. McWilliams, Peter A. Angwin, and Donald L. Rose

June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Latids

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar root disease is caused by the pathogen Phytophthora lateralis. The
name Phytophthora means "plant destroyer," and the genus contains many destructive
plant pathogens that are distributed throughout the world. Plant diseases often are most
damaging when non-native pathogens are introduced into new areas. The Irish potato
famine of the 1840s caused by P. infestans (Mont.) de Barry and the current mortality of
a large number of plant species in Australia due to P. cinnamomi Rands, provide graphic
examples of the destruction that introduced Phytophthora species can cause. Although the
origin of P. lateralis is unknown, it is likely that the current mortality of Port-Orford-cedar
is another example of damage due to such an introduction.

Many investigators believe that P. lateralis is an Asian species (Tucker and Milbrath 1942,
Zobel et al. 1985) although the pathogen has not been found in Asia. Europe has been
suggested as another possible point of origin (Erwin and Ribeiro 1996) and investigators
have confirmed the identity of P. lateralis isolated from container-grown Port-Orford-
cedar seedlings in France. However, it is strongly believed that its presence there
resulted from a recent introduction from North America rather than a natural occurrence
(Hansen et al. 1999). Another theory is that P. lateralis may have originated from some
location in North America outside the native range of Port-Orford-cedar, possibly on
yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis [Lam.] Sudw.)1. However, infected yellow
cedars have only been observed under laboratory conditions (Torgeson et al. 1954) and
when the species was planted with Port-Orford-cedar on heavily infested experimental
sites (Mc Williams 2000a). They have not been found in natural stands.

P. lateralis has a narrow host range. Besides Port-Orford-cedar, only Pacific yew (Taxus
brevifolia) has been reported to be infected in the wild (DeNitto and Kliejunas 1991,
Kliejunas 1994). Pacific yew is much less susceptible to the pathogen than Port-Orford-
cedar, and evidence indicates that it mainly becomes infected when in close association
with many already-infected cedars (Murray and Hansen 1997). Outside of the native
range of Port-Orford-cedar, P. lateralis has been identified on ornamental Port-Orford-
cedar in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and northern California. The pathogen
has also been reported in other states, as well as other countries, including New Zealand,
Germany and France. It has been confirmed only in France (Hansen et al. 1999).

Taxonomy

P. lateralis is an Ooomycete belonging to the family Pythiaceae. Formerly considered to
be true fungi, it is now known that Oomycetes are quite different. Although they are
somewhat fungus-like, Oomycetes are more closely related to biflagellate algae than to
fungi (Beakes 1987, Dick 1982). It is now generally accepted that Oomycetes constitute
a separate kingdom from the fungi (Cavalier-Smith 1986, Dick 1995, Erwin and Ribeiro
1996, Parker 1982).

Life Cycle

All Phytophthoras exist primarily as hyphae, or thin threads of fungus-like material
adjacent to and within their host. Aggregations of hyphae are known as mycelia.
Mycelia, if fragmented or transported along with pieces of host plant, can serve to move
the pathogen to new locations. Mycelia are somewhat fragile and die when exposed
to drying conditions. Several spore types form as specialized structures attached to
Phytophthora mycelia.

'Roth, L.F.; Goheen, D.J. 1977. Personal communication. Roth, retired, Plant Pathologist, Oregon State University. Goheen, Pathologist, USDA

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Most Phytophthoras have four spore types, with different environmental tolerances
and functions: zoosporangia, zoospores, chlamydospores, and oospores (fig. 3.1).
Zoosporangia (often simply called sporangia) are thin-walled sacs that form at the
ends of mycelial branches. In some species, these sporangia can break off (caducous
sporangia) and be readily spread overland by water or wind to infect new hosts.
Although there are reports of P. lateralis infecting Port-Orford-cedar foliage via rain
splash on rare occasions (Roth et al. 1957), there appears to be little evidence that the
pathogen produces caducous sporangia in nature. Caducous sporangia are produced by
P. lateralis in culture under some conditions, but the significance of this for field situations
is unclear.2

Sporangia can also remain attached to the original mycelium and the contents can
differentiate into zoospores. When mature, and generally in the presence of free water,
the zoospores are released (fig. 3.2). Zoospores lack cell walls, are very delicate and
have two flagella. They can swim for several hours before forming cysts, but can only
travel an inch or two in standing water (Carlile 1983). Zoospores also have the ability
to detect compounds released by a host and swim in the direction of the host. Upon
contact with a host rootlet, the zoospore will attach itself and germinate. If a host rootlet
is not found, other surfaces are contacted, or agitation occurs, a zoospore will form
a cyst. When encysted, it can be carried considerable distances in running water. In
contact with a host, the cyst can germinate and form a mycelium that infects the host,
or it can form another sporangium and release more zoospores. Infection by sporangia
and zoospores of P. lateralis occurs primarily through the succulent growing tips of small
Port-Orford-cedar rootlets that occur in the duff or at shallow depths in soil. Port-Orford-
cedar produces a multitude of fine rootlets in these strata (Gordon and Roth 1976, Zobel

zoosporangmm con
/ zoospot

Figure 3.1 — Spore types of Phytophthora lateralis

2 Hansen, E.M. 1998. Personal communication. Professor of Forest Pathology, Oregon State University, Department of Botany and Plant
Pathology, Corvallis, OR.

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

et al. 1985). Sporangial development and zoospore production are favored by cool,
moist conditions and are optimal at temperatures between 50° F and 68° F (Trione 1974).
Under favorable cool, wet conditions, P. lateralis populations can increase rapidly in areas
where hosts are numerous because of the rapid and continuing production of flagellate
zoospores and other spore types.

Chlamydospores are thick-walled vegetative spores (fig. 3.1). In P. lateralis cultures,
they form abundantly and are laterally attached to the mycelium. Chlamydospores are
more resistant to drying and temperature extremes than mycelia or sporangia. They can
germinate directly and form infective mycelia or, in the presence of water, they can form
sporangia and release zoospores. Ostrofsky et al. (1977) showed that, under laboratory
conditions, P. lateralis populations detected by baiting3 decreased substantially when
unfavorably warm, dry conditions typical of summer months in the range of Port-Orford-
cedar occurred. However, the pathogen survived at a reduced level as chlamydospores
in organic matter, especially in small roots on infected trees and fragments of roots in
the surrounding soil. Hansen and Hamm (1996) have demonstrated that P. lateralis
can survive in infected Port-Orford-cedar roots and root fragments for at least seven
years under favorable conditions. P. lateralis chlamydospores are incapable of direct
movement, but their structure provides protection during passive movement in infected
roots or organic material in soil and mud.

The fourth spore type produced by Phytophthora species is the oospore, which is a sexual
spore. P. lateralis is homothallic, meaning a mycelium resulting from a single zoospore
can form oospores without another mating type being present. The oospore is the spore
stage most resistant to drying and environmental extremes, and can survive for many
years before germinating. As with the other spore stages, an oospore can germinate

Figure 3.2 — Phytophthora sporangia containing zoospores

3 Baiting is a type of bio-assay that uses Port-Orford-cedar seedlings to determine the presence of Phytophthora lateralis. Non-resistant Port-
Orford-cedar seedlings are planted in soil or placed in streams where P. lateralis is suspected to occur. After an exposure period of four to
eight weeks, the seedlings are recollected and examined for cambial stain, a diagnostic symptom of infection by P. lateralis. To confirm the
diagnosis, root tissue from a subsample of seedlings is cultured on a selective media and examined under a microscope for the sporangia
characteristic of P. lateralis.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

directly to form a mycelium, or produce sporangia and zoospores. Oospores are rarely
seen in cultures of P. lateralis unless a special medium is used, and their importance in the
life cycle of this species in the forest is unknown.

Mode of Transport

Long distance spread of P. lateralis results from moving infected seedlings or infested
soil into previously disease-free sites. Humans have been the primary vectors of the
pathogen. Major spread in forests has occurred via earth movement in road construction,
road maintenance, mining, logging, and traffic flow on forest roads (Kliejunas 1994, Roth
et al. 1957, Roth et al. 1972) (fig. 3.3). In general, the pathogen has not spread into areas
where a lack of access has prevented human activity. Movement of the pathogen in
organic matter in soil clinging to the feet of elk, cattle, and humans also is known to occur
but on a much more localized basis than that associated with vehicles (Harvey et al. 1985,
Kliejunas 1994, Kliejunas and Adams 1980, Roth et al. 1972). Spread of P. lateralis occurs
primarily in the late fall, winter, and early spring when the cool, moist environmental
conditions favorable for the pathogen prevail. Unless there are unusually wet conditions,
little or no spread occurs in the hot, dry summer months.

Once infested soil is deposited along a road or trail, P. lateralis can travel down slope in
water. In order to facilitate further spread, this relatively small amount of inoculum must
encounter a new Port-Orford-cedar host in the immediate area. Port-Orford-cedar is not
usually infected more than 40 feet downslope from roads or trails, except where streams,
culverts, wet areas or other roads are present to facilitate further dispersal (Goheen et

al. 1986). Infection of a new
host in the immediate vicinity
of the road or trailside results
in the production of numerous
additional zoospores and
chlamydospores, increasing the
likelihood of further downslope
disease spread (Goheen et al.
1986, Hansen 1993). Preliminary
study results show that Port-
Orford-cedar can be infected
at least 164 feet down a stream
below a road crossing (Jules and
Kauffman, 1999). Anecdotal
evidence implies that disease
spread may be much further.

While swimming zoospores
may travel downstream in freely
moving water, spread of the
disease over longer distances is
most likely accomplished by the
more resilient chlamydospores
and encysted zoospores. If by
chance these spores encounter

Figure 3.3 — Favorable conditions
for spreading Phytophthora
lateralis by vehicles

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

a new Port-Orford-cedar host, they may germinate and form mycelium that initiates
infection. Alternately, chlamydospores and encysted zoospores may germinate to
produce additional sporangia and swimming zoospores. If released near a new host,
these zoospores may swim the remaining short distance to initiate infection.

In virtually all cases, infection of Port-Orford-cedar by P. lateralis occurs in areas where
obvious avenues for water-borne spore dispersal exist. Infection is dependent on the
presence of free water in the immediate vicinity of susceptible tree roots (fig. 3.4). High
risk areas for infestation include stream courses, drainages, low lying areas downslope
from existing centers of infestation, and areas below roads and trails where inoculum
is introduced. The position of previously disease-killed cedars along the length of
the stream channel is not necessarily a good predictor of the sequence of infection, as
trees upstream are not always infected earlier than those located further downstream.
However, it has been found that trees nearer to the center of the stream channel become
infected earlier than those growing farther away from the stream (Kaufmann and Jules
1999). The spread of disease within a stream appears to follow a classic epidemic pattern,
with levels low in the first years, increasing to a maximum number of new infections, and
then decreasing again in subsequent years (Kaufmann and Jules 1999).

Topography has a considerable influence on the spread of the pathogen. Steep slopes,
dissected by drainages, can quickly channel infested water into streams whereas cross
slope spread is more restricted. On broad slopes or flat areas, infested water may spread
out over larger areas and move more slowly. Because they are easily flooded, concave
areas with Port-Orford-cedar are very vulnerable to infestation. Cedar on convex slopes,
on the other hand, exhibits limited vulnerability. Port-Orford-cedar growing on sites or
micro sites that are unfavorable for spread of the pathogen often escape infection, even
in areas where infected trees are nearby. Tree-to-tree spread of P. lateralis via mycelial
growth across root contact does occur (Gordon and Roth 1976) but is considered to be
much less significant in the epidemiology of the pathogen than spread by spores in free
water.

Figure 3.4 — Phytophthora lateralis infected root

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Genetic Variation

Relatively few studies have focused on the genetics of P. lateralis; however, the question
of variation in isolates of the pathogen is an important one. It is necessary to know the
range of variability in pathogenicity and virulence among isolates so that appropriate
resistance can be incorporated into the ongoing Port-Orford-cedar breeding program.
It is also necessary to know the variation in virulence so that appropriate isolates can
be used in testing for resistance. The amount of genetic variation among isolates will
offer important data for determining population structure of P. lateralis and whether the
pathogen exhibits a simple structure compatible with the idea of introduction. If genetic
information is consistent with the idea that this pathogen was introduced to North
America, then it should support efforts to determine its origin, and give some basis for
comparison if that location is ever found.

Some studies examining spore production, growth, lesion length produced on inoculated
hosts, uniformity of isozyme profiles, and DNA fingerprinting have been conducted
on P. lateralis. In a comparison of ten isolates from Oregon, nine isolates were found
similar in sporangia production and all ten produced oospores equally well. The isolates,
however, varied in chlamydospore production (Trione 1959). In 1991, a study of 11
isolates from Oregon and California showed identical isozyme banding patterns (Mills
et al. 1991). A study in 1990 demonstrated the lack of variability among 23 isolates
collected from throughout the range of Port-Orford-cedar (Hansen unpublished). Only
one isolate grew more slowly than the others. There were significant, but unrepeatable,
differences in zoospore production but no differences among total protein and isozyme
bands. The one isolate that grew more slowly also caused significantly shorter lesions
in inoculation tests. The authors suggest that a simple difference in growth rate could
produce differences in zoospore production and pathogenicity. A recent study compared
growth rates, virulence, and DNA fingerprints among 1 3 isolates of P. lateralis collected
from Canada to California (McWilliams 2000a , b). Isolates were grown on two types of
agar and were from three hosts: naturally infected Port-Orford-cedar and Pacific yew,
and experimentally infected yellow cedar. To examine any differences in virulence, three
inoculation methods were used. One method involved inserting a block of mycelium
under the bark of rooted cuttings, a second method involved inoculating detached
stems with zoospores, and a third method involved inoculating intact root systems with
zoospores. Results showed some differences in growth rates but nearly identical DNA
banding patterns. One isolate, of the 13 used, produced significantly shorter lesions
in the inoculation experiment. There were no differences in the lesion lengths of other
isolates.

The near uniformity of DNA fingerprints and isozyme profiles in the studies previously
described suggests limited genetic variability in the P. lateralis found in the native range
of Port-Orford-cedar. The genetic uniformity found in P. lateralis, combined with the
extreme susceptibility of the host, provides evidence that this pathogen was probably
introduced into the Port-Orford-cedar native range. Given the genetic uniformity of
this pathogen, it is interesting to note the significant difference in virulence found in one
isolate in the 2000 study. This difference may be due to diminished virulence attributable
to lengthy storage conditions or other factors. The differences in lesion length when
roots and shoots are exposed to zoospore inoculum may be due to differences in the
susceptibility of roots and stems, differences in host mechanisms to limit growth in the
different plant tissues, or because of variations in the inoculation technique or number of
zoospores in the inoculum.

The lack of genetic variability in P. lateralis suggests that if Port-Orford-cedar trees
resistant to the pathogen can be found or developed through a breeding program, the
resistance should have a strong likelihood of persisting over time.

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

There remain unanswered questions about the biology and epidemiology of P. lateralis.
The role of the occasionally caducous sporangia in long distance spread along
watercourses may be important. Oospores may form more readily in the forest than in
the laboratory, and the role of these oospores in long-term survival is not known. The
prevalence of less virulent isolates is not known. It is interesting to speculate about the
isolates that are indistinguishable using DNA fingerprints, isozymes, or total proteins,
but exhibit differences in virulence. It is possible that passage through certain hosts,
storage conditions, or virus infections could have led to reduced virulence. Fundamental
questions remain concerning the origin of the species, variability in the native range, and
resistance mechanisms of the native host.

Disease Identification and Detection

Port-Orford-cedar root disease is identified in the field by: (a) the rapid death of
individual hosts, (b) the almost exclusive occurrence on Port-Orford-cedar, (c) the
characteristic distribution of the disease in sites favorable for the water-borne spread
of the pathogen, and (d) the distinctive symptoms that P. lateralis causes on infected
trees (Zobel et al. 1985). Crowns of infected trees first fade slightly or appear somewhat
wilted. They subsequently change color from their normal green or blue green to
yellowish gold, bronze, reddish brown, and finally dull brown. Symptoms manifest
themselves rapidly and tree death occurs quickly in seedlings and saplings during
periods when warm, dry weather develops after infection. With such trees, the entire
progression of symptoms may occur within two to three weeks. Large Port-Orford-cedar
die much more slowly, declining over periods of one to four years. Signs of infection
in Port-Orford-cedar roots include loss of luster of root tips, water-soaking of rootlets,
and death and decay of roots. The bark on main roots may darken or turn somewhat
purplish. Mycelia of the pathogen grow in the inner bark and cambium of hosts,
colonizing and killing much of the root systems, and ultimately girdling the main stems
in the lower boles. In live Port-Orford-
cedar exhibiting crown symptoms, a
distinctive cinnamon-colored stain that
abuts abruptly against healthy cream-
colored inner bark is apparent at or
above the root collar (fig. 3.5). This
stain, which can be followed down
into the roots, is considered diagnostic
of infection by P. lateralis. Once a Port-
Orford-cedar dies, the inner bark of
the entire bole turns brown, and it is
no longer possible to use presence of
staining as an identification tool.

There are several additional techniques
available for detecting the presence
of P. lateralis. The pathogen can
be isolated from symptomatic and
recently killed trees on a selective
medium such as cornmeal agar
amended with pimaricin, rifampicin,
and ampicilin (CARP medium).
Currently, Port-Orford-cedar seedlings

Figure 3.5 — Cambial stain on
infected Port-Orford-cedar

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Or ford-Cedar on Federal Lands

are used as baits to determine occurrence and quantity of P. lateralis inoculum in soil
and water. The presence of P. lateralis is confirmed by isolation from bait seedlings onto
CARP medium. A soil assessment method using tree branchlets floated over water
amended with hymexazol and transferred to CARP medium was also developed by
Hamm and Hansen (1984).

A Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) DNA test for P. lateralis is currently being designed,
developed and tested at Oregon State University (Winton and Hansen 2000, Winton and
Hansen 2001). Early results of trials with this method demonstrate that it can be used to
identify P. lateralis from both root and stem tissues. Early results indicate this test may
become a more sensitive and accurate test than traditional culturing techniques and can
reduce by several days the time needed to identify the pathogen. This technique can
be performed upon soils by processing foliage baits and may be usable for detecting P.
lateralis in infested stream water.

Characteristics of Long-Term Infestation

Port-Orford-cedar root disease centers consist of variable-sized groups of dead and
dying trees. Port-Orford-cedar is a prolific seed producer, and new regeneration of
the host often becomes established in infestation centers. This regeneration usually
becomes infected, in turn, resulting in chronic disease expression. Because of its ability
to reproduce at an early age, produce large numbers of seeds, and because many trees
that occur on sites with characteristics unfavorable for the spread of P. lateralis completely
escape infection, Port-Orford-cedar has not yet been eliminated by the pathogen in any
significant portion of its range. Nonetheless, P. lateralis has caused substantial amounts
of mortality on individual infested sites and has greatly influenced stand structure by
killing large trees and preventing small trees from attaining large size. The disease can
greatly influence the ecological roles of Port-Orford-cedar, particularly in streamside
areas where conditions are favorable for spread of the pathogen.

Additional Agents Affecting
Port-Orford-cedar

Except for P. lateralis, Port-Orford-cedar has few significant enemies. Cedar bark beetles
(Phloeosinus spp., especially P. sequoiae Hopkins) infect some trees, but usually only trees
with much reduced vigor. They rarely kill trees by themselves, but commonly administer
the coup de grace to Port-Orford-cedar infected by P. lateralis. Port-Orford-cedar is a
remarkably decay resistant species. Several decay fungi, including Phellinus pini (Thore:
Fr.) Pilat and Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref., have been found on Port-Orford-cedar,
but are uncommon and appear to have little impact. Grey mold (caused by Botrytis
cinerea Pers.: Fr.), cypress canker (caused by Seridium cardinale (W. Wagner) Sutton & I.
Gibson), and root disease (caused by P. cinnamomi) are problems in nurseries but rarely
cause widespread devastation. Black bears (Ursus americanus Pallas) often peel bark and
feed on the cambium of trees in early spring, causing extensive local damage to Port-
Orford-cedar. Port-Orford-cedars, especially those occurring on drier sites, may succumb
to drought during periods of protracted dry weather. Drought may also predispose
cedars to attack by bark beetles or woodborers.

47.

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

Literature Cited

Beakes, G.W. 1987. Oomycete phylogeny; ultrastructural perspectives. In: Rayner, A.D.M.;
Braiser, CM.; Moore, D., eds. Evolutionary biology of the fungi. Cambridge University
Press: 405-421.

Carlile, M.J. 1983. Motility, taxis, and tropism in Phytophthora. In: Erwin, D.C.; Bartnicki-
Garcia, S.; Tsao, P.H., eds. Phytophthora: its biology, taxonomy, ecology, and pathology. St.
Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society: 95-107.

Cavalier-Smith, T. 1986. The kingdom Chromista: origin and systematics. In: Round, L;
Chapman, D.J., eds. Progress in phycological research. Bristol, England: Biopress. Vol. 4.
481 p.

DeNitto, G.; Kliejunas, J.T. 1991. First report of Phytophthora lateralis on pacific yew
[Abstract]. Plant Disease 75:968.

Dick, M.W. 1982. Oomycetes. In: Parker, I.S.P., ed. Synopsis and classification of living
organisms. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.: 179-180.

Dick, M.W. 1995. Sexual reproduction in the Peronosporales (chromistan fungi).
Canadian Journal of Botany 73:5712-5724.

Erwin, D.C.; Ribeiro, O.K. 1996. Phytophthora diseases worldwide. Saint Paul, MN:
American Phytopathological Society 562 p.

Goheen, E.M.; Cobb, D.F.; Forry K. 1986. Roadside surveys for Port-Orford-cedar root
disease on the Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Administrative
report. On file with: Southwest Oregon Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert
Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502. 19p.

Gordon, D.E.; Roth, L.F. 1976. Root grafting in Port-Orford-cedar : an infection route for
root rot. Forest Science 22:276-278.

Hamm, P.B.; Hansen, E.M. 1984. Improved method for isolating Phytophthora lateralis
from soil. Plant Disease 68:517-519.

Hansen, E.M. 1993. Roadside surveys for Port-Orford-cedar root disease on the Powers
Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Unpublished report. 17p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease
Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, P.B. 1996. Survival of Phytophthora lateralis in infected roots of Port-
Orford-cedar. Plant Disease 80:1075-1078.

Hansen, E.M.; Streito, J.C.; Delator, C 1999. First confirmation of Phytophthora lateralis in
Europe. Plant Disease 83:587.

Harvey, R.D.; Hadfield, J.H.; Greenup, M. 1985. Port-Orford-cedar root rot on the
Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Administrative report. 17 p. On file with: Southwest
Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old
Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Jules, E.; Kaufmann, M. July, 1999. Reconstructing historical spread of Phytophthora
lateralis. I: Patterns of infection between populations of Port-Orford-cedar. Presentation
at The Ecology and Pathology of Port-Orford-cedar: A Symposium. Sponsored by U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior, Gold Beach, OR.

Kaufmann, M.; Jules, E. July, 1999. Reconstructing historical spread of Phytophthora
lateralis. II. Infection dynamics along a stream population of Port-Orford-cedar.
Presentation at The Ecology and Pathology of Port-Orford-cedar: A Symposium.
Sponsored by U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior, Gold
Beach, OR.

Kliejunas, J.T. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. Fremontia 22:3-11.

Kliejunas, J.T; Adams, D.H. 1980. An evaluation of Phytophthora root rot of Port-Orford-
cedar in California. Forest Pest Management Report No. 80-1 . San Francisco, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5. 16 p.

McWilliams, M.G. 2000a. Port-Orford-cedar and Phytophthora lateralis: grafting and
heritability of resistance in the host and variation in the pathogen. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University. PhD thesis.

McWilliams, M.G. 2000b. Variation in Phytophthora lateralis. In: Hansen and Sutton, eds.
Proceedings of the first international meeting on Phytophthoras in forest and wildland
ecosystems, IUFRO working party 7.02.09. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest
Research Laboratory: 50-55.

Mills, S.D.; Foster, H.; Coffey, M.D. 1991. Taxonomic structure of Phytophthora cryptogea
and P. drechsleri based on isozyme and mitochondrial DNA analyses. Mycological
Research 95:31-48.

Murray, M.S.; Hansen, E.M. 1997. Susceptibility of pacific yew to Phytophthora lateralis.
Plant Disease 81:1400-1404.

Ostrofsky, W.D.; Pratt, R.G.; Roth, L.F 1977. Detection of Phytophthora lateralis in soil
organic matter and factors that affect its survival. Phytopathology 67:79-84.

Parker, I.S.P., ed. 1982. Synopsis and classification of living organisms. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1166 p.

Roth, L.F.; Bynum, H.H.; Nelson, E.E. 1972. Phytophthora root rot of Port-Orford-cedar.
Forest Pest Leaflet 131. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.

Roth, L.F; Trione, E.J.; Ruhmann, W.H. 1957. Phytophthora induced root rot of native Port-
Orford-cedar. Journal of Forestry. 55:294-298.

Torgeson, D.C.; Young, R.A.; Milbrath, J.A. 1954. Phytophthora root rot diseases of Lawson
cypress and other ornamentals. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State College, Agricultural
Experiment Station. Bulletin 537. 18 p.

Trione, E.J. 1959. The pathology of Phytophthora lateralis on native Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana. Phytopathology 49:306-310.

Trione, E.J. 1974. Sporulation and germination of Phytophthora lateralis. Phytopathology
64:1531-1533.

Chapter 3 — Phytophthora lateralis and Other Agents that Damage Port-Orford-Cedar

Tucker, CM.; Milbrath, J.A. 1942. Root rot of Chamaecyparis caused by a species of
Phytophthora. Mycologia. 34:94-103.

Winton, L.M.; Hansen, E.M. 2000. PCR diagnosis of Phytophthora lateralis. In: Hansen
and Sutton, eds. Proceedings of the first international meeting on Phytophthoras in forest
and wildland ecosystems, IUFRO working party 7.02.09. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University, Forest Research Laboratory: 148-149.

Winton, L.M.; Hansen, E.M. 2001. Molecular diagnosis of Phytophthora lateralis in trees,
water, and foliage baits using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Forest Pathology 31 :
275-283.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Chapter 4

Impacts of

Phytophthora lateralis

on Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction 49

Extent of Infestation 49

Geographic Information System Mapping Methodologies 51

Location by Land Allocation 51

California Port-Orford-Cedar Plant Associations with More Than 10 percent

P. lateralis Infestation 52

Rate of Spread 52

Status of Infestation Relative to Roads 57

Landscape Level Impacts of Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease 59

Coquille River Falls Research National Area 59

Powers Roads 59

Smith River Watershed 60

Literature Cited 60

Authors: Kirk C. Casavan, Diane E. White, Donald J. Goheen, and Donald L. Rose

June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Much of the impetus to undertake a range-wide assessment of Port-Orford-cedar came
from questions on the extent of infection caused by Phytophthora lateralis, and the impacts
of the pathogen on Port-Orford-cedar as a species.

Extent of Infestation

Approximately nine percent of mapped Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Port-Orford-cedar land in Oregon and California is mapped as infested with
P. lateralis and has dead and dying Port-Orford-cedar trees4 (figs. 4.1 and 4.2).

Figure 4.1 — Port-Orford-cedar killed by Phytophthora lateralis. Note proximity to
road and poorly drained spot where water has puddled.

4 GIS analysis designed by Kirk Casavan and Don Rose; conducted by Debra Kroeger; based on the Port-Orford-cedar Range-wide Geographic
Information Systems Layer on Federal Lands.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Or ford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Port Orford Cedar
and Root Disease
on Federal Lands

CH State line
tSt Cities
A/ Highway

r~1 Port Orford Cedar
2] Phytophthora lateralis

OREGON

Pacific
Ocean

Figure 4.2 — Healthy and infected Port-Orford-cedar on federal lands

An analysis5 from northern California, the most heavily infested area on federal lands,
shows most of the infestation is in three, fifth-field watersheds. The South Fork Smith
River is 37 percent infested, the Middle Fork Smith River, 34 percent infested, and the
Lower Smith River is 21 percent infested. Within Oregon, the most infested area is in
the Siskiyou Mountains ecoregion where the Williams Creek watershed is 15 percent
infested.

1 GIS analysis designed by Kirk Casavan and Don Rose; conducted by Debra Kroeger; based on the Port-Orford-cedar Range-wide Geographic
Information Systems Layer on Federal Lands.

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Geographic Information System Mapping
Methodologies

Mapping of P. lateralis infestations has been accomplished in a variety of ways. On the
Siskiyou National Forest, roadside surveys were first conducted in 1964 and continue
to today. Visual observations of the occurrence and estimated locations of dead Port-
Orford-cedar were noted and entered into the Geographic Information System (GIS).
In 2002, the Powers Ranger District of the Siskiyou National Forest also used photo
interpretation and field verification to further refine District diseased and healthy Port-
Orford-cedar locations. National Forests in California utilized ecological mapping
techniques for estimating the occurrence of disease. The BLM, using roadside surveys
and aerial photo interpretation, mapped Port-Orford-cedar root disease locales and
compiled this information for Oregon into GIS by 1998. Since 1998, the Coos Bay,
Medford and Roseburg Districts have made several subsequent updates, using these
survey techniques as well as integrating current observations made from on-going data
collection, such as from silvicultural stand exams and timber sale cruise data.

Mapping locations of healthy Port-Orford-cedar is more difficult because it is more
difficult to see, both on the ground as well as in aerial photographs. The Forest
Service and BLM have used general roadside surveys to estimate where healthy Port-
Orford-cedar grows. The BLM defined the intersection of uninfested road segments
with individual timber stands (based upon the Forest Operations Inventory) as the
approximate mapped locations of healthy Port-Orford-cedar. National Forests in
California performed field work involving ecological mapping to approximate the locales
of healthy Port-Orford-cedar.

The resulting comparisons of diseased and healthy acres of Port-Orford-cedar produced
the range-wide estimate of nine percent infestation of Port-Orford-cedar.

Location by Land Allocation

Infestation is not restricted to any land allocation (table 4.1).

Eighty percent of the range of Port-Orford-cedar on federal lands is in allocations that
are unlikely to be harvested (administratively withdrawn, late successional reserve, and
congressional withdrawals). Of particular interest, because of its ecological role, is the
health of Port-Orford-cedar in riparian areas. Riparian areas, as defined by National

Table 4.1 — Approximate percentages of acres in different federal land
allocations over the range of Port-Orford-cedar and percentage of those
acres inhabited by Port-Orford-cedar that are infested by P. lateralis

Allocation

Allocation Acres (percent) Diseased Acres (percent)

Late Successional Reserve
Matrix/Riparian
Congresionally Withdrawn
Administratively Withdrawn
Adaptive Management Area

58
19

17
5
1

9
8

6
4
14

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Forests and BLM Districts, make up about 40 percent of the area within the range of Port-
Orf ord-cedar. Within these riparian areas, a relatively high percentage of the area, about
13 percent, is infested. Outside of the riparian areas, only 5 percent of the area is infested.

California Port-Orford-Cedar Plant
Associations with More than 10 percent
P. lateralis Infestation

An analysis from California shows, at least in the California portion of the range of
Port-Orford-cedar, most of the infestation is in riparian areas (table 4.2). Seven plant
associations have at least 10 percent of their area infested.

Rate of Spread

Rate of spread of P. lateralis over the range of Port-Orford-cedar has been highly
variable from watershed to watershed. There is no determinable rate of spread which is
applicable range-wide. In some drainages, the rate of spread has been relatively rapid.

Data were collected during the infestation of the Smith River drainage in California from
1980 through 1999 (figs. 4.3 through 4.6). In 1980, infestation was present at about nine
small, isolated sites. Three years later, the sites had expanded in size and new sites were
evident. With 10 additional years, the infestation was almost continuous along several
waterways, and by 1999, the extent was quite broad. The pattern of spread in the Smith
River drainage started slowly in the first three years, then accelerated. It appeared to be
still spreading in 19996.

In the Williams Creek watershed, in Oregon, a high rate of spread was recorded over
three years. Of the 55 sites tested, 28 percent were infested in 1998, 33 percent in 1999,
and 40 percent in 20007.

Table 4.2 — Port-Orford-cedar plant communities at risk (more than 10 percent infested by
P. lateralis) in California (Jimerson et al. 1999)

Plant Association Percent of Area

Infested

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Coast Redwood/Evergreen Huckleberry 54%

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-California Bay/Evergreen Huckleberry 27%

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar- White Alder -Riparian 22%

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen Huckleberry-Western Azalea 17%

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine / Labrador Tea/California Pitcher Plant 15%

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine / Western Azalea-Dwarf Tanbark-Labrador Tea 12%

Port-Orford-cedar/Salal 11%

6 Rose, Donald L. 1999. Personal communication. Former Port-Orford-cedar Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest,
Grants Pass, OR. Currently environmental coordinator, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11 Avenue, Portland, OR 97232.

7 Betlejewski, Frank. 2001. Personal communication. Port-Orford-cedar Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Southwest Oregon Forest
Insect and Disease Service Center, 2606 Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Figure 4.3 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1980

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Historic Infestation
Smith River
1983

1:286230

* City
A/ Highway

Infested POC

Uninfested PO

National

State line
□ Smith River Wat

Figure 4.4 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1983

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Or ford-Cedar

Historic Infestation
Smith River
1993

* City
/V Highway
] infested POC
Uninfested PQ
National Forest
] State line
I I Smith River Wat

Figure 4.5 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1993

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Current Infestation
Smith River
1999

it City
A/ Highway
I Infested POC
I Uninfested PO
I I National Forest'lbo

I I State line

□ Smith River Wat

Figure 4.6 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1999

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Status of Infestation Relative to Roads

In California, most of the infested areas are in the northern part of the Six Rivers National
Forest (fig. 4.7). Most of the infestations are in roaded areas. A few infestations are in
areas that are roadless or behind barriers. The disjunct populations of Port-Orford-cedar
on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest are unprotected, yet uninfested. Some nearby
private lands along the Sacramento River are infested.

On the Siskiyou National Forest, most of the infested area is roaded (fig. 4.8). Only a
small amount of infestation is present in areas greater than 500 feet from a road or behind
a barrier.

On a smaller landscape scale, the Elk Creek watershed map shows the infestations clearly
associated with roaded areas and rivers or streams (fig. 4.9).

kbL

~2 Currently Infected
EZD Roadless/Wilderness
ED Roaded Area, No Roads within 500'
Behind Barriers

j RW, Road Above

I I In Channel,

At Risk From Infection Above
Roaded Area

Figure 4.7 — Condition of Port-Orford-cedar in National Forests in California relative to
factors that influence disease spread, 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Currently Infected

Roadless/Wi Iderness

Roaded Area, No Roads within 500'

Behind Barriers

R/w, Road Above

Below Sanitized Road

Potential Mitigation

At Risk From Infection Above

Roaded Area

Figure 4.8 — Condition of Port-Orford-cedar in the Siskiyou National Forest relative to
factors that influence disease spread, 2001

Chapter 4 — Impacts of Phytiphthora lateralis on Port-Orford-Cedar

Currently Infected

Roadless/Wilderness

Roaded Area, No Roads within 500'

Behind Barriers

Potential Mitigation

Roaded Area

I | Elk River Watershed Area

Figure 4.9 — Condition of Port-Orf ord-cedar in the Elk River Watershed, Siskiyou National Forest, relative to
factors that influence disease spread, 2001

Landscape Level Impacts of Port-Orford-
Cedar Root Disease

Results of several surveys demonstrate the kinds of impacts that P. lateralis can have
across a landscape:

Coquille River Falls Research National Area

Data from three inventory surveys done in 1958, 1986, and 1999 in the Research Natural
Area (RNA), with the goal of documenting the long-term effects of more than 45 years
of chronic infestation, suggest that the overall amount of infestation has remained more
or less constant since 1958 (Goheen et al. 1986b, Hansen 2000). Many Port-Orford-cedar
have survived in the RNA, though nearly all close to streams or other wet areas are dead.
In general, live Port-Orford-cedar is either upslope from water or in the headwaters
above the road locations.

Powers Roads

Surveys conducted along road sections that were infested since at least 1958 on the
Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, and in adjacent areas demonstrated
that substantial numbers of Port-Orford-cedar survived even though inoculum levels
in certain places along the roads obviously remained high. Disease-caused mortality
continued to occur, and there was progressive disease spread downslope (Goheen et al.
1986a, Hansen 1993).

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Smith River Watershed

P. lateralis spread within a watershed is shown in the historical mapping of the Smith
River drainage in California. The first occurrence of the pathogen in the Smith River
drainage is thought to have been in the early 1960s. These first observed disease centers
were small and confined to the lower Smith River in and around Crescent City8. A map
with periodic updates of pathogen spread was maintained beginning in 1980. New
mortality of Port-Orford-cedar was mapped in 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1998.
These infested areas were hand drawn on District maps and are rough estimates of
sizes and locations of the infestations. The maps provide a dramatic example of how
rapidly the pathogen can spread within and between drainages (figs. 4.3 through 4.6).
The pathogen spread from nine small confined areas in 1980 to more than 16 percent of
the watershed 20 years later. Pathogen spread appears greater in the mid- to late 1980s.
The rapid spread may have resulted from a rise in inoculum, causing a classic epidemic
curve, or an increase in the intensity of mapping efforts during this time. The latter
culminated in the mapping of all stands with at least 10 percent crown cover of Port-
Orford-cedar in 1998. The mapping in 1980 through 1989 delineated the occurrence of
dead Port-Orford-cedar and included areas with widely scattered or clumpy distribution.
In 1998, there was a total of 3,174 acres that had some level of disease-caused mortality
within the Smith River drainage.

Literature Cited

Goheen, E.M.; Cobb, D.F.; Forry, K. 1986a. Roadside surveys for Port-Orford-cedar root
disease on the Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Administrative
report. 19 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert
Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Goheen, E.M.; Cobb, D.F; Forry, K. 1986b. Survey of the Coquille River Falls Research
Natural Area. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. Administrative report. lOp. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest
Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

Hansen, E.M. 2000. Demographics of Port-Orford-cedar on sites infested with P. lateralis
for many years. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Unpublished report. 5 p. On
file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone
Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR

Jimerson, T.M.; McGee, E.A.; Jones, J.K. 1999. Port-Orford-cedar plant association
mapping in California. Eureka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six
Rivers National Forest. 37 p.

8 Wells, Ken. 1996. Personal communication. Retired. Timber Management Assistant, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5.
60

Chapter 5

Genetics of Port-
Orford-Cedar

Introduction 63

Importance of Genetic Resources 63

Genetic Structure of a Species 63

Measurement of Genetic Structure: genetic tests 64

Genetic Variability 65

Allozyme Studies 65

Common Garden Studies 66

Seed Zones and Breeding Zones 71

Port-Orford-Cedar Breeding Block Designations 71

Implications for Genetic Conservation 73

Literature Cited 73

Authors: Jay Kitzmiller, Richard A. Sniezko, James E. Hamlin, Roderick D. Stevens, and Kirk C. Casavan

June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Importance of Genetic Resources

In order to promote and sustain health, biodiversity, and productivity of public forest
resources, it is necessary to conserve the basic natural resources (water, soil, air,
elements, and biota) and their functional processes. The genetic materials of the biota
are fundamentally important natural resources, because genetic diversity among and
within species is the basis for all biological diversity. Genetic diversity is essential for
the survival and adaptation of species to new, changing environments. In addition,
genes program the structure, function, and response of individual organisms to their
environment. Together with other factors they determine the health and vigor of forest
stands.

Genetic materials are subjected to natural processes that need to be understood and
managed. The hereditary process, involving DNA self-replication and transmission of
exactly one-half of the genes from each parent to their offspring, provides continuity and
preservation of genetic material across generations and from cell to cell within the same
individual. Because of heredity, offspring tend to resemble their parents. Therefore, by
controlling the seed parents, managers can influence traits of the seedlot. In addition
to this stable hereditary process, there is an evolutionary process involving selection,
gene flow, mutation, and drift that cause changes in gene frequencies of populations.
Management activities may simulate evolutionary forces, e.g. transplanting is a gene flow
activity and selection of seed parents is a selection activity.

Genetic Structure of a Species

These evolutionary forces, plus
the mating pattern of the species,
results in a unique pattern of
genetic variation for each species.
Knowledge of the diversity and
distribution of genes among and
within populations of a species is
crucial to genetic management,
whether the purpose is to develop
strategies to conserve natural
populations or to improve breeding
populations. A genetic inventory
that describes the extent and pattern
of genetic variation across the range
of a species is one prerequisite to
protecting the adaptive structure
of a species and to monitoring
genetic changes due to pests, climate
extremes, and management practices.

Figure 5.1 — Port-Orford-cedar
branch bearing cones

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

In the major conifers, the genetic composition of natural populations usually changes
along environmental gradients (clinal variation pattern). Typically, forest trees adapt to
temperature and moisture gradients which, in turn, are often associated with geographic
variables such as elevation, latitude, or distance from the ocean. Trees may evolve
adaptations to rather abrupt and major changes in soil parent material over short
distances (edaphic ecotypic variation pattern). As a rule, trees become generally, but
not perfectly, adapted to local environments. This is because trees often require decades
to reproduce, the environment is constantly changing, and other forces (e.g. gene flow,
recombination, and genetic drift) may counteract the effects of selection. The genetic
gradients commonly follow paths from milder and more productive sites to harsher
and less productive environments. Parent trees from the mild, productive sites usually
produce offspring that are faster growing, grow for a longer period of time during the
year, and in some situations may be less resistant to drought and cold stress than those
from harsher environments.

Measurement of Genetic Structure: genetic tests

Genetic differentiation patterns in adaptive traits along geographic, elevational, and
edaphic gradients must be known before seed can be successfully transferred during
reforestation. The genetic architecture of commercial conifers in California and
Oregon has been well-studied using provenance field trials (common garden studies)
and electrophoretic analysis of certain enzymes (allozyme studies), the key tools for
measuring and understanding natural genetic variation patterns. DNA technologies are
now used to complement these two common methods.

Allozyme studies produce relatively quick and inexpensive results. Allozyme techniques
provide useful quantitative measures of genetic structure (pattern of variation among
and within populations), genetic diversity (heterozygosity), and mating system (outcross
percent) for certain enzymes. These enzymes are common to a wide variety of species,
and since they exhibit Mendelian genetics, they are called allozymes. The allozyme
parameters allow standards for comparisons across species and can provide quantitative
information about genetic systems that characterize different species. Some practical
limitations in allozyme studies are the small portion of the genome expressed, the
gene level of measurement, the neutrality of many allozyme genes, and the general
absence of measurement of adaptive traits. Allozyme studies are not a replacement for
common garden trials, because allozymes can not show adaptive responses of trees to
field environments and allozymes tend to underestimate variation among populations,
especially in conifers. However, multi-locus allozyme variation may indicate underlying
adaptive variation and therefore may be useful for delineating tentative breeding zones
when the multi-locus pattern is closely correlated to geographic or environmental
variables (Westfall and Conkle 1992).

Seed zoning must be primarily based on common garden field studies where whole plant
response can be evaluated. Common garden studies with multiple and contrasting test
environments provide direct comparisons of genetic materials for many adaptive traits
tested under field conditions. With seed sources tested over multiple sites, the pattern of
adaptive response can be determined for each seed source and then related to presumed
natural selective factors at point of origin. For example, if natural selection were a
primary force, the pattern of differences among populations for adaptive traits should
correspond with a pattern of environmental differences where populations originated.
Allozyme and common garden studies conducted together complement one another,
providing both basic genetic parameters and practical field expression of adaptive traits.

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar

Genetic Variability

During the previous two decades, several genecological studies have been conducted on
Port-Orford-cedar. Allozyme studies and common garden studies are two key tools used
for measuring and understanding natural genetic variation patterns.

Allozyme Studies

In 1991, investigators examined the allozyme variation of nine Port-Orford-cedar stands
in California that represented the extremes in elevation, latitude, and longitude of the
species range in that state (Millar and Marshall 1991). Seven of the stands were located
in the coastal range, while two came from interior, disjunct populations. Port-Orford-
cedar was found to be moderately variable in allozymes (less than widespread, dominant
species such as Douglas-fir). The inland populations differed in allele frequencies from
coastal populations, being more monomorphic, had higher frequency of common alleles,
and had a lower percent of polymorphic loci. In addition, the inland populations were,
on the average, only one-half as variable as the most variable coastal population. Not
only was there a clear separation between coastal and inland groups, but also the two
inland populations were distinct from each other. On the average, for all stands studied,
5 percent of the total allozyme variation was attributed to differences among stands and
95 percent to differences within stands. Much greater differences occurred among stands
in the inland than in the coastal group, suggesting that inland populations may have
been isolated from each other long enough for genetic drift or selection effects to cause
differentiation. As a group, the inland populations within the Sacramento and Trinity
River drainages (Trinity and Scott Mountains) had greater genetic diversity among
stands and less within stands. Within the coastal group, the Horse Mountain population
had enough unique alleles and divergent frequencies to be relatively distinct from other
coastal populations. The Shelly Creek population displayed high genetic diversity within
its stands.

Millar et al. (1991) examined the relationship between allozyme diversity and ecological
diversity (soil and elevation). To determine if there was a correlation within a local
area, foliage was sampled from trees along the Middle Fork and South Fork of the Smith
River, at low and high elevations, and on fertile and ultramafic soils. These contrasts
have been found by ecologists to significantly discriminate between Port-Orford-cedar
plant associations in northwestern California. Ecological data for stands between plant
associations were strongly differentiated by elevation and soil fertility, and Millar et al's
(1991) results showed strong correlations of allozyme diversity with ecological habitat
over short distances.

Elevation was a stronger factor than soil type in determining genetic differentiation (48
percent of the genotypes were different between elevations). The effect of soil type varied
depending on elevation. At low elevations, differences between soil types were nearly as
great as the overall elevation effect, but at high elevation the soil effect was relatively low.
At low elevations, the mismatch of genotypes between soil types was 49 percent, while
at high elevation the mismatch was only 14 percent. Thus, habitat conditions at high
elevations were apparently severe enough for selection to mask or override the effect of
soil type. Soil fertility more strongly separated plant associations than genetic data.

There was a trend in both plant associations and genetic data (weaker in genetic data)
for higher diversity at low elevations. This study suggested that seed collected from
coastal California should be identified by elevational zones and, at the low elevations, by
ultramafic and non-ultramafic soils.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

In 1992, investigators once again examined allozyme variation of Port-Orford-cedar
stands, but on a much wider scale (Millar, et al. 1992). The sources came from 46 stands
in California and 36 stands in Oregon. Additional single-tree collections were made to
fill gaps between stands and to sample unusual sites. The mean allozyme diversity was
slightly higher for Oregon than for California stands, but with the range of diversity
among stands in California being greater. Low within-stand diversity was found
scattered across the range in Oregon, but only occurred within the California groups of
stands in the Sacramento and Trinity drainages. In each state, the pattern of allozyme
variation among populations was strongly linked with latitude, longitude, and elevation.
In Oregon, the cline was strongest along north-south (latitude), weaker along east-
west (longitude), and weakest along elevational gradients. In California, the cline was
strongest along east-west (longitude) with elevation being a relatively strong determinant
of allozyme diversity.

Common Garden Studies

Despite their considerable utility, allozyme studies cannot show adaptive responses of
trees to field environments. Thus, in 1995, a major effort began to establish range-wide
common garden tests to further evaluate the genetic variability within Port-Orford-cedar.

Seed was collected from 344 healthy parent trees on federal land from 1991 through
1994 by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Stands were
sampled throughout much of the species' range from the extreme northwestern portion
(Oregon Dunes) to the extreme southeastern stands (Pond Lily Creek, Upper Trinity
River). Sample trees were grouped into 10 regional watersheds, six in Oregon and
four in California, and into 52 stands, 36 in Oregon and 16 in California. However, the
distribution of watersheds, stands within watersheds, and trees within stands, was
not even. Two different hierarchical models were employed to partition the genetic
effects: 1) ecological or watershed model with watersheds, stands, and families, and
2) a breeding model with breeding zones, seed zones, and families (tables 5.1 and 5.2).
The grouping of trees into four tentative breeding zones was based on combinations of
similar seed zones with boundaries as currently drawn (USDA 1969 and 1973). These
tentative breeding zones were compared to the ecological (watershed) model. In 1996,
a short-term and a long-term common garden study were established. The short-term
study was planted in raised beds at two nurseries using 298 of the families. Four sites
in 1996 and one site in 1998 were out-planted for the long-term study using 266 of the
families. In addition, the 344 families were tested for disease resistance (refer to
Chapter 6)9.

Short-term raised bed study design — In spring 1996, 1-0 seedlings grown in Korbel,
California, were transplanted to two locations, Dorena Tree Improvement Center, Cottage
Grove, Oregon, and Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville, California (figs. 5.2 and 5.3). The
Humboldt site is 1.9 miles from the ocean at 249 feet elevation.

The experimental design was a randomized, complete block with six blocks and 298
families. At Dorena, all blocks were located in raised beds with organic rooting medium,
but three blocks were shaded with 47 percent shade-cloth during the growing season (fig.
5.3). At Humboldt, three blocks were in conventional nursery beds with mineral soil,
while three blocks were in raised beds with organic rooting medium and partially shaded
by adjacent trees. The spacing of seedlings was slightly greater at Dorena's raised beds
compared to Humboldt's conventional beds and raised beds.

9 Through international cooperation in genetic conservation of forest trees, these seed sources and the study design were also replicated in
several out-plantings in Spain.

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Or -ford-Cedar

Table 5.1 — Port-Orford-cedar population samples by watershed for the common garden
study (ecological model)

Regional
Watershed

No. Stands

No. Trees Elevation Range

Latitude Range Longitude Range

(deg) (deg)

Trinity

5200-

- 5299 feet

41.0885

- 0.1255

122.4720

- 0.5301

Sacramento

3750-

- 5200 feet

41.2200

- 0.2500

122.3959

- 0.4600

Klamath

2999-

- 4501 feet

41.0000

- 0.8234

123.4651

- 0.9000

Smith

1319-

- 5200 feet

41.7237

- 0.9657

123.6493

- 124.0690

Illinois

3360-

- 3501 feet

42.0332

-0.1250

123.3553

- 0.5535

Applegate

2300-

- 4501 feet

42.1188 -

0.2073

123.2789

- 0.4057

Rogue

2178-

- 3599 feet

42.4277

-0.6917

123.7248

- 124.2843

Coquille

400-

2749 feet

42.7083

- 43.2600

123.7800

- 124.1333

Dunes

49-

194 feet

43.3400

- 0.4500

124.2500

- 0.3400

Table 5.2 — Port-Orford-cedar population samples by tentative breeding zones for the
common garden study (breeding model)

Breeding Zones

Seed Zones

Watersheds

Families
(no.)

North Coast

071,072,081

Dunes, Coquille, Sixes, Rogue

155

North Interior

511, 512

Applegate, Illinois, Smith

South Coast

091, 301, 302

Smith, Klamath

South Interior

331, 521

Trinity, Sacramento

Figure 5.2 — Raised bed, short-term common garden study at the Humboldt Nursery
site, McKinleyville, California

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 5.3 — Raised bed, short-term common garden at the Dorena Tree Improvement
Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon

Short-term raised bed study: Height growth results (Kitzmiller and Sniezko 2000) —
The environmental components, transplanting location and "shade" treatments,
had significant effects on 2-year height growth (Appendix D presents the analysis of
variance [ANOVA] tables and means). Surprisingly the inland location had superior
height compared to the coastal location both years, and "shading" was inferior to open
sun the second year. The height growth response of Port-Orf ord-cedar families from
different geographic regions and stands revealed a strong genetic structure with a well-
defined geographic pattern. Height potential was highly related to genetic source at the
watershed, stand, and family levels. The genetic structure for early height is described
in the proportion of total variance residing at various source levels. Genetic main effects
were strong and accounted for 47.5 percent (watershed = 37.4 percent, stands within
watershed = 3.4 percent, families within stands = 6.7 percent) of the total variability.
Strong clinal patterns were found for height potential with source elevation, latitude, and
longitude. Genetic by environment (G-x-E) is a parameter used to assess changes in the
performance of genotypes when grown under different environments. G-x-E interaction
accounted for 6.1 percent of the variability and blocks accounted for only 9.9 percent.
G-x-E interactions, though statistically significant at watershed and family levels, were
minor sources of variability in height, and were due to scale effects rather than rank
changes. Southern and high elevation inland sources had low growth potential at both
locations, while northern and low elevation coastal sources had high growth potential.
Second year total height decreased 11.1 inches (28.2 centimeters) per 3281 feet (1000
meters) increase in source elevation. Trees from the low elevation Sixes /Elk watershed
averaged 60 percent taller than those from the high elevation Trinity watershed. Trees
from low elevation, northern, and coastal sites had less mortality, higher seed weight and
higher filled seed percent.

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar

These tentative results show population structure and geographic patterns similar to,
though much stronger than, the allozyme studies previously mentioned. Current results
suggest that gene conservation practices should encompass, 1) seed zoning by watershed,
subdivided by elevation bands, and 2) protecting the broad gene base for growth,
including the adaptive extremes near the northern and southern limits.

Short-term raised bed study: Variation in height growth phenology (Zobel et al., in
press) — Timing of height growth was determined for 54 of the families in the short-term
raised bed study. Measurements were made during the second year of growth. The
proportion of early-season growth declined and the proportion of late-season growth
increased with changes in seed source location from high to low elevations, from south
to north, and from east to west. This pattern was parallel to that of seedling height and
of actual elongation in each of three periods during the growing season. The tallest trees
(from the Oregon coast near the species' northern range limit) grew more in each period,
but had the greatest proportion of late-season height growth. Planting such genotypes
where late summer drought or early frost is common may threaten their survival. Use of
breeding zones that limit genotype transfer distance may avoid such damage. Seedlings
grown at the coastal nursery had a lower proportion of early-season growth and more in
late-season than seedlings grown inland.

Short-term raised bed study: Variation in water relations characteristics of leaders

(Zobel et al. 2001) — Water relations attributes of immature tissues of the terminal leader
and its branches were measured on a subset of the short-term raised bed study families.
Leader tissue provided consistent data and allowed interpretations directly useful for
assessing effects on height growth. Osmotic potentials were higher than reported for
most conifers. Osmotic potentials declined at both nurseries as the season progressed.
The osmotic amplitude (osmotic potential at full turgor - osmotic potential at zero turgor)
also increased during the season. Osmotic potential at full turgor was more negative and
osmotic amplitude greater at the inland nursery than at the coastal nursery. Correlations
with geographic location of the seed sources were weak. The small size of significant
differences among families, nurseries, and sampling periods, and some inconsistencies
among attributes measured, suggest that many of the differences may be of marginal
physiological significance. However, correlations with plant size and timing of height
growth suggest that, as one progresses from high elevation, southeastern locations
toward the northwestern coast, where seedlings become larger and grow more late
into the season, the relative water content at zero turgor increases, osmotic potential at
zero turgor declines, and the tissue elasticity index rises. Larger genotypes thus appear
to be less desiccation tolerant. When selecting genotypes for planting outside their
native habitat, decisions based on the clear geographic patterns in tree size and timing
of growth, reported elsewhere, should effectively account for the differences in water
relations that appeared in this study.

Long-term common garden out-planting study — Short duration tests in low-stress
nursery environments are not well suited for the expression of cumulative response to
environmental stresses. Long-term field common garden studies are designed to reveal
adaptive-based G-x-E interactions for guiding seed zoning and transfer (figs. 5.4 and 5.5).
Four common garden sites were planted in 1996: Humboldt Nursery in McKinleyville,
California, Trinity Lake on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and Althouse and Chetco
on the Siskiyou National Forest. In 1998, an additional site, Battle Axe, was established
on the BLM Roseburg District, which expanded the original 266 families to include
samples from the northeast part of the range of Port-Orford-cedar. Height measurements
have been taken on the Humboldt and Trinity Lake sites. Results show that watershed
mean three-year height was inversely related to survival at the inland Trinity Lake site.
North coastal watersheds, although much taller, had 60 to 70 percent survival, while
extreme southeastern interior lots had 90 percent survival. Overall plantation growth
and survival were better at the coastal Humboldt Nursery field site. A geographic dine
in height growth was associated with latitude, longitude, and elevation of seed origin.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Northern, low elevation, coastal seed sources grew taller than southern, high elevation,
interior sources at both plantation sites. However, these faster growing sources also
showed the greatest relative reduction in growth and survival when planted at the inland
Trinity Lake site.

Figure 5.4 — Long-term out-planting site at Weaverville-Trinity Lake, California

'■•'--

-_* , Jjfc.

mgj

{

1G3V /

i^rfSRS^

Figure 5.5 — Long-term out-planting site at Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville,
California

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar

Seed Zones and Breeding Zones

General adaptation of trees along major geographic gradients is the basis for seed zoning.
Seed zoning is a management tool that is used to protect the natural genetic structure of
adaptive traits in forest tree species against undesirable gene transfer from their natural
origin to planting sites. California and Oregon conifers have adapted through natural
selection to temperature and moisture gradients and to different soil parent materials.
These gradients are often associated with elevation, latitude, and distance to the ocean.
Seed zones based on these geographic variables afford protection against dysgenic seed
transfers. The purpose of seed zones is to partition the region into adaptively-similar
zones within which wild seed collections of native trees can be freely moved without
problems of maladaptation.

Geographic seed zones may require further subdivision of seedlots based on adaptation
to extreme soils types. Genetic diversity in a natural forest within a relatively small
geographic area presents a challenge. Are these differences adaptive in nature or are
they simply vital components of a diverse natural breeding population? Managers must
decide what seed trees to select and whether to keep seed separate or mix seeds from
mild and harsh sites together, and if so, in what proportions. Strategies may favor either
mixing seed parents within zones or keeping seed separate by local site. For species
such as Port-Orford-cedar that occur on both ultramafic and granitic soils, there may be
sufficient adaptive genetic differentiation to warrant separate seed lots for these extreme
soil types within a geographic seed zone. Because seed zones are a practical tool, they
must be large enough to be economical and easy for people to use, yet small enough to
protect natural patterns of adaptation for the species.

Breeding zones have a similar purpose as seed zones except that seeds from selective
breeding orchards are deployed instead of wild seeds. Breeding zones may be broader
than seed zones provided that selected genetic stock has been proven through field-
testing to be broadly adapted.

The genetic variability studies completed so far for Port-Orford-cedar indicate
geographic zoning based on major watersheds or seed zones in combination with
elevation bands. Preliminary breeding zones have been delineated, and will be used to
guide seed transfer and selective breeding activities. Elevational bands should be no
greater than 1,640 foot (500 meter) intervals up to 3,281 feet (1000 meter) elevation, and
then becoming 820 foot (250 meter) intervals between 3,281 and 6,562 feet (1,000 and
2,000 meter) elevation. In this breeding zone designation, seed zones and /or portions
of watersheds adjacent to one another within the coast or interior have been combined
within these elevational bands. Geographic seed zones or breeding zones may require
further subdivision of seedlots based on adaptation to extreme soil types. Species, such
as Port-Orford-cedar, that occur on both ultramafic and granitic soils, may have sufficient
adaptive genetic differentiation to warrant separate seed lots for these extreme soil types
within a geographic seed zone.

Port-Orf ord-Cedar Breeding Block
Designations

A breeding block designates the geographic area that envelopes a number of breeding
zones. Breeding blocks have been delineated on the basis of a genetic common-garden
study (Kitzmiller and Sniezko 2000) and general knowledge of southwestern Oregon
and northern California species genecology (fig. 5.6). The common-garden study noted
genetic variation associated with latitude, longitude, and elevation of the seed sources.
Additional studies (Millar et al, 1991; Zobel et al, in press) have also noted differences

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

between the coastal and inland sources of Port-Orford-cedar. These breeding blocks
have been delineated on the basis of this perceived genetic structure. Breeding zones
are represented by elevation bands within the respective breeding blocks, and designate
units of land in which improved populations (via genetic testing and breeding activities)
are being developed. The elevation bands are: 1) less than 1,500 feet, 2) 1,501 to 3,000
feet, 3) 3,001 to 4,000 feet, 4) 4,001 to 5,000 feet, 5) 5,001 to 5,500 feet, 6) 5,501 to 6,000 feet,
and 7) 6,001 to 6,500 feet. An elevation band within a breeding block constitutes a single
breeding zone. Table 5.3 summarizes the six blocks depicted on the map.

Figure 5.6 — Port-
Orford-cedar
breeding blocks

Table 5.3 — Description of location and seed zones for Port-Orford-cedar breeding blocks

Breeding
Block

General Geographic Area

Reference to State Tree Zones
(USDA 1969 and 1973)

BB1
BB2

BB3

BB5
BB6

North coast range of Port-Orford-cedar from Oregon Dunes to Gold Beach, Oregon OR zones 071, 072, and portion of 081

South coast range of Port-Orford-cedar from Gold Beach, Oregon to Eureka, California Portions of 082 and 090 (OR) and 091 and 092 (CA)

North inland range of Port-Orford-cedar from near Umpqua to near Provolt, Oregon Portions of OR zones 270, 081, 511, and 512

South inland range of Port-Orford-cedar from Provolt, Oregon to near Orleans, California Portions of 081, 082, 090, 511 (OR), 512 (OR and

CA), and 301, 302 (CA)

Isolated Humboldt population(s) near Willow Creek, California Portion of 303 (CA)

Range of Port-Orford-cedar in upper Trinity and Sacramento Rivers in California Portions of 331 and 521 (CA)

Chapter 5 — Genetics of Port-Orford-Cedar

Implications for Genetic Conservation

Management practices could be directed at protecting the range of genetic sources using
both in situ and ex situ measures.

The adaptive genetic structure of Port-Orford-cedar is strongly differentiated at the
regional watershed level and at the tree-to-tree level within a stand. A priority for
conserving genetic populations could be to protect large stands in each major watershed.
More stands could be sampled to represent low elevation, south coastal soil ecotypes and
the interior higher elevation watersheds, where stands often are small and the range is
fragmented. In small stands, favor those with 50 or more interbreeding trees.

Continued protection of Port-Orford-cedar in Research Natural Areas, Botanical Areas,
and other existing forest reserves is warranted. New conservation units and conservation
areas could be identified where current coverage has gaps. In California, there are
apparent gaps in the northeastern and west-central portions of the coastal distributions
and in the upper Trinity River drainage. In Oregon, large stands of Port-Orford-cedar in
the Sixes and Elk River watersheds could be conserved for high growth potential, high
root disease resistance, and high genetic diversity.

Literature Cited

Kitzmiller, J.H.; Sniezko, R.A. 2000. Range-wide genetic variation in Port-Orford-cedar
(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [A. Murr.] Pari.). I. Early height growth at coastal and inland
nurseries. Frontiers of Forest Biology: Proceedings of the 1998 joint meeting of the North
American Forest Biology Workshop and the Western Forest Genetics Association. Journal
of Sustainable Forestry. 10:57-67.

Millar, C.I.; Delany D.L.; Westfall, R.D. 1992. Genetic diversity in Port-Orford-cedar:
range-wide allozyme study. Administrative report. 4 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon
Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

Millar, C.I; Delany, D.L.; Westfall, R.D.; Atzet, T; Jimerson, T; Greenup, M. 1991.
Ecological factors as indicators of genetic diversity in Port-Orford-cedar: applications
to genetic conservation. Administrative report. 3 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon
Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

Millar, C.I.; Marshall, K.A. 1991. Allozyme variation of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana): implications for genetic conservation. Forest Science 37(4):1060-1077.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Region. 1969. California tree
seed zone map. Scale 1:100000. San Francisco, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1973.
Washington and Oregon tree seed zone maps. Scale 1 :500000. Portland, OR.

Westfall, R.D.; Conkle, M.T. 1992. Allozyme markers in breeding zone designation. New
Forests 6: 279-309.

Zobel, D.B., Kitzmiller, J.H.; Sniezko, R.A.; Riley, L. In press. Range-wide genetic
variation in Port-Orford-cedar (Cupressacease, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana): II. Timing of
height growth. Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Zobel, D.B.; Riley, L.; Kitzmiller, J.H.; Sniezko, R.A. 2001. Variations in water relations
characteristics of terminal shoots of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis laiosoniana)
seedlings. Tree Physiology 21: 743-749.

Chapter 6

Breeding For Resistance to
Phytophthora lateralis

Introduction 77

The Resistance Screening Process 77

Resistance Screening Results 81

Validation of the Screening Process 82

Common Garden Study 83

Geographic Variation in Resistance Traits 83

Phenotypic Correlations Among Traits 84

Variation in Disease Resistance at the Watershed Level 84

Variation in Disease Resistance at the Breeding Zone Level 84

Breeding Program 85

Controlled Pollination 85

Vegetative Reproduction 86

Summary 86

Literature Cited 88

Authors: Richard A. Sniezko, Jay Kitzmiller, Leslie J. Elliott and James E. Hamlin

June 2001

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar lends itself exceptionally well to a program of resistance breeding.
Flower production can be stimulated at an early age and establishing rooted cuttings
is relatively simple, making propagation straightforward. Evaluation of some types of
resistance can be done in short-term tests.

The development of populations of Port-Orford-cedar with a broad genetic base and
durable resistance to Phytophthora lateralis is considered a key component to maintaining
or restoring Port-Orford-cedar. Resistant Port-Orford-cedar is likely to be essential for
the success of private owners who manage the species.

Early reports of infection of Port-Orford-cedar with P. lateralis indicated that all tested
ornamental varieties, and some varieties of Chamaecyparis obtusa (Siebold and Zucc.)
Siebold and Zucc. ex Endl., were susceptible while Chamaecyparis pisifera (Siebold and
Zucc.) Endl. varieties showed resistance (Tucker and Milbrath 1942). Recent data indicate
that several other species of Chamaecyparis are highly resistant.10

Initial results from resistance testing were discouraging. In early disease resistance
tests that included cuttings from hundreds of trees that were phenotypically resistant
in natural stands, all rooted cuttings died, indicating resistance was very low or that
the inoculation level was too high, or both, to allow expression of resistance among the
clones (Roth et al. 1972, Roth 1985, Zobel et al. 1985).

Up to the mid-1980s, occasional Port-Orford-cedar trees were found that survived
infection or showed delayed death, but no attempts to breed for resistance or hybridize
with resistant yellow cedar {Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) or Asiatic Chamaecyparis species
had been attempted (Roth et al. 1987). A few survivors that have lived for an extended
period of time in the presence of P. lateralis were noted in the cold frames near the Oregon
State University (OSU) greenhouses and at the OSU Botany Farm, and were thought to
represent some type of "slow dying" resistance (Roth 1985).

Work began in the early 1980s to refine an inoculation system to allow susceptible and
relatively tolerant individuals to be distinguished (Hansen and Hamm 1983, Hansen and
Hamm 1986). In small-scale tests using 10 individuals (four that had survived previous
testing with P. lateralis and six new ones), resistant individuals were distinguished from
susceptible individuals by a slowing of the rate of advance of the disease (Hansen et
al. 1989). This was a key study in confirming resistance and leading to the initiation
of further investigations and the operational breeding program for resistance by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Dr. Everett Hansen at OSU has worked with the
Forest Service and the BLM since the 1980s to refine techniques to be used in operational
screening efforts.

The Resistance Screening Process

Starting in 1989, the Forest Service began selecting candidate Port-Orford-cedar trees
in natural stands to evaluate resistance to P. lateralis (fig. 6.1). The BLM began making
selections in 1994 (fig. 6.2). A small number of trees in natural stands were initially
selected from throughout much of the species' range. In 1997, the program greatly
expanded, and since that time more than 9,000 candidate trees, from both healthy and

10 Sniezko, R.A. 2001. Unpublished data. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dorena Tree Improvement Center, 34963
Shoreview Road, Cottage Grove, OR 97424.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

diseased locales, have been selected and screened for disease resistance at Oregon State
University (Bower et al. 2000). These selections have not only been from federal lands,
but also from county and private lands throughout the range of Port-Orford-cedar.

Figure 6.1 — Resistant Port-Orford-
cedar trees growing with infected
Port-Orford-cedars, growing in a
natural stand

4ii Jm- '

" "■} i
■ /

Kr ... *

Figure 6.2 — Field selection and mapping of a Port-Orford-cedar candidate tree

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

In the first cycle of selection (wild selections) a candidate parent tree (or clone) is selected
and branches from the tree, or seedlings from seed collected from the candidate trees
(1996 only) are sent to OSU for screening in a greenhouse (fig. 6.3). The samples are
inoculated with P. lateralis. In general, two to three isolates of P. lateralis have been used.

In 1989 and 1990, large branches were collected and an incision was made in the branch
that was then inoculated with P. lateralis (wound inoculation technique). Although P.
lateralis is a root pathogen, the branch test technique was chosen for initial work (over the
root methods) because many samples could rapidly be assessed and there was at least
a low positive correlation with other techniques. The top resistant parents had initially
been evaluated with this technique. Since 1994, however, the procedure has been to send
six to 10 small branch tips to OSU, where the cut end of the branch tips are dipped in a
zoospore suspension of P. lateralis.

When seedlings were used for testing, notably in 1996, either the stem dip technique
(immersing the bottom two centimeters of a cut portion of the seedling in a zoospore
suspension) (fig. 6.4) or a root dip technique (immersing the bottom two centimeters
of the container containing the seedling roots in a zoospore suspension) was used. In
the stem dip technique, the length of the lesion growth on the sample stem is measured
several weeks after inoculation, with lesion length representing a possible measure of
resistance. For the root dip technique, time until mortality is recorded (fig. 6.5).

Figure 6.3 — Collecting branches for resistance screening

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 6.4 — Stem dip technique
for inoculating samples for testing
resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

Figure 6.5 — Seedlings being monitored for survival after inoculation with the root dip
technique

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

In general, a high resistance checklot (PO-OSU-CF1) has been included in the testing
since 1993 and a low resistance checklot (PO-OSU-CON1) since 1997 to provide a basis of
comparison. These checklots are used to help determine which parent trees are initially
selected for the breeding program and for further testing. Due to the large number of
selected trees screened since 1997, the screening has been done in many groups or "runs"
spread throughout the year. The stem dip technique was chosen for the initial phase
of operational screening because it allows for a rapid assessment of differences among
parent trees for at least one type of resistance potential.

Resistance Screening Results

Through the year 2000, researchers have identified 1,179 potentially disease resistant
trees based upon the initial phase of screening using a branch lesion test (table 6.1). For
detail on screening methods used see Appendix E. The resistance identified to date in the
branch lesion test is not expressed as immunity, but as reduced growth rate of the fungus
in infected trees.

In screenings with different methods over the years, several clones (notably PO-OSU-
CF1) from Coos County in Oregon, and clone 510015 from the Gasquet Ranger District,
Six Rivers National Forest in California have consistently been rated best or near the top
for small lesion scores (Sniezko and Hansen 2000; Sniezko et.al. 2000). Recent seedling
trials indicate that Parent 117490, from the Gold Beach Ranger District in Oregon, shows
much higher resistance (percent survival) than any selection to date (table 6.2).

Based on selections prior to 1997, it appears that there are relatively few clones (perhaps 1
to 2 percent) that repeatedly stand out in all screening tests. The remainder of the clones
may have resistance, but it may be more subtle and not apparent under heavy inoculum
loads or without a more sensitive test. A study to examine the possible mechanisms of
resistance has been initiated and may provide insight to a more definitive evaluation of
resistance.

Table 6.1 — Number of Port-Orford-cedar selections for breeding from initial resistance
screening

Number of Selections Tested
1989 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

Medford BLM
Roseburg BLM
Coos Bay BLM
Salem BLM
FS Siskiyou NF
FS Siuslaw NF
FS California
FS Klamath NF
FS Six Rivers NF
FS Shasta-Trinity NF
Non-federal Lands
Total

20 30

99
30
10 39

28 203

148

3
3

6
383

112

121

263

2
20

3
1
1

152
224

49
68

178

182

423
5

234

1179

*Specific National Forest (NF) information not available in database as of 3/17/03

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Table 6.2 — Percent mortality after one year for three test methods for six
of 44 open-pollinated seedling families tested in 2000

Parent

Greenhouse Root
Dip (OSU)

Test Location
Raised Bed (OSU)

Camas Valley (BLM
Field Site)

117490

38.9

8.3

510005

25.0

33.3

CF1

50.0

25.0

117499

83.3

66.7

50.0

510044

66.7

75.0

70102

100

91.7

100

Validation of the Screening Process

Greenhouse screening techniques developed at OSU, such as the stem and root dip
techniques, are methods to survey many candidate trees quickly for an indication of
relative resistance. Artificial inoculation and subsequent assessment is quicker, less
expensive, and more controllable than field plantings. Little is known, however, about
how these measures relate to resistance in the field and how much longer the more
resistant seedlings may survive under field conditions. OSU established a small field
planting in 1989, while plantings have been established by the Forest Service and
BLM since 1993 to validate screening methods and examine the durability and types
of resistance (Sniezko and Hansen 2000). Although current evidence indicates that
there is little genetic variation in P. lateralis (see Chapter 3), these plantings will allow
tested material to be evaluated and compared under a range of conditions. Using this
information, a more comprehensive comparison between field and greenhouse results
can then be made.

In 1999, the process of re-testing the initial stem dip selections using the root dip
technique began. Results from the first parents tested using rooted cuttings showed
that a subset appears to have resistance comparable to the high resistance control (CF1).
Preliminary testing in 1996 showed only a low positive correlation between the stem and
root dip methods (Appendix E). This second phase of testing will either: (a) establish
a sufficient correlation between the stem and root dip techniques to validate the initial
screening results, or (b) provide a further screening of the initial selections.

Field plantings have demonstrated that rooted cuttings or open-pollinated seedlings
from some of the parents showing high resistance to P. lateralis (in the initial branch and
stem dip testing process) have much higher survival than those of the parents rated low
for resistance (fig. 6.6). Most of the mortality in the field tests appears to occur in the first
two years. Microsite variation can be substantial and may contribute to early mortality.
Eleven years after planting, rooted cuttings from the most resistant parents have shown
50 to 80 percent survival in the field (Sniezko and Hansen 2000, Sniezko et al., n.d.),
while cuttings from nonresistant parents have generally shown 0 to 5 percent survival; in
the earliest tests open-pollinated seedlings from the most resistant parents have shown
25 to 50 percent survival versus 0 to 35 percent for other parents. Detail on validation
plantings is presented in Appendix F.

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

£5

Figure 6.6 - Field plantings of high resistance genotypes

Common Garden Study

Common garden studies are sites where the same genetic stock is planted across a
range of different sites that vary in elevation and latitude and longitude. As stated in
Chapter 5, a common garden study using range- wide material was established in 1996
to evaluate the genetic variability of Port-Orford-cedar (Kitzmiller and Sniezko 2000).
This study examined both height growth and disease resistance traits. Disease resistance
was evaluated using two methods: (1) a stem dip test where branch tips from a selected
tree were dipped in a zoospore suspension of P. lateralis and (2) a root dip test where a
seedling's roots were immersed in a zoospore suspension. Details on study design are
presented in Chapter 5.

Geographic Variation in Resistance Traits

Compared to height growth, disease resistance traits (based upon stem and root dip
tests) showed much weaker, though significant, geographic patterns of variation. This
is not surprising because the disease has apparently spread only recently into the native
range of Port-Orford-cedar. There has not been sufficient time of coexistence of host
and pathogen to co-evolve a strong geographic pattern across the range of habitats. To
assess the overall geographic pattern, height growth plus disease resistance variables
were combined in a canonical correlation analysis with three geographic origin variables
(latitude, longitude, and elevation) expressed in a full quadratic model. Comparing
the amount of variation explained by geographic factors for allozyme diversity and the
amount of variation explained for common garden height growth, (Millar et al. 1992,
unpublished range-wide study), R2 = 13.5 percent for the former and R2 = 75 percent
for the latter. Clearly the geographic variation pattern is far greater for height than for
allozymes.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

In a 1996 test of random parents (not selected for field test resistance) from much of
the range of Port-Orford-cedar, patterns of variability differed both at the stand and
watershed level.

Root test resistance showed greater geographic variation than stem test resistance, and
was almost opposite for geographic pattern. Root test resistance decreased from the
coast to inland sites, and to a lesser degree, from north to south. Root test resistance was
higher for the moist northern and coastal sources and was lower for the drier southern
and inland sources. Stem test resistance increased from north to south. Southern latitude
sources had smaller stem lesions than northern latitude sources. Stem test resistance
increased with increasing elevation of a source and with distance from the coast. Further
investigation is needed, but these trends may indicate that some parts of the range of
Port-Orford-cedar may have a higher frequency of resistance and/or that different
resistance mechanisms may be in higher frequency in parts of the species range.

Phenotypic Correlations Among Traits

For root test resistance, on a stand mean basis, 10 percent of the variation was positively
associated with early height growth. For stem test resistance, on a stand mean basis,
eight percent of the variation was negatively associated with early height growth (two
percent on family mean basis). Thus, to a small but significant extent, stands and trees
that grow fast tend to possess higher root test resistance. To a lesser extent, stands and
trees that grow slow tend to possess higher stem test resistance.

For stand means the correlation between root test resistance and stem test resistance was
non-significant. Thus, stands cannot generally be found to have both types of resistance.
However, a small but significant portion of families may have both types of resistance.

Variation in Disease Resistance at the Watershed Level

The genetic component for root test resistance accounted for 58.6 percent of the
total variability: watersheds 14.1 percent, stands within watershed 7.5 percent, and
families within stand within watershed accounted for 37 percent. All three were highly
significant. Blocks and random plot error made up the remaining variability.

For stem test resistance, the genetic component was small (14.3 percent of the total). Like
root test resistance, the families within stand within watershed component (9.7 percent)
for stem test resistance was much greater than the watershed (2.5 percent) and stand (2.1
percent, non-significant) components. Blocks and plot error made up the majority (85.7
percent) of the total variability for stem-test resistance.

Therefore, the genetic basis for root test resistance is far greater than it is for stem test
resistance, and resistance varies mostly from family to family within a watershed. By
contrast, for height growth the watershed component was several times greater than the
families within stand within a watershed.

Variation in Disease Resistance at the
Breeding Zone Level

A slightly larger portion of the total variability (61 percent) is attributed to breeding
zones (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of breeding zones) than to watersheds. Breeding
zones accounted for 18.1 percent and seed zones within breeding zones were non-
significant at 2.4 percent. Families within seed zones within breeding zones were by far
the most variable at 40.3 percent of the total. For stem test resistance, neither breeding

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

zones nor seed zones were significant. Families within zones accounted for 11.9 percent
of the total variability, and blocks plus plot error contributed the majority (85.5 percent).

Breeding Program

In the early 1990s, the Forest Service and BLM began a breeding program with Port-
Orford-cedar to attempt to increase resistance to P. lateralis. This species lends itself
exceptionally well to a program of resistance breeding (Elliott and Sniezko 2000) because
it is easily propagated. Propagation techniques used at Dorena Tree Improvement
Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon, are described below.

Controlled Pollination

Port-Orford-cedar can be induced to flower at most times of the year as long as they are
not dormant. Growth hormones, such as gibberellins, can be used to induce flowering,
and in combination with photoperiod at the timing of treatment(s), can be used to
effectively influence the relative amounts of male and female flowering (Zobel et al.
1985). Flowering in Port-Orford-cedar can be induced in trees less than one year old.

Controlled pollination is an essential part of the breeding and resistance-screening
program at Dorena Tree Improvement Center (DTIC). The process is summarized below.

To stimulate cone production in young material, a foliar spray application of gibberellic
acid (GA3) is applied in June. The treatment is applied weekly, over a five-week period,
at a rate of 100 mg of GA3 per liter of water. Large increases in strobili are generally
evident the year following treatment. Large clonal differences exist in the amount of
strobili produced (Elliott and Sniezko 2000).

Pollen is shed (at Dorena) from late February through mid- April (fig. 6.7). Pollen is
collected and dried for 24 to 48 hours at 15 to 20 C and 20 to 40 percent relative humidity.
For short-term storage, pollen is refrigerated with a desiccant. For long-term storage,
pollen is stored in a freezer at -14 C. The average viability of pollen collected in 1997
and 1998 was 51 and 72 percent, respectively. There was a large clonal variation in
viability, with a range from zero to 93 percent. Storage up to two years does not appear
to significantly reduce viability.

Figure 6.7 — Pollen
shed by Port-
Orford-cedar
growing at Dorena
Tree Improvement
Center, Cottage
Grove, Oregon

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Controlled pollination is initiated at the first sign of receptivity by the female strobili
(pollen drop). Because of the variability in timing of receptivity two pollinations are
usually attempted for each cross within a four to seven day period. Although there
is clonal variability, observation shows the majority of pollen shedding occurs a week
ahead of the time when most female strobili become receptive on the same tree (which
would minimize natural self-pollination).

Conelet abortion may be substantial during the development period (March through
September). For example, in 1997, there was a 30 percent conelet abortion rate at DTIC.
In 1997 through 1999 the overall average percent filled seed from control crossings
ranged from 40 to 50 percent and the average filled seed per cone ranged from 5.0 to 6.2.

Selfing (breeding an individual with itself) does produce viable seed. However, at DTIC,
a reduction in percent filled seed and number of seeds per cone has been evident. For
example, in 1997, selfing produced an average of 22 percent (range, 0 to 76 percent) filled
seed, while outcrosses produced an average of 51 percent (range, 0 to 94 percent). Selfing
averaged 2.8 filled seeds per cone (range, 0 to 11.7) and outcrosses, 6.7 filled seeds per
cone (range 0 to 11.2).

Vegetative Reproduction

Cuttings from Port-Orford-cedar are easily rooted. For example, at DTIC, in 1998, 96
percent of the 330 clones where rooting was attempted were successfully rooted. Rooting
time varied for seedlings, and ranged from 3 to 12 months. Rooting success and times
vary with age; younger material roots more readily Rooting success is improved if
material is collected when it is dormant or has slowed growth (November through
February). Cuttings from major branches in the lower portion of the crown are preferred
(Zobel 1990a).

Summary

Port-Orford-cedar is the species most adversely affected by P. lateralis. While preliminary
results from the breeding and testing efforts indicate there may be sufficient levels of
resistance within Port-Orford-cedar to begin a breeding program, other avenues are
also being examined. A preliminary screening of several other species and hybrids has
begun to evaluate their resistance and learn more about resistance mechanisms and their
inheritance.

A containerized seed orchard was established at the Dorena Tree Improvement Center,
with material from the more resistant selections from the screening process (fig. 6.8). The
goal of the breeding program includes developing durable resistance as well as keeping
diverse genetic populations available to ensure general adaptation throughout the
native range of Port-Orford-cedar. A preservation orchard was established in 1998 at the
BLM Tyrrell Seed Orchard in Lorane, Oregon to also help maintain diverse genotypes.
Excellent inter-regional and interagency cooperation as well as input from other groups,
coupled with current knowledge of the biology of Port-Orford-cedar and resistance to the
exotic pathogen, P. lateralis, should allow for rapid progress in evaluating and potentially
developing resistant populations. Flower production can be stimulated at an early age
and establishing rooted cuttings is relatively simple. Control pollinations on earlier
selections began in 1996 and the full-sibling progenies are now undergoing resistance
testing.

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

Figure 6.8 — Containerized seed orchard at the Dorena Tree Improvement Center,
Cottage Grove, Oregon

The operational breeding program for P. lateralis resistance is still young; however,
results from recent testing and the biology of Port-Orford-cedar lead ode to be cautiously
optimistic of the potential for developing durable resistance. Only a few parents from
the initial stem dip screening process have been identified with resistance sufficient to
consider for immediate regeneration and restoration plantings; however, since 2000 the
number of parents has been increasing dramatically as results from root dip testing and
field validations are finalized. Additional resistant parents are likely to be identified
based on results from current trials and additional information on the mechanisms of
resistance. The use of containerized orchards allows easy upgrading of the orchards
for genetic diversity and resistance as more testing is completed. Orchards can be
established by breeding zones to help ensure localized adaptability. Some resistance
mechanisms may not be 'strong' enough to be durable in the field without further
breeding. Breeding can increase the overall resistance and incorporate any appropriate
resistance mechanisms.

New data are being generated rapidly from the resistance-breeding program. Updates
are presented at scientific meetings and overviews posted on the Dorena website:
www.fs.fed.us/r6/dorena. A breeding program can provide sufficient quantities of seed
to meet the demand of public and private organizations for highly resistant seedlings.
Subsequent efforts could concentrate on making resistant seed available for additional
breeding zones, increasing both the genetic diversity of the orchards and level of
resistance. An additional benefit of the program could be to make resistant material
available to the horticulture industry where Port-Orford-cedar was once a significant
contributor in the Pacific Northwest.

Genetic resistance is one tool in the overall management strategy for Port-Orford-cedar
and is best used in conjunction with other management tools mentioned elsewhere in this
document.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Literature Cited

Bower, A.D.; Casavan, K; Frank, C; [et al]. 2000. Screening Port-Orford-cedar for
resistance to Phytophthora lateralis: results from 7000+ trees using a branch lesion test. In:
Hansen and Sutton, eds. Proceedings of the first international meeting on Phytophthoras
in forest and wildland ecosystems, IUFRO Working Party 7.02.09. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 99-100

Elliott, L.; Sniezko, R.A. 2000. Cone and seed production in Port-Orford-cedar container
orchard. In: Hansen and Sutton, eds. Proceedings of the first international meeting on
Phytophthoras in forest and wildland ecosystems, IUFRO Working Party 7.02.09. Corvallis,
OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 105-106.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, P.B. 1983. Resistance screening of Port-Orford-cedar to
Phytophthora lateralis root rot. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Unpublished report.
17 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert
Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, P.B. 1986. Screening Port-Orford-cedar for resistance to
Phytophthora lateralis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Unpublished report. 26 p.
On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone
Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, P.B.; Roth, L.F. 1989. Testing Port-Orford-cedar for resistance to
Phytophthora. Plant Disease 73(1 0):791 -794.

Kitzmiller, J.H.; Sniezko, R.A. 2000. Range-wide genetic variation in Port-Orford-cedar
(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana [A. Murr.] Pari). I. Early height growth at coastal and inland
nurseries. Frontiers of Forest Biology: Proceedings of the 1998 joint meeting of the North
American Forest Biology Workshop and the Western Forest Genetics Association. Journal
of Sustainable Forestry. 10:57-67.

Millar, C.I.; Delany, D.L.; Westfall, R.D. 1992. Genetic diversity in Port-Orford-cedar:
range-wide allozyme study. Administrative report. 4 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon
Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

Roth, L.E. 1985. Inoculation methods for quantitatively evaluating the response of
Port-Orford-cedar trees to Phytophthora lateralis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Unpublished report. 26 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease
Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Roth, L.F; Bynum, H.H.; Nelson, E.E. 1972. Phytophthora root rot of Port-Orford-cedar.
Forest Pest Leaflet 131. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.

Roth, L.E.; Harvey, R.D. Jr.; Kliejunas, J.T. 1987. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. Forest
Pest Management Report No. R6 FPM-PR-294-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6. 11 p.

Sniezko, R.A.; Hansen, E.M. 2000. Screening and breeding program for genetic resistance
to Phytophthora lateralis in Port-Orford-cedar {Chamaecyparis lawsoniana): early results. In:
Hansen and Sutton, eds. Proceedings of the first international meeting on Phytophthoras
in forest and wildland ecosystems, IUFRO Working Party 7.02.09. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University, Forest Research Laboratory: 91-94.

Chapter 6 — Breeding for Resistance to Phytophthora lateralis

Sniezko, R.A.; Hansen, E.M.; Kitzmiller J.H.; and Hamlin J. [N.d.]. Range-wide genetic
variation in Phytophthora lateralis resistance in Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. Manuscript in
preparation. Dorena, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dorena Genetic
Resource Center. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service
Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Tucker, CM.; Milbrath, J. A. 1942. Root rot of Chamaecyparis caused by a species of
Phytophthora. Mycologia. 34:94-103.

Zobel, D.B. 1990. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Pari., Port-Orford-cedar. In: Burns,
R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: conifers. Agricultural
handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Vol. 1:
88-96.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar {Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 7

Economic Value of
Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction 93

Inventoried Standing Volume 93

Effects of the Northwest Forest Plan 94

Export of Port-Orford-Cedar 94

Export Volume 94

Export Values 96

Domestic Use of Port-Orford-Cedar 97

Domestic Volume 98

Domestic Value 98

Combined Export and Domestic Volume and Value 98

Value Added Components 99

Specialty Products 99

Arrow Shafts 99

Boughs 101

Employment 102

County and State Revenues 103

Literature Cited 104

Authors: Richard N. Barnes and Claude C. McLean February 1999

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Port-Orford-cedar is a commercial conifer tree in southwestern Oregon and northwestern
California. In the past, it has commanded prices as high as $12,000 per thousand board
feet. It is a valuable timber resource and has impacts on the economy in the Pacific
Northwest. This chapter will explore those impacts.

Inventoried Standing Volume

The inventory of standing volume of Port-Orford-cedar is difficult to ascertain. Port-
Orford-cedar is a minor species in most stands where it occurs and is often located in
isolated pockets. The inventory information has a high level of uncertainty because
inventory of neither public nor private ownerships has been conducted at an intensity
level that provides a high degree of accuracy. As a result, all inventory information
presented here has a high probability of some degree of error.

Table 7.1 displays the most current information for the federal inventories of Port-Orford-
cedar, as well as the inventories reported in Stuntzer (1991). The latter is volume from
lands considered at the time to be in the timber base and available for harvest. The 1998
inventories are shown for all land. The volume estimates have not been reduced for
designations such as the Smith River National Recreation Area or the Northwest Forest
Plan (NFP) (USDAand USDI 1994).

The inventory of Port-Orford-cedar on private lands is not possible to estimate with
any degree of reliability and has not been attempted here. Most of the major private
landowners are unwilling to disclose this proprietary information. Historically, due to
the high value of Port-Orford-cedar, there has been a tendency to harvest the species at a
higher rate than is proportional to forest stocking level (Zobel 1986). As a result of these
practices, most of the Port-Orford-cedar on private lands today is second growth.

Table 7.1 — Port-Orford-cedar inventory from Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) lands

Agency

Inventoried Port-Orford-cedar Volume (mbf)

1990*

1994** 1998***

BLM - Coos Bay

117

121

BLM - Roseburg

BLM - Medford

Siskiyou National Forest

240

422

Six Rivers National Forest

420

Klamath National Forest

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

*from Stuntzer 1991; land considered to be in the timber base

**Coos Bay and Roseburg figures from Brattain and Stuntzer 1994; Medford figures from February 1994

continuous forest inventory

***short log volumes; all land allocations

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Effects of the Northwest Forest Plan

Implementation of NFP has reduced timber sale levels in southwestern Oregon and
northwestern California well below previous levels projected by forest plans and
resource management plans of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The NFP reduces volumes to approximately 17 percent of the prior sales levels.
The volumes shown as available for harvest are likely to be over-estimates, since the
agencies have had trouble meeting the NFP sale volumes. In addition to lands contained
in Wilderness Areas and other congressional set-asides, lands designated by the NFP
as Late-Successional Reserves (LSR), with an objective to protect and enhance the
conditions of late successional and old-growth forest ecosystems which serve as habitat
for late-successional and old-growth forest related species, and Riparian Reserves, with
objectives including stream protection and landscape connectivity, limit volume that may
be harvested. Many of the inventoried high quality Port-Orford-cedar trees are in LSRs.
Also, Riparian Reserves, with widths up to two tree heights on each side of the stream,
have been established. In some locations, Riparian Reserves encompass much of the
moist habitat where Port-Orford-cedar may be found.

Export of Port-Orford-Cedar

Export Volume

The first commercial shipment of Port-Orford-cedar lumber left Port-Orford, Oregon,
in 1854, and harvest probably went on regularly after the first settlement there in 1851
(Zobel 1986). A significant portion of this harvest has been exported to Japan, the People's
Republic of China and South Korea, with the majority going to Japan (Warren 1998).

The data for export volumes are based on U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
and Pacific Northwest Research Station information for all ports in the Columbia Snake
Customs District, including all Oregon ports and the ports of Longview and Vancouver,
Washington (Warren 1998). Added to these, are the Port-Orford-cedar volumes shipped out
of Humboldt Bay, California, using data supplied by Humboldt Bay Forest Products, Inc.

Export volumes declined between 1961 and 1998. The volume exported in 1963 was 64
million board feet. This declined to 3 million board feet in 1997 (fig. 7.1) (USDA 1973,
Warren 1985, Warren 1998). During the 1990s the amount of Port-Orford-cedar volume
exported continually decreased. In 1996, the amount reached its lowest level of the
period, at 1.5 million board feet. In 1997, the export volumes reversed the trend and
increased from the previous year by 700 thousand board feet. Indications are that final
export volumes for 1998 will be slightly higher than 1997. The overall decline in export
volume may be attributed to reduced harvest of old-growth Port-Orford-cedar.

During the 1990s, Port-Orford-cedar harvest was heavily concentrated on private
lands (fig. 7.2), and most of the timber came from second growth stands. As a result, a
substantial amount of second growth Port-Orford-cedar was exported during the 1990s11
The trend toward second growth, combined with the Japanese market conditions, has
resulted in a movement away from exports and towards domestic use.12

" Lyon, Frank. 1998. Personal communication. Timber Manager. Menasha Corporation, P.O. Box 588, North Bend, OR 97459.

12 Data were taken from the Yield Tax information, California Board of Equalization, for public and private lands; the Western Oregon
Privilege Tax information, Oregon Department of Revenue, for private lands; and the Siskiyou National Forest, Roseburg, Coos Bay and
Medford BLM (Kirk Casavan, Roseburg BLM); and Coos County (Robert LaPort, County Forester) for public lands. On file with: Barnes and
Associates, 3000 NW Stewart Parkway # 204, Roseburg, OR 97470.

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Historical Export of Port-Orford-Cedar

530

2»

D-l — i — i — " — i — « — i — i — ' — > — t — < — i — i — i — i — i — « — i — i — " — i — i — " — i — < — « — i — ' — i — i — « — i — i — i — i — r

. B S » S 6 B S K f fi R s s i; t K P a 5 FJ s s a B fc si a R I a K I K if s

0"] HI 01 ffl ill Ol ill iTi lTi iTi tTi 0"i ui iTl ill lTi iTi iTi iTi ui (Ti iTi iTi £Ti ill ill III Ui lTi ill iTi lTi iTi Jl Jl Jl iJi

Year

Figure 7.1 — Volume of Port-Orf ord-cedar exported 1961 - 1997

HARVEST BY OWNERSHIP
P art- Orf or d- c e d ar

"Private - «r "Piijlic

8000

7000

6000

| 5000

»4000

> 3000

2000

1000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Figure 7.2 — Harvest levels by ownership sector in the United States

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Export Values

The Japanese have placed a high value on Port-Orford-cedar for many years. Although
these values fluctuated substantially during the 1 990s, they continue to be much higher
than the values on the domestic market (figs. 7.3 and 7.4). Export values per thousand
board feet (MBF) began the 1990s averaging $2,672, reached a low in 1992 at $1,947, then
increased dramatically in 1994 to $5,645 (per MBF). The higher grades of Port-Orford-
cedar were selling for approximately $10,000 per MBF with occasional sales exceeding
this value13. In 1997, the average value of Port-Orford-cedar logs exported was $2,944 per
MBF It is important to note, even with the tremendous drop in export values from 1994
to 1997, the 1997 values are still higher than the average values during 1990 through 1992.
Export values have been volatile (fig. 7.3).

EXPORT VALUES

- O- 'Total Value — O — $/MBF

$30,000,000 -

D, jr\.

- $5,000

„ $25,000,000 -
^ $20,000,000 -
| $15,000,000 -

- <e>~ ~^x. /*n ■* ^^^

■ $4,000

- $3,000 1

H $10,000,000 -

■ $2,000

$5,000,000 -

-□--□-

- $1,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Figure 7.3— Value of exported Port-Orford-cedar 1990 - 1997

-A- -Total Vali*

DOMESTIC VALUES
Port- Orfoid- ce dar

? — $MBF

$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000

-- o

$3,000,000 -■

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

. & --

.. ii

-+-

■+-

-+-

■+■

-t-

-r-

$1,000

$900

$800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199S
Year

Figure 7.4— Domestic values of milled Port-Orford-cedar 1990 - 199814

13 Currie, Jim. 1998. Personal communication. Currie Log Marketing, 2159 Parkway Drive, Crescent City CA 95531 .

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Or ford-Cedar

The drop in volume of Port-Orford-cedar harvested was the driving force in the
reduction in total export value during the 1990s. The total volume exported in 1997 was
20 percent of the volume exported in 1990. Correspondingly, the total value of Port-
Orford-cedar exported in 1997 was 22 percent of the total volume exported in 1990.

Other factors, in addition to the drop in old-growth harvest, impacted the Japanese
market. A cultural change there has resulted in a younger generation unwilling to
pay exorbitant prices for Port-Orford-cedar.15 The older generation valued the wood
highly for such things as temples or luxury items. An additional possible cause of
reduced exports may be the poor Japanese economy. The Port-Orford-cedar market may
recuperate when the Japanese economy recovers.16

The total value of Port-Orford-cedar logs exported was approximately $29 million in
1990, then dropped steadily to a low of $4.9 million in 1996. By 1997, the total value of
Port-Orford-cedar had risen slightly to $6.5 million.

In summary, the decrease in availability of Port-Orford-cedar (particularly old-growth),
the depressed Japanese economy, and changing Japanese cultural values, are all
impacting export values and volumes. Even though the export values have decreased
substantially, they are still at least three times higher than the domestic market values.

Domestic Use of Port-Orf ord-Cedar

By the middle of the nineteenth
century the rapidly expanding
population of California created an
increasing domestic demand for
wood, including Port-Orford-cedar
which was the most expensive and
useful. Harvest levels increased
throughout the rest of the 1800s.
From the 1920s until World War

II, Port-Orford-cedar

harvest levels were

booming (fig. 7.5). One

of the primary uses

of Port-Orford-cedar

was for the production Figure 7.5 — Logging decks of Port-Orford-cedar in the

of automobile storage Coquille area of Oregon, 1939. The photo was marked

batteries In a single on *ne Dack with the caption "Left all the old growth fir,

vear 1936 1 billion took only cedar." Photograph Courtesy Douglas County Museum,

wooden battery *<****>**<>. ims.

separators were made in Coos Bay, Oregon. By the late 1940s, however,

substitute materials had been developed, and demand for Port-Orford-cedar

quickly declined (Zobel et al. 1985).

Since the mid-1980s, domestic manufacturing and use of Port-Orford-cedar
has increased. The species is marketed for its strength, durability, and
versatility, and is used for paneling, decking, fence posts and fence rails (fig.
7.6). Some Port-Orford-cedar is milled into cants for export to Japan.

Figure 7.6 — A cabin built of Port-Orford-cedar near Powers, Oregon

14 Data for domestic log utilization and values were obtained from:

Schroeder, Gary. Timber Manager. C & D Lumber Company, 1182 Primer Road / PO Box 27, Riddle, OR 97469

Keller, Mike. Log Buyer. Keller Lumber Company, 4418 Keller Road, Roseburg, OR 97470.

Goirigolzarri, Javier. P & M Cedar Products, P.O. Box 7349, Stockton, CA 95267.

Standley, Cyrus. Timber Manager. Glide Lumber Products, 1577 Glide Loop Dr., Glide, OR 97443; and

Sproul, Bob. Owner. East Fork Lumber Company, P.O. Box 275, Myrtle Point, OR 97458.

13 Green, Fred. 1998. Personal communication. Reservation Ranch, Coos Bay, OR.

16 Green, Fred. 1998. Personal communication. Reservation Ranch, Coos Bay, OR.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Currently, the major manufacturers of Port-Orford -cedar lumber are located in Oregon.
The primary manufacturers are C & D Lumber Company in Riddle, Keller Lumber
Company and P & M Cedar in Roseburg, Glide Lumber Products in Glide, and East Fork
Lumber Company in Myrtle Point.

C & D Lumber Company has aggressively marketed Port-Orford -cedar since the mid-
1980s. Brochures have been produced showing the benefits of Port-Orford-cedar over
other products. Most notably, Port-Orford-cedar outperforms western red cedar, incense
cedar, redwood, and ponderosa pine when impact bending, crushing strength (parallel
and perpendicular to grain), shearing strength (parallel to grain) and side hardness
(perpendicular to grain) are analyzed. For example, Port-Orford-cedar is 45 percent
stronger than redwood or western red cedar in impact bending and 30 percent stronger
in crushing strength.

Domestic Volume

In 1990, there was approximately 2.5 million board feet of Port-Orford-cedar lumber
domestically processed. This rate increased throughout the decade and reached 6.5
million board feet in 1998. This increase may be largely attributed to the success of the
manufacturers' marketing campaigns and the resultant acceptance of Port-Orford-cedar
in the domestic market.

Domestic Value

The value of Port-Orford-cedar fluctuated in the 1990s. The average value of a delivered
log was $665 per MBF in 1990, and $834 per MBF in 1998. The total delivered log value
increased substantially, from $1.6 million in 1990, to $5.4 million in 1998 (fig. 7.4).

Combined Export and Domestic
Volume and Value

Prior to 1994, the export volume always exceeded the domestic volume. Since 1994,
the trend has reversed. Total volume was at a low in 1995, at 6.1 million feet and has
increased since that time. In 1997, the total volume was approximately 8.4 million board
feet.

The total value decreased from 1990 to 1996. The 1997 value, $11.7 million, was about
a third of the 1990 value of $30.8 million. The export and domestic values were nearly
equal in 1997 (fig. 7.7).

-O Domesti c Value

■□- - Exp ort Value
-OK Total Value

Domestic and Exported Value
Port- Orford-cedar

S35, 000,000

$30,000,000

£25,000,000

$20,000,000

? $15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

1990

1996

Figure 7.7 — Value of domestic and exported Port-Orford-cedar 1990 - 1997

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Value Added Components

In addition to the volumes and values shown in previous graphs, there are value added
components to be recognized. For export logs, there is approximately $100 per MBF
additional cost once the logs reach the log yard. These include costs associated with
unloading trucks, log scaling, log sorting, careful log inspection, remanufacturing into
ideal lengths, rescaling, moving logs to the deck, moving logs from decks to the dock,
and loading the logs onto the ship.

The values previously shown for domestic manufacturing are the delivered log
values. There is approximately $65 per MBF of value added to the logs in domestic
manufacturing. This includes offsetting costs of log scaling, log yard operations, milling
and planing, and loading for shipping. Once the lumber leaves the mill yard, and
before it reaches the end consumer, value continues to be added by the trucking or rail
companies, wholesale yards, retail yards, and the builder.

Specialty Products

There continues to be a strong market for Port-Orford-cedar specialty products. These
products, including arrow shafts, arrow shaft bolts, and boughs, generate at least $1.5
million of value in the Port-Orford-cedar region each year. Demand exists to potentially
double this value if a sufficient supply of raw materials were available. Most noteworthy
of these products are arrow shafts and boughs.

Arrow Shafts

The unique strength, bending, and grain characteristics of Port-Orford-cedar have created
a worldwide demand for Port-Orford-cedar arrow shafts. In the past, arrow shafts have
been made by up to eleven manufacturers. Today only one arrow shaft manufacturer
remains: Rose City Archery, Inc., of Myrtle Point, Oregon. Rose City Archery employs
approximately 15 people year around with plans to add additional people in the near
future.

Rose City Archery sells arrow shafts worldwide. The manufacturing process is labor
intensive. Each arrow shaft is graded 14 times before it is completely through the
process, and each shaft is individually tested for bending strength (fig. 7.8). A potential
arrow shaft is first sawn into a square blank, then graded, sorted and dried. Once the
square blanks are dry, each blank is shaped into an arrow shaft. These shafts are again
graded and sorted. They are individually tested for bending strength, and sorted and
graded again. With the by-products, Rose City Archery manufactures more than 100,000
garden stakes each year, as well as planter baskets and window boxes. Oil is distilled out
of the sawdust and used for perfume, pet care products, aromatherapy, and mosquito
repellant.

Port-Orford-cedar for arrow shafts is purchased by the cord (fig. 7.9), and between 250
and 300 cords are used each year. This wood comes from dead and down old-growth
logs. In many cases these trees have been lying on the forest floor for many years. The
present supply of old-growth Port-Orford-cedar needed for arrow shafts limits annual
production to about 2.5 million. The demand exists to double the current production
if additional old-growth logs were available.17 The value of arrow shafts and the by-
products have increased in each of the last five years.

17 Dishion, Jerry. 1998. Personal communication. Owner. Rose City Archery, Inc., 94931 Quiet Valley Lane, P.O. Box 5, Myrtle Point, OR 97458.

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 7.9 — Bolts of Port-Orford-cedar to be used for producing arrow shafts

100

Boughs

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Or ford-Cedar

Port-Orford-cedar boughs are popular for use by the floral industry. A glycerin
compound is drawn through the plant's vascular system, effectively preserving the
boughs. Different colors of dye are added to the glycerin to color the boughs. Port-
Orford-cedar is better adapted to this preserving and drying process than other species
such as western red cedar or incense cedar. Collecting boughs and manufacturing
products occurs throughout the year. Ten businesses were identified which purchase
boughs. Some were small family businesses that operate during the summer and fall,
bundling and packaging fresh boughs that are sold to wholesale florists. Individual
company's annual Port-Orford-cedar purchases range from a few thousand to a million
pounds.18

Harvesters purchase bough permits for approximately $.02 to $.05 per pound. The
harvesters collect boughs, cut them to length, bundle, and deliver them to brush houses
or post-harvest processors who pay $.25 to $.30 per pound. Brush houses accumulate
large quantities of boughs and sell them throughout the United States to wholesale
and retail floral outlets. It is estimated 1.2 million pounds of Port-Orford-cedar boughs
are purchased annually, with a value of approximately $330,000 paid to the harvesters.
The brush houses typically sell their products for about three times the value paid to
harvesters.19

Value is added by arranging boughs into fresh wreaths, garlands, and greens during
the holiday season, and by preserving and coloring the boughs for use throughout
the year as wreaths, garlands, and arrangement foliage. Fresh and treated boughs are
trimmed to the specification of the product being constructed. Half the purchase weight
will often be trimmed in this process. Products manufactured by this process, such as
garlands and wreaths, will wholesale at about ten times the purchase value. The retail
price will often be double the wholesale price. The total value added to the boughs
when they are retailed is about 20 times the price paid to the pickers.20 It is estimated
boughs generate over $1 million in value annually to the local economy. The demand
for boughs has substantially exceeded the supply in recent years. The Forest Service
and BLM have greatly restricted the sale of boughs because of concerns of spreading the
pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis. Supply is unlikely to increase in the near future with the
uncertainty of supply from federal lands. There is, however, a developing private bough-
producing business (fig. 7.10) that has the potential to fill this demand.

Figure 7.10 — Port-Orford-cedar being cultivated for
bough production

' Stevens, Mark. 1998. Personal communication. Hiawatha, Inc., 14301 Highway 42, Myrtle Point, OR 97458.
1 1999. Personal communication. Continental Floral Greens, 999 N. Front St, Coos Bay, OR 97420.

101

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Employment

Domestic manufacturing and exporting of Port-Orford-cedar generates jobs to support
the local and regional economies. Domestic manufacturing of any timber, from stump
to finished product, is estimated to generate 9.07 direct jobs per million board feet in
southwestern Oregon (USDA and USDI 1994). Jobs included are logging, saw milling,
mill working, and processing other wood products (chips and sawdust). An additional
8.75 indirect and induced jobs are created for every million board feet processed (FEMAT
1993).

Exporting of Port-Orford-cedar generates a similar amount of direct employment, only
in different sectors of the job market. Such jobs include logging, scaling, inspecting and
re-manufacturing, sorting, yard handling, stevedoring, and ship moving (tugs). In many
cases, the logging of high value export Port-Orford-cedar is labor intensive, especially
in cases where only the high quality trees are removed from a stand. When this is the
case, the U.S. Department of Agriculture employment projections may underestimate the
actual employment numbers.

Figure 7.11 shows the impact of changes in domestic manufacturing and exporting on
employment over time.21 In 1990, the direct employment related to Port-Orford-cedar
(excluding boughs) was estimated to be 138 jobs. The number of indirect jobs was
estimated at 117, for a total of 255. A low was reached in 1995, with a total of 126 jobs,
and rebounded to 166 jobs in 1997. This trend tracks the total volume of Port-Orford-
cedar harvest during the period. No data were available for employment from bough
harvesting and processing, although over a million pounds are harvested annually, and
this requires a great deal of labor.

It is estimated that, in 1997, 166 jobs in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon
were related to Port-Orford-cedar. The counties most affected by employment related
to Port-Orford-cedar harvesting in Oregon are Douglas, Coos, Curry, and Josephine.
Unemployment rates in those counties, in 1997 for example, were more than double the
average for the United States as a whole, making jobs particularly valuable. The counties
most affected by employment related to Port-Orford-cedar harvesting in California are
Del Norte and Humboldt counties.

EMPLOYMENT
Port-Orford-cedar

—OK— Total
— s£s — Export

-Q- -Domestic
•O- -Indirect

300

250

JS 200

•% 150

IH 100

Figure 7.11 — Number of jobs associated with Port-Orford-cedar 1990 - 1997

21 Direct jobs were estimated using domestic and export volumes expanded by 9.07 jobs per million board feet. Seventeen jobs were added to
account for arrow shaft production. Indirect jobs were estimated by expanding the volume by 8.75 jobs per million board feet.

102

Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

County and State Revenues

Prior to 1994, county receipts from the federal government paid to counties in-lieu-of
taxes were based on the revenues generated by federal timber sales within each county.
This was calculated as 50 percent of BLM and 25 percent of Forest Service revenues.
When a high value species, such as old-growth Port-Orford-cedar was exported, the
increased value provided a boost to local county receipts.

Court injunctions greatly curtailed the federal timber sale program beginning in 1991.
Timber volume harvested under contract with the federal government declined for the
next several years as long-term contracts were completed. The NFP in 1994 called for an
80 percent permanent reduction from the level of federal timber harvest achieved during
the 1980s. The timber volumes allowed under the NFP were just beginning to be realized
by 1998, when court injunctions once again put a virtual halt to federal timber sales.
Congress instituted a series of laws referred to as "safety net payments" to alleviate the
impact of reduced income to the counties.22 These payments provided a percentage of
the average receipts received during 1986 through 1990. A declining scale of payments
was provided for the period 1995 through 2002 which calculated payments using average
receipts from 1986 through 1990. Counties received 82 percent of the average in 1995 and
were to receive 61 percent in 2002, the final year the payments were to be in effect.23

In Oregon, timber taxes are required to be paid when timber is harvested. Private timber
owners paid $119,791 for Port-Orford-cedar harvest in 1997 (Western Oregon Privilege
Tax). The Western Oregon Harvest Tax paid by all landowners for Port-Orford-cedar,
in that same year, was $12,460. The total tax paid for Port-Orford-cedar harvest was
$132,252 (table 7.2).

In California, a tax is levied on timber removed from all lands, except Indian
Reservations. In 1997, the total yield tax paid for Port-Orford-cedar was $32,525 (table
7.2).

The annual regional economic contribution of Port-Orford-cedar in 1997 is shown in table
7.3.

Table 7.2 — Summary of Port-Orford-cedar timber taxes (1997 tax year)

California:

California Yield Tax

Oregon:

Oregon Privilege Tax

Industrial Land Owners
Oregon Harvest Tax (Private lands)
Oregon Harvest Tax (Public lands)
Subtotal Oregon Tax

$1,121,565 stumpage value * .029 = $ 32,525

$3,743,488 stumpage value * .032 = $119,792

4,035 MBF * $2.11 =$ 8,514

1,870 MBF * $2.11 = $ 3,946

$132,252

Total California and Oregon Tax

$164,777

22 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Sections 13982 and 13983, Public Law 103-66. 16 U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note).

Update: In 2000, the "safety net payments" were repealed and replaced with a program that started in 2001 (Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note). This program includes a series of payments spanning
the years 2001 through 2006, and bases payments on each county's high three year average from receipts from federal lands within the county
during the period 1986 through 1999. The future of payments to counties, after 2006, is unknown. Unless harvest levels increase substantially
by that time, the volume and value of Port-Orford-cedar included in the timber harvest base will contribute little to county receipts.

103

A Range-Wide Assessment of V or t-Or ford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Table 7.3 — Annual regional economic contribution of Port-Orford-cedar
(1997 tax year)

Value of logs exported $ 6,501,005

Value add ed - export (2,208 MBF * $1 00) $ 220,800

Value of domestic logs $ 5,166,477

Value added - domestic (6,153 MBF * $65) $ 399,945

Specialty products $ 1,500,000

State timber taxes $ 1 64,777

Total Direct Economic Value $13,953,004

Literature Cited

Brattain, D.; Stuntzer, R.E. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar alliance: response to ONRC's [Oregon
Natural Resources Council's] proposal to list Port-Orford-cedar. Smith River, CA: 143 p.
On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone
Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. P. VI-34.

Stuntzer, R.E. 1991. Port-Orford-cedar Study: a report on the socio-economic impacts of
the harvest of Port-Orford-cedar. Coos Bay, OR. 56 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon
Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road,
Central Point, OR 97502.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973. Port-Orford-cedar, an American
wood. FS-228. Washington, D.C. 7 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and
Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR
97502.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on
management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species within the
range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 322 p.

Warren, D.D. 1985. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest
industries. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.

Warren, D.D. 1998. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest
industries, third quarter 1997. PNW-RB-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 30, 33, 35.

Zobel, D.B. 1986. Port-Orford-cedar: a forgotten species. Journal of Forest History. 30:
29-36.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar {Chamaecyparis laivsoniana ). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

104

Chapter 8

Social Value of
Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction 107

Native American Values 107

Asian Values 108

Local Values, Case Study 1: The Williams Port-Orford-Cedar Management Project 109

Background 109

Project Description 109

Late-Successional and Riparian Reserve Management 109

Strategies 110

Treatments 110

Monitoring Ill

Reactions of Williams Residents Ill

Landscape Approach to Managing Port-Orford-Cedar 114

Local Values, Case Study 2: Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in High Plateau . . 114

Public Values and User Conflicts 115

Disease Management in the Smith River Basin and High Plateau. . . . 116

The Controversy Heats Up: The Six Rivers Forest Plan 116

Taking a Strategic Approach 118

Special Interest Area (SIA) Management Strategy 119

Assessing the Level of Risk to Port-Orford-Cedar in High Plateau ... 120

Why Propose A Year-Round Closure? 120

The Public Response 121

Literature Cited 122

Authors: Frank Betlejewski, Laura M. Chapman and Kathy McClellan-Heffner

June 2001

105

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

106

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Introduction

Port-Orford -cedar has had a long history of use by humans. In addition, sectors of
society have become increasingly knowledgeable about the importance of Port-Orford-
cedar's ecological roles, concerned about the affects of Phytophthora lateralis on the
species and the ecosystem, and involved in efforts to maintain Port-Orford-cedar within
its natural range. In recent years, public input has been significant in shaping federal
agencies' Port-Orford-cedar root disease management approaches (see Appendix G for a
summary of the development of the interagency Port-Orford-cedar coordination effort).

This chapter on social values does not attempt to provide a definitive discussion of the
wide array of human values associated with Port-Orford-cedar. Rather, it highlights
a few examples that illustrate the range of social concerns with the species, changes
in social perceptions and objectives since the Zobel et al. monograph was written
in 1985, and the challenges that managers face in trying to address often widely
diverging concerns from the public and interest groups. Specifically, it focuses on
Native American people's use of Port-Orford-cedar, Japanese use and changing values,
and two case histories which portray the types of public concerns that surface with
regard to management of Port-Orford-cedar root disease in southwestern Oregon and
northwestern California.

Native American Values

Aboriginal use of Port-Orford-cedar began in antiquity (Beckham 1971 ). Several
southwestern Oregon Bands and Tribes lived within cedar forests that influenced their
daily lives. Other tribes in northern California made use of Port-Orford-cedar that
occurred within forests dominated by Douglas-fir and redwood, and considered Port-
Orford-cedar to be an integral part of their way of life. Today, Port-Orford-cedar plays
a significant role in the cultural, medicinal, and religious life of many Tribes. Tribes
that use Port-Orford-cedar include the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde, the
Confederated Tribes of Siletz, the Confederated. Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
Siuslaw, the Cow Creek Umpqua Indians in southwestern Oregon, the Coos-Coquille
Tribe around Coos Bay, and the Hoopa, Upper Tolowa, Yurok, and Karuk Tribes in
northern California (Beckham 1971, Heffner 1984, Hendryx and Hendryx 1991, Miller
and Kenetta 1996).

Known for its durability, Port-Orford-cedar was, and still is, used to construct living
and sweat houses, both of which hold ceremonial functions. Historically, wind thrown
cedars or drift logs were preferentially used, before resorting to live felling. While the
cedar living house is no longer used as a permanent residence, it is still constructed for
ceremonial purposes. The sweathouse continues to be actively used by individuals,
families, and communities (Jimerson 1994).

Native Americans use many parts of the Port-Orford-cedar tree. Buds are used to heal
sore lungs, throats, and toothaches. Coughs can be treated with the leaves. The bark and
twigs are used to heal kidney problems. Regalia items used in religious ceremonies can
also be made from the wood. Other items, such as feathers and hides, are stored in Port-
Orford-cedar trunks because the oils and aroma of the wood repel insects (Heffner 1984).

While some tribes own lands with Port-Orford-cedar, some do not. Tribes that do
manage Port-Orford-cedar on their reservation lands include the Hoopa and Yurok
Tribes in northern California. The Hoopa's land management reflects and emphasizes
the cultural and religious value of Port-Orford-cedar and the Tribe's concern about the
impacts of the root disease caused by P. lateralis. In 1986, Tribal Resolution established
a policy that prohibited the cutting of Port-Orford-cedar, except for ceremonial and

107

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

religious uses. The Tribe's land management plan initiated the establishment of reserves,
encouraged continual planting of the species, and closed all dead-end roads in the
portion of the range of Port-Orford-cedar on the reservation (Hoopa Tribal Forestry 1994,
Pacific Meridian Resources 1996). The Karuk Tribe also has established an ancestral lands
forest management plan that reflects its desire to protect Port-Orford-cedar from the root
disease (Karuk Tribe of California 1989).

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law legislation that created the Coquille
Tribal Forest from lands formally managed by the Coos Bay District Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Two years later, 5,400 acres were transferred from the BLM to
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be managed in trust for the Coquille Indian Tribe. This
land has a small amount of Port-Orford-cedar, which is to be managed based upon the
guidelines in use by the BLM at the time the land was transferred (USDI 1995a).

Tribes that do not have Port-Orford-cedar as part of their reservation landscape depend
on federal lands to obtain the much-needed wood as they build cultural structures
for ceremonial use. Providing access to, and harvest of, Port-Orford-cedar by tribal
governments and traditional practitioners raises many issues. Conflicts have arisen
between desires of federal managers to protect healthy stands of Port-Orford-cedar
from P. lateralis and desires of Native American groups to be granted access to culturally
significant locations. Providing access for ceremonial use of the wood has also caused
controversy. Many Tribes have requested free use of Port-Orford-cedar for ceremonial
purposes.

Asian Values

Old-growth Port-Orford-cedar wood has characteristics very similar to hinoki and other
Asian Chamaecyparis species, and has been highly valued since the mid-1800s by Asian
societies, especially the Japanese. The wood has religious and ceremonial significance
and has been used to replace wood in temples, posts and beams in tatami rooms, sushi
bar counter tops, and lintel pieces in homes.

Historically, the Japanese have found the light-colored, fine-grained wood of Port-Orford-
cedar trees 200 years old or older to be especially desirable for their uses. They have
been willing to pay extremely high prices, among the highest ever paid for any conifer,
for quality cedar logs from California and Oregon (see Economics chapter, Chapter 7).
Because of Japanese demand, export values for Port-Orford-cedar have in the past been
so much higher than domestic values that Port-Orford-cedar logs have been exempt from
federal unprocessed log export bans.

In recent years, Japanese interest in Port-Orford-cedar has declined. The economic
problems suffered in Japan have undoubtedly contributed to this, but cultural changes
are also responsible. The current generation of Japanese is less influenced by traditional
values and is simply less willing to pay the high prices that Port-Orford-cedar
commanded in the past.

108

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Local Values, Case Study 1: The Williams
Port-Orford-Cedar Management Project

Background

The Williams Creek Watershed contains Port-Orford-cedar at the easternmost extent of
its range within southwestern Oregon. It has both healthy stand components and stand
components infested with the pathogen P. lateralis. The Medford District BLM, Grants
Pass Resource Area proposed the Williams Port-Orford-Cedar Management Project to
reduce P. lateralis in those areas where it currently exists and to prevent export of the
pathogen to uninfected stands. The project was intended to operationally evaluate the
current best-known approaches for controlling P. lateralis at a small scale. The scenario
was to implement a multi-faceted, integrated strategy to determine biologically effective
and economically feasible techniques for control of the pathogen.

Project Description

The Williams Creek Watershed is located approximately 12 miles southwest of the
community of Grants Pass and 20 miles west of the city of Medford in the southwest
corner of Josephine County, Oregon. There are approximately 52,000 acres in the
watershed. Of these, the BLM administers 26,990 acres (52 percent), the Forest Service
administers 819 acres (1.5 percent), Josephine County owns approximately 1,670 acres
(3.2 percent), and commercial timber companies and individuals own the remaining 43
percent (USDI 1996b).

The 1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995b) and the Northwest
Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994b) provide overall direction for managing lands
administered by the BLM in the Williams Creek Watershed. The Williams Creek Port-
Orford-Cedar Management Project incorporates the recommendations of the BLM Port-
Orford-Cedar Management Guidelines (Betlejewski 1994), which were adopted in the
1995 Medford District Resource Management Plan (USDI 1995b).

The project design draws upon many documents which provide guidelines for
management: the Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA and
USDI 1995b), the Applegate Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Health Assessment
(USDA and USDI 1994a), the Applegate River Watershed Assessment: Aquatic, Wildlife,
and Special Plant Habitat (USDA and USDI 1995a), the Western Oregon Transportation
Management Plan (USDI 1996a), and the Williams Watershed Analysis (USDI 1996b).

Late-Successional and Riparian Reserve Management

Almost the entire project is within Late-Successional or Riparian Reserve land allocations
and most of the late-successional forest in the watershed is on BLM-administered lands.
While the project is within Late-Successional and Riparian Reserves, the over-riding
land use allocation is Adaptive Management Area (AMA). The project lies within the
Applegate AMA. Objectives of this AMA are to develop and test variations of established
management practices that provide late-successional forest and high-quality riparian
habitat (USDA and USDI 1994a).

The primary project objective is to prevent late-successional forests containing Port-
Orford-cedar from becoming infested. Other objectives are retention of large (greater
than 21 inches DBH) live Port-Orford-cedar for species and structural diversity, retention
of old-growth snags as described by Jimerson (1989), and accelerated late-successional

109

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

habitat development where it currently does not exist in Late-Successional and Riparian
Reserves. The long-term objective is reintroduction of disease resistant Port-Orford-cedar
to areas where the species has been killed by the pathogen.

Past timber harvest has reduced the number of large conifers available for dead wood
recruitment to streams and Riparian Reserves (USDI 1998). The project seeks to retain a
late-successional snag component (conifers) where it currently exists and accelerate the
development of such a component where it is minimal or absent. With no management
intervention, additional infection of live Port-Orford-cedar has the potential to increase
levels of infestation as a result of increased pathogen population levels. Removal
or mortality of Port-Orford-cedar in Riparian Reserves may affect fish habitat both
beneficially (long-term snag and dead wood recruitment) and non-beneficially (loss of
streamside shading and higher water temperatures). Thinning in Riparian Reserves
would enhance tree growth resulting in large diameter trees and a future large wood
component in the reserves. Creating snags would enhance the current large wood
component.

Strategies

The project incorporates four strategies for controlling the spread of P. lateralis:

1. Create sites unfavorable to the pathogen by thinning stands to allow more light,
and therefore heat, which penetrates to the forest floor and has been shown to be
detrimental to P. lateralis (Ostrofsky et al. 1977).

2. Remove host species from areas key to the spread of the disease to prevent the
pathogen from reproducing. Preliminary work by the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect
and Disease Service Center indicates that sporeload, along infested roads, decreases 3
to 4 years after sanitation treatments that eliminate Port-Orford-cedar.

3. Manage stands to break up the continuity of live Port-Orford-cedar host trees to
prevent root-to-root spread of the pathogen. This strategy would remove all Port-
Orford-cedar within a 2 crown-width radius of an infected tree in infested areas;
within uninfested areas, Port-Orford-cedar free zones of about 4 crown-width radii
would be established (Daniel et al. 1979, Gordon 1974, Gordon and Roth 1976).

4. Manage roads and public access to prevent further spread of the pathogen. Motor
vehicles can contribute substantially to the spread of the pathogen. However,
mountain bikes, livestock, and even foot travel can also disperse the pathogen across
the landscape (Betlejewski 1994).

Treatments

The Williams Port-Orford-Cedar Management Project designed the following treatments
to meet the objectives of the strategies outlined above:

Port-Orford-Cedar Exclusion Treatments (Sanitation) in Infested Areas — A prescription
was established to provide criteria for Port-Orford-cedar tree removal below a road
considering site-specific information, including individual tree height and distance from
the road. Other factors considered for sanitation treatments were human safety concerns
for falling snags on the roadway, potential Port-Orford-cedar theft, and the associated
risk of spreading the pathogen.

Roadside Treatments for Roads Open in Uninfested Areas — Within a maximum distance
of 25 feet upslope and 50 feet downslope of the road, as measured from the toe of the fill,
all Port-Orford-cedar trees would be removed. Commercial trees would be harvested

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

and noncommercial trees would be cut, hand-piled and burned. The remaining trees
and shrubs would be thinned and the slash would be piled and burned. Bough cutting
would only be allowed during the dry season and would occur in uninfested roadside
treatment areas first, then infested roadside treatment areas.

Commercial Thinning Treatments in Uninfested Areas — Commercial thinning
prescriptions were designed to reduce overall tree density, accelerate the development of
larger diameter trees (both conifers and hardwoods), and increase the conifer component
of the stands. In these areas, Port-Orford-cedar was favored for retention.

Pre-commercial Thinning Treatments — These treatments were proposed to accelerate
the development from early serai shrub stage to a closed-canopy conifer and hardwood
forest. In stands infested with P. lateralis, Port-Orford-cedar would be selected for
removal. In pathogen-free stands, Port-Orford-cedar would be retained, with the
exception of areas designed to break up continuous distribution across the landscape.

Road Decommissioning, Closures, and Maintenance — Decommissioning of 0.21 miles
of road and the gating of 18 miles of road would close a 4 to 5 square mile un-infested
area. Subsequent road maintenance and repair would improve road drainage and reduce
sediment flow (USDI, 1998).

Vehicle Washing — Vehicle washing stations would be constructed. All vehicles
associated with a timber sale would be washed prior to leaving an infested area and
prior to entering an uninfested area. To lower any additional risk, uninfested areas
would be entered first, followed by infested areas. Washing would not be required for
site-preparation, slashing crews, or bough collectors; however, parking areas, access, and
egress routes were identified and work would be permitted only during the dry season.

Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring was developed as part of the project and builds upon previous
work completed by the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center.
Project implementation and monitoring will determine the effectiveness of this project for
meeting long-term objectives.

Local residents were employed to conduct part of the monitoring. This helped create
a feeling of local ownership in the project and also built stronger trust between the
residents and the BLM.

Reactions of Williams Residents

Information concerning Port-Orford-cedar management and P. lateralis control strategies
was provided to the community from 1996 through 1998. This outreach consisted of
presentations to the Applegate Partnership and the Williams Town Council, and two
public field trips to review portions of the project area (fig. 8.1).

111

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Figure 8.1 — Teresa Gallager-Hill, BLM Realty Specialist, discussing reciprocal right-of-
way and road use agreements on a public tour near Williams, Oregon

The Williams Neighborhood (described in Words into Action: A Community Assessment of
the Applegate Valley (Preister 1994)) is recognized as "an independent-minded community
.... represented by resource workers, alternative community, farmers, retirees,
commuters, trade and service workers, and many entrepreneurs. Community issues
include school funding, forest management, and land use" (Preister 1994). Attitudes
from the community concerning BLM activities in the Williams Neighborhood generally
range from positive or neutral to those that believe human management has resulted in
degradation to the environment" (Preister 1997).

Public and community concerns in response to the Williams Port-Orford-Cedar
Management Project were compiled from letters, faxes, newspaper articles, and phone
conversation records occurring between September 12, 1996, and December 17, 1998.
The local watershed council, town council, environmental groups, the timber industry,
the Applegate Partnership, and private individuals expressed the following ideas and
concerns:

• Project actions or unproven management methods should not take place in Riparian
and/or Late-Successional Reserves or unentered forests. Too little late-successional
forest remains and old-growth forests are being converted into tree plantations.

• More scientific research and peer review is needed before planning a project of this
nature. Some critics stated that the project should be on a much smaller scale, while
others thought the project was not large enough to be effective in stopping the spread
of the pathogen. Many citizens wanted more scientific evidence supporting the
effectiveness of the management techniques before moving forward.

• Bough collecting or logging activities within die project may inadvertently further
spread the disease.

112

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

• There was general agreement that some management should be attempted, however,
there was disagreement as to what types of management should occur. Some people
responded with suggestions for what they believed to be less invasive treatments,
such as fertilizing soils (suggesting that healthy soils would stop the spread of the
pathogen). Other ideas included planting horsetails (Equisetum) or other species
believed to have anti-fungal properties, focusing priorities on uninfested areas rather
than infested areas, and planting Port-Orford-cedar in areas unfavorable to the
pathogen.

• Some felt that county, state, and federal agencies need to take more responsibility for
management of Port-Orford-cedar and control of P. lateralis, with plans encompassing
entire watersheds. Mapping of watersheds should be done and treatments should be
the same, regardless of ownership. Land exchanges should be considered, blocking up
ownership would allow more consistent management.

• A lack of trust was expressed concerning the use of timber harvest to control the
spread of the disease. It was felt that this type of management was an excuse to
harvest timber and reflected commodity extraction as a priority over the environment.
Statements such as, "the proposal calls for killing the cedar in order to save them,"
reflected this distrust.

• Some believed the appropriate consultation and review had not occurred, and that the
BLM was not following its own management strategies (i.e., Northwest Forest Plan
and watershed analysis recommendations).

• Some felt that more restrictive road management should occur across all ownerships,
including road decommissioning (with culvert and ditch line removal), gating,
installation of more wash stations, and seasonal road closures during the wet season.

• Many watershed residents wanted greater participation in management of their
watershed and wanted more efforts to communicate with the public. Earlier
notification of meetings, more field trips and presentations to the community, and
public education pamphlets were examples of better communication.

• Participants felt the field trips were informative. Some supported the project, stating it
was good and should be attempted as long as the watershed was not degraded, local
workers were employed, and it contributed to the local economy.

Many diverse opinions on how to address the management of Port-Orford-cedar and
control P. lateralis surfaced during this public comment period. While all comments
were considered and addressed, not all comments resulted in changes to the project. For
example, the comment/proposal to fertilize soils to make them less susceptible to disease
was not incorporated. An infested part of the project area had previously been fertilized
and observations did not show less susceptibility of Port-Orford-cedar to P. lateralis.

The project went through extensive peer review during the two-year development
period, with reviewers representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Regional
Ecosystem Office, Forest Pest Management Northern California Service Center, and the
Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center.

113

A Range- Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Landscape Approach to Managing Port-Orford-Cedar

The project focuses on lands administered by the BLM. While complementary
approaches to Port-Orford-cedar management on private and public lands are desirable,
the extent of potential cooperation is difficult to estimate. At least one citizen's opinion
was "that if the management techniques proposed as part of this project proved effective,
private landowners would likely continue the management practices onto their own
lands."24

Others have recognized the need of complementary management that crossed property
boundaries. This model of collaboration between citizens, scientists, and managers was
recognized by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team and was deemed
important and to be used in conjunction with the concept of Adaptive Management
Areas. New working relationships were envisioned which could be developed
across land ownership patterns, jurisdictional arrangements, and social environments
(Shannon and Sturtevant 1995). There were at least two opinions on how this could be
accomplished. In some cases, support was given for the BLM proposal to be a test case.
The project could be implemented, and if proven successful, it could then be incorporated
on other ownerships. Others thought that the project would not work unless private
owners participated from the beginning.

Local Values, Case Study 2: Managing
Port-Orford-Cedar in High Plateau

Since Port-Orford-cedar root disease (P. lateralis) was first identified in the Smith River
basin in 1980, there has been growing public interest in the actions that the Six Rivers
National Forest is taking to minimize the risk of spreading the disease. The Forest has
undertaken several strategies to control spread, including washing of vehicles, limiting
construction and timber harvest activities to the dry season, and altering the design of
roads and timber sale operations. One of the most effective control measures is also the
most controversial - the gating of roads to prevent vehicles from picking up infested
soil and transporting it to uninfested areas. The gating of roads in the High Plateau area
within the North Fork Smith River watershed is very controversial. Management of the
High Plateau has been the source of conflict among user groups with vastly different
interests and core values, and the Forest's efforts to protect Port-Orford-cedar in the area
illustrates the difficulties that land management agencies face in trying to resolve these
differences. Although this case study focuses solely on the High Plateau area, the issues
raised by the public exemplify the concerns expressed regarding Port-Orford-cedar root
disease management across the Forest.

High Plateau hardly seems to be the kind of place that would spark much controversy.
It is remote; a long drive from any populated area, requiring travel along infrequently
maintained and rugged dirt roads. The infertile serpentine soils in the area support only
sparse vegetation, giving the area an open, dry, sun-baked character. The area is full of
historic mines; mining roads, tailing piles, and old mining equipment litter the area. Yet
it is precisely the remote and rugged character of the area that appeals to several distinct
and divergent groups.

24 Hill, D.5. on behalf of the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association. 1998. Letter to the Grants Pass Resource Area Field Manager
supporting the Record of Decision for the Williams Port-Orford-cedar Management Project. On file with: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Medford, OR.

114

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orfoni-Cedar

Public Values and User Conflicts

Botanical and environmental groups value High Plateau for its biological diversity. High
Plateau is located within the North Fork of the Smith River. It is part of the Josephine
ultramafic sheet (a mineral-rich rock formation), one of the most extensive ultramafic
landscapes in North America. Because serpentine soils derived from this ultramafic
parent material are infertile, the area is not conducive for growth of most plants, and
vegetation is sparse and scrubby. However, a variety of unique plant communities have
adapted to tolerate these harsh soil conditions. As a result, the High Plateau is one of the
most botanically significant areas on the Forest. Many rare and endemic plant species are
found within its plant communities, including one federal and state listed endangered
species and nine Forest Service sensitive species.

Port-Orford-cedar is found throughout the North Fork Smith River watershed in
association with many of the plant communities and is valued as a member of the forest
ecosystem. Particular concern, however, is given to the High Plateau because of its link
with unique plant communities. Public interest in this area, coupled with the Forest's
recognition of its unique character, led to the establishment of the 21,370-acre North Fork
Smith Botanical Area, which is centered around the High Plateau.

Few people travel to High Plateau each year. The Forest estimates that less than 100
vehicles travel the main access roads into the High Plateau— roads 18N09, 18N13, and
their associated spur roads— annually, mostly during the summer months. A few people
visit the area for botanical and scenic sightseeing, hunting, mineral collecting, and
traditional Native American use; but by far the primary use of the area is by off-highway
vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts (four wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and dirt bikes).

Although they are small in number, the people who recreate in High Plateau are a vocal
group with strong ties to the area. Some of them have been visiting the area for over
30 years, valuing the solitude and challenge that High Plateau offers. OHV enthusiasts
like High Plateau for two reasons. First, the area is remote and the roads are rugged and
difficult to traverse. High Plateau is crisscrossed with old mining roads; many of them
were not built to Forest Service standards. Without adequate drainage, numerous ruts
and gullies have been formed by water flowing across the roads. There are also some
challenging low water crossings that are impassable during high flows. Second, the route
created by the roads 18N09 and 18N13 is the only loop route on the Forest. Organized
groups have made annual trips to the area.

Since the 1980s, these two distinct public interest groups, the environmental groups on
the one hand and the OHV enthusiasts on the other, have been voicing their concerns
about the Forest's management of High Plateau. Because the area is home to a variety of
rare and unique plant communities, botanical and environmental groups have advocated
restricting OHV use of the area. They believe that OHV use is not appropriate within
a Botanical Area that, according to the Six Rivers Land and Resource Management
Plan (USDA 1995), is to be managed to "maintain ecological processes and the unique
values for which the area was designated." On the other hand, the OHV community
notes that there are few areas in the vicinity which provide the same type of recreational
opportunities. Many feel that environmental groups and some Forest Service staff do
not like OHV recreation in general, and that the North Fork Smith Botanical Area was
established simply to limit OHV use of the area.

115

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Disease Management in the Smith River Basin and High
Plateau

Port-Orford-cedar root disease has spread to most of the drainages in the North Fork,
Middle Fork, and Main Stem Smith River watersheds. However, the drainages in the
High Plateau area (High Plateau, Bear, Stony and Peridotite Canyon Creeks) remain
uninfested, forming the largest island of uninfested subwatersheds within the North
Fork, Middle Fork, and Main Stem Smith River watersheds. These drainages also
represent the largest uninfested island in the Josephine ultramafic sheet. There are a
number of theories as to why this area is still uninfested.

One theory is that the low level of use has provided little opportunity for the disease
to enter the area. During high flow periods the low water crossings are impassable,
preventing travel to High Plateau during much of the wet season. Another untested
theory is that infested soil, and thus the pathogen, may be washed from tires during the
low water crossings before entering the high country. Some people believe that luck is
the only reason why the disease has not yet infected these watersheds.

At the beginning of the debate regarding High Plateau, Forest direction for management
of the area was considered by some to be vague and even confusing. According to the
Smith River National Recreation Area (NRA) Act of 1990, the management emphasis
for the North Fork of the Smith is on "back-country and Whitewater recreation, while
recognizing the unique botanical communities, outstanding Whitewater, and historic and
scenic values." The Act also requires the Forest to "provide for the long-term viability
and presence of Port-Orford-cedar and ensure its continued present economic and non-
economic uses through implementation of management strategies developed by the
Forest Service." The Smith River Management Plan direction for the North Fork Smith
notes that, "the abundant access these [historic mining] roads provide, along with the
unusually erosion resistant soils, provide an excellent opportunity for managed OHV
use." In fact, the Plan highlighted roads 18N09 and 18N13 as OHV routes.

As the controversy regarding management of High Plateau was brewing, the Forest was
also becoming more proactive in preventing the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease
within the Smith River Basin. Forest staff installed gates on many roads and closed them
during the wet season to prevent the import or export of the disease. Seasonal gates were
installed on both 18N09 and 18N13, but they were repeatedly damaged or destroyed by
vandals.

The Controversy Heats Up: The Six Rivers Forest Plan

In 1994, Six Rivers National Forest released its draft Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan) for public comment. The Forest received a number of comments about
the management of Port-Orford-cedar in general, which are summarized below:

• The Forest must consider the role of Port-Orford-cedar in the maintenance of
biological diversity, including its roles in riparian ecosystems, in sensitive plant
habitat, and as an old-growth component of ecosystems.

• Current project-level efforts to prevent the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease
are inadequate. The Forest needs to improve its strategy for preventing the spread of
Port-Orford-cedar root disease by analyzing Port-Orford-cedar at a broader scale.

• The Forest should close /obliterate roads, prevent construction of new roads, and
prohibit/limit access into watersheds containing uninfected Port-Orford-cedar to
control the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease.

116

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

• Do not log stands containing Port-Orford-cedar until studies are completed for the
protection of existing healthy stands.

In addition to these general comments, some people commented specifically about Port-
Orford-cedar management and road access in the High Plateau area. Excerpts from their
comments are provided below.

• Port-Orford-cedar is often the dominant or only riparian conifer found in the stream
corridors within these watersheds. The cedars are also found in other wetlands.
On these sites they often provide some of the only available shade. Wetlands and
stream corridors, especially in ultramafic soils, harbor many rare and sensitive plant
species. The cedar's calcium content also provides important ameliorative effects for
other species and possible aquatic invertebrates. Loss of cedar due to root disease
introduction will impact riparian ecosystems and sensitive plant habitat and also affect
the outstanding values of National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

• The introduction of the root disease into uninfested watersheds is irreversible and
causes long-term and continued ecological destruction. Roads and logging have
spread the root disease into many of the major watersheds of the Smith River Basin.
Subwatersheds (such as High Plateau Creek, Stony Creek, and Peridotite Canyon) may
be some of the last best hopes for maintaining uninfected riparian and wetland cedar
ecosystems in the Basin especially on ultramafic parent material.

• The High Plateau area contains some of the finest stands of uninfected Port-Orford-
cedar remaining on the Smith River NRA, mostly associated with the many drainages
flowing into the North Fork of the Smith River. Vehicles entering High Plateau must
pass through areas infected with Port-Orford-cedar root disease; the OH V route

on High Plateau advocated by the Forest actually passes through the headwaters
of Stony Creek, known for its exceptional diversity in rare plants and unique plant
communities. The impacts of partial or complete loss of Port-Orford-cedar in plant
communities where it is a dominant are not known; such large-scale perturbations
could negatively impact the many rare species that often occur with Port-Orford-cedar.
Therefore, increased OHV use not only risks loss of the exceptional Port-Orford-cedar
stands in this area, but may also impact associated rare species.

In 1995, in response to public comments, the Forest incorporated a number of standards
and guidelines into the final Plan, including the following:

• Integrate strategies for reducing the risk of Port-Orford-cedar infection from the root
disease into all levels of planning and analysis (e.g. watershed analysis, transportation
and recreation planning, Late Successional Reserve Assessments, National
Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] assessments) in watersheds where it is present.

• Undertake pro-active disease prevention measures such as road closures, road
maintenance, and sanitation removal of roadside Port-Orford-cedar to prevent the
spread of the disease, especially to high risk areas. Identify specific prevention
measures at the drainage or project level.

In addition, because of the comments that were specifically focused on Port-Orford-cedar
root disease and access within the North Fork Smith Botanical Area and High Plateau, a
team of Forest specialists assessed the risk of introducing Port-Orford-cedar root disease
into the North Fork Smith Botanical Area. The team developed a set of criteria, and used
those criteria to assess five alternatives for access. The Forest Supervisor selected an
alternative that had a low risk of introducing the disease into the area. The alternative

117

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

included: year-round closure of road 18N09, with dry season use allowed under a permit
system; and permanent closure of road 18N13 due to the poor road conditions (the road
had a low water crossing and year-round wet spots from seeps and springs), and the
proximity of Port-Orford-cedar to the road.

However, the Forest Supervisor and Forest planning staff were not aware that the Smith
River NRA had signed an agreement with a local four-wheel drive group who adopted
Road 18N13 and wanted to maintain it. When the Final Plan was released, they appealed
the Forest Plan decision on the basis that it was made without adequate public input. In
addition to the closure of Road 18N13, the Forest Plan called for the decommissioning of
25 miles of road annually to benefit aquatic habitats. These measures incensed a number
of local individuals and groups who recreate on the Forest and believe that the Forest
Service should not close existing roads or access to public lands. They felt that roads
were being closed not to protect forest resources, but because people do not like OHVs.
They contacted other regional and national groups, and the Forest received numerous
letters, plus another appeal from a national four wheel drive association. Their concerns
are illustrated in the comments below:

• The North Fork Smith Botanical Area contains the only real OHV trail system on the
Forest. It appears that the designation of this area is intended to stop OHV use, rather
than to preserve plant species, because some user groups and individuals object to
OHV use and /or believe some OHV users might act illegally.

• The Six Rivers is willing to create any reason to close roads. It is clear that the
direction of the Forest Service is to close roads and therefore, close national lands
to the public. If the risk of spread of the fungus into the High Plateau area is indeed
great, as Forest staff insist, then use of this road (18N09) over the last 30 years would
have already resulted in introduction of the disease.

• The basis of this appeal is the plan's reduction in mileage of open Forest Service roads
to recreational four-wheel drive vehicles, while the demand is rapidly increasing for
areas to drive. Cutting access to those areas simply deprives four-wheel drive owners
and their families from experiencing some of the most scenic parts of the forest and
increases impacts to other areas.

In October 1995, the Washington Office reversed the Regional Forester's Forest Plan
decision based on the fact that the Forest Plan did not specify that it made any site-
specific decisions. The appeal decision also required the Forest to perform a site-specific
environmental analysis under NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) to assess
the risk posed to Port-Orford-cedar by road access in the area, and also specified that
Road 18N13 remain closed until the analysis was completed. In the meantime, heavy
winter rains triggered a large landslide on Road 18N09, making the road impassable and
eliminating the only remaining access to High Plateau.

Taking a Strategic Approach

By this time, the two sets of public interests were highly polarized, not just about
High Plateau, but about road access and Port-Orford-cedar root disease prevention
measures in general. The Forest did not think that immediately performing a site-specific
environmental analysis for High Plateau would resolve these differences. Instead, the
Forest decided to step back and take a more strategic approach to the interrelated issues
of Port-Orford-cedar protection, road access, recreational use, and the management of
Botanical and other Special Interest Areas. In February 1996, the Forest leadership team
agreed to undertake the following efforts:

118

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Port-Orford-cedar Risk Assessments — The Smith, Klamath, and Trinity River basins
were divided into sub-watersheds. Roads and management activities were evaluated in
terms of the risk they posed to Port-Orford-cedar. The assessments identified risk levels
for both roads and watersheds and proposed mitigation measures. They also prioritized
watersheds for protection based on the amount of Port-Orford-cedar in the watershed,
the level of risk, and the ability of the Forest to protect the watershed from infestation.

Port-Orford-cedar Plant Association Mapping— The Forest's ecology staff mapped Port-
Orford-cedar plant associations throughout northern California. This effort identified the
extent and location of the different Port-Orford-cedar plant associations, and also refined
information on the extent of the root disease. The mapping effort provided highly
detailed information of Port-Orford-cedar that is useful at both landscape and project
levels.

Port-Orford-cedar Public Education— The Forest developed posters, brochures, and
other information to help get the word out about Port-Orford-cedar, what the Forest was
doing to prevent the spread of the root disease, and what the public could do to help.
Public affairs officers worked with the newspaper, radio, and local TV on articles, news
briefs and interviews about Port-Orford-cedar and the root disease. Forest staff made
presentations to schools and special interest groups.

Consistent Policy Regarding Motorized Recreation— The Forest leadership team agreed
to a set of guidelines for the management of motorized recreation on the Forest, including
the signing of roads for OHV use, special events, public involvement, use of trails, and
improved communication about the program with users.

Recreation Master Plan— Development of this plan began only recently. The Plan will
evaluate recreational uses and desires in order to develop a broad-scale strategy for
recreational management on the Forest. The Plan is being developed collaboratively
with interested publics to develop a list of recommendations to meet desired conditions,
resolve user conflicts, and provide resource protection.

Special Interest Area (SIA) Management Strategy

The North Fork Smith Botanical Area is one of seven SIAs across the Forest designated
for their unique botanical, ecological, or geological features. Many of the issues and user
conflicts regarding management of the North Fork Smith Botanical Area also applied to
the other SIAs on the Forest. The Forest decided to take a broad look at its management
of all of the areas, and to collaborate with all interested publics in developing a strategy
to guide their management.

The development of the SIA Management Strategy was one of the first efforts the
Forest undertook in collaboration with public stakeholders. Because some of the public
perceived Forest staff members as biased in one way or another, the Forest hired an
outside facilitator to help manage the process and facilitate all of the public meetings.
The Forest did not hold open public meetings, but rather invited all of the groups and
individuals who had expressed their concerns over the previous 10 years. The facilitator
asked each to participate, and also asked for the names of other people or groups who
they thoueht would like to be involved.

Over 30 people attended the first meeting. At this meeting, Forest staff outlined the
decision space for the group, and asked that the group provide input on how they use the
areas, why they value each area, concerns about management of the area, and possible
management activities that could resolve conflicts and achieve desired conditions. A
Forest Service pathologist also gave a presentation about Port-Orford-cedar and the root
disease, explaining how the disease is spread and what can be done to prevent the spread
of the disease.

119

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Over the next eight months, a core group of about 20 people met six times. Members
included representatives of environmental groups, botanical groups, OHV groups,
mining claim holders, and individuals who like to recreate in these areas. This group
listened to each other's interests and concerns, learned about the ecology of the areas,
discussed ways to resolve user conflicts, and suggested possible actions to improve
management of the areas. The groups agreed on almost all of the possible management
activities, but could not agree on Port-Orford -cedar root disease prevention measures
and access into the North Fork Smith Botanical Area. Instead, they developed a range
of alternatives for access to the area, and asked for a team of Port-Orford-cedar experts
to perform a site-specific risk assessment on the alternatives. They agreed that only
alternatives with a low risk of introducing the root disease to the area should be carried
forward into a site-specific NEPA analysis. Although the group could not come to
resolution on access in the High Plateau area, they were very positive about the process.
Many commented that they were glad to have the opportunity to hear and understand
opposing points of view, and thought it was valuable for both "environmentalist and
access people" to work on management strategies together.

Assessing the Level of Risk to Port-Orford-Cedar in
High Plateau

In the fall of 1998, a team of two Forest Service Port-Orford-cedar experts visited the
North Fork Smith Botanical Area and High Plateau. Since the Six Rivers Forest Plan was
released, the Forest had remapped both Port-Orford-cedar and roads in the area, and
the team combined this information with their on-the-ground observations to assess the
level of risk for the alternatives developed by the public group. The team considered
a number of factors in their risk assessment, including the value of Port-Orford-cedar,
the hazard to the area if the disease was introduced, the level of exposure (e.g. number
of vehicles, season of use, density of Port-Orford-cedar), and the susceptibility of Port-
Orford-cedar to the disease once exposed. Based on their analysis, the team decided that
there were only two possible ways of achieving a low risk of introducing the root disease
to the area: either close all the roads, or upgrade the roads to eliminate water from the
road (bridges at low water crossings, improved drainage design to eliminate standing
water and ruts). The latter option would also require removal of Port-Orford-cedar in
close proximity to roads.

The results of the risk assessment meant that only one of the alternatives developed
by the public group was implementable; all the others needed additional mitigations
(e.g. road upgrades) in order to achieve a low risk. Ironically, the road upgrades would
eliminate much of the challenge that makes the roads appealing to some OHV users.
And the upgrades would make the area more accessible, thereby increasing the level of
use, and possibly increasing the risk of introducing the root disease.

The Forest reviewed the risk assessment, and analyzed the costs associated with the
mitigations needed to keep the roads open and achieve a low risk of introducing the
disease to the area. After weighing a number of factors, the Forest proposed to close all
the roads (18N09, 18N13, and the spurs off these roads) in the North Fork Smith Botanical
Area year-round. Because the gates that are currently in place have been repeatedly
vandalized, the closure would be implemented by removing sections of road rather than
gating year-round. This proposal goes far beyond the Forest's typical protection measure
of seasonal gating. If implemented, it would be the first year-round closure that also
restricts administrative access.

Why Propose A Year-Round Closure?

Because of the sensitivity of the area, the Forest wanted to provide a higher level of
protection in the High Plateau area than is typically provided elsewhere on the Forest.

120

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Many factors were considered in proposing to implement a year-round rather than a
seasonal closure. These factors are highlighted below:

The closure is proposed within a botanical area that was designated specifically to
maintain the ecological processes and unique botanical features of the area. A number
of rare and endemic plants are found within plant communities associated with Port-
Orford-cedar. If the disease is introduced to the area, both Port-Orford-cedar and the
plants associated with it could be negatively affected.

The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest to maintain viable populations
of species, and the Smith River National Recreational Area Act requires the Forest to
provide for the long-term viability and presence of Port-Orford-cedar.

The High Plateau, Bear, Peridotite Canyon, and Stony Creek watersheds form the largest
remaining island of uninfested watersheds in the North Fork, Middle Fork, and Main
Stem Smith River; they also form the largest island of uninfested watersheds in their
ecological type, making this area an important refugia. The Forest believed that the need
to protect these refugia, plus the threat to a variety of plant species, warranted a higher
level of protection in this area.

Keeping roads within the area open would require extensive sanitation of Port-Orford-
cedar located along roads in order to remove the host from the pathogen. Forest staff did
not believe that large-scale removal of Port-Orford-cedar was in keeping with the goals
and objectives for management within a botanical area, particularly because Port-Orford-
cedar is associated with many of the unique plant communities for which the area was
designated.

Forest staff estimated that it would cost between $275,000 and $750,000 to upgrade the
roads, install stream crossings, and eliminate drainage problems. The Forest did not
think that the low level of use of Roads 18N09 and 18N13 justified the level of investment
needed to upgrade the roads.

Seasonal gates in the area have been repeatedly vandalized, and the remoteness of the
area makes it difficult to check on the gates and enforce the closure.

The Public Response

Because the proposed action goes beyond standard Port-Orford-cedar protection
measures and eliminates road access to the High Plateau area, the Forest knew that many
people would be upset by the action, particularly the members of the S1A Management
Strategy group who helped develop the alternatives for access in the High Plateau area.
The first thing that Forest staff did was to invite them to a meeting in order to present
the findings of the risk assessment and to explain the reasons for the Forest's proposed
action. At the meeting, the risk assessment team discussed their assessment and findings,
and the District Ranger told the attendees why he was proposing to close the roads.
The public members who advocated for keeping roads in the area open did not like the
proposal; however, a number of them said that they understood the Forest's dilemma
between providing access and the need to protect Port-Orford-cedar from the root
disease.

The Forest issued a letter to the public in June 1999. The letter described the proposed
action to close the roads within the North Fork Smith Botanical Area, and asked for
comments on the proposal. The Del Norte County Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing regarding the proposal, and over 60 people attended. Many provided statements
to the Board, both for and against the closures.

121

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

When the Forest Service proposes an action, they typically hear primarily from those who
oppose the action; people who support the action typically do not comment. However,
the Forest heard from a number of people who did support this proposed action. Some
of them cited recent introductions of the root disease into areas within the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness and the Klamath River Basin as examples that the Forest Service's current
mitigation measures are inadequate in preventing the spread of the disease. People
who support the proposal believe that the road closures are the only effective means of
preventing the spread of the disease into the area and protecting the unique character of
the North Fork Smith Botanical Area.

Some of those who want to keep the roads open, see in the proposal, an attempt by the
Forest Service to eliminate their access to their lands. They also fear that this closure
will set a precedent, leading to year-round closures of other roads and other areas of
the Forest to prevent the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease. Some of the people
opposed to the road closures organized a petition and gathered hundreds of signatures
to protest the proposed action. In recent Forest Service public meetings, some attendees
have been quite hostile. One person threatened to dump buckets of infested soil in areas
that the Forest is trying to protect, because the Forest typically does not gate areas that
are already infested in the Smith River drainage.

Clearly, no amount of public involvement or education will be able to resolve this issue in
a way that satisfies everyone, for it touches the core values of distinctly different publics;
however, an agency whose mandate is multiple use cannot expect to always reach
consensus on such thorny issues. A final decision on High Plateau has not been made.

Literature Cited

Beckham, S. 1971. Requiem for a people: the Rogue Indians and the frontiersmen.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Betlejewski, F. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar management guidelines. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 32 p.

Daniel, T.W.; Helms, J.A.; Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of silviculture. New York: McGraw-
Hill. 500 p.

Gordon, D.E. 1974. The importance of root grafting in the spread of Phytophthora root rot
in an immature stand of Port-Orford-cedar. Corvallis OR: Oregon State University; 116 p.
M.S. thesis.

Gordon, D.E.; Roth, L.F. 1976. Root grafting in Port-Orford-cedar : an infection route for
root rot. Forest Science 22:276-278.

Heffner, K. 1984. Following the smoke: contemporary plant procurement by the Indians
of northwest California. Administrative report. On file with: Six Rivers National Forest,
1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA. 95501.

Hendryx, M.; Hendryx, B.D. 1991. Plants and the people: the ethnobotany of the Karuk
Tribe. Yreka, CA: Siskiyou County Museum.

Hoopa Tribal Forestry. 1994. Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation forest management plan
for the period 1994-2003. Hoopa, CA: Hoopa Valley Tribe. Vol. 1.

122

Chapter 8 — Social Value of Port-Orford-Cedar

Jimerson, T.M. 1989. Snag densities in old-growth stands on the Gasquet Ranger
District, Six Rivers National Forest, California. Res. paper. PSW-196. Berkeley, CA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 12 p.

Jimerson, T.M. 1994. A field guide to Port-Orford-cedar plant associations in northwest
California. R5-ECOL-TP-002. Eureka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region, Six Rivers National Forest. 109 p.

Karuk Tribe of California. 1989. Karuk ancestral lands forest management plan. Prepared
for Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests with Technical Assistance provided by
Siskiyou Forestry Consultants, Areata, CA. Karuk Tribe of California, Happy Camp, CA.
Unpublished report. 59 p. On file with: Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way,
Eureka, CA. 95501 and Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097-
9549.

Miller, T; Kenetta, R. 1996. Confederated Tribes of Siletz History. Unpublished report. 3
p. On file with: The Confederated Tribes Siletz, 201 SE Swan Av Siletz, OR 97380.

Ostrofsky W.D.; Pratt, R.G.; Roth, L.F. 1977. Detection of Phytophthora lateralis in soil
organic matter and factors that affect its survival. Phytopathology 67:79-84.

Pacific Meridian Resources. 1996. Yurok Indian Reservation forest management plan.
Prepared for the Yurok Tribe. Unpublished report. 35 p. On file with: The Yurok Tribe,
15900 Highway 101 N., Klamath, CA 95548.

Preister, K. 1994. Words into action: a community assessment of the Applegate Valley.
Ashland, OR: Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy, p. 68-69.

Preister, K. 1997. Public issues regarding the Scattered Apples project in Williams,
Oregon. Ashland, OR: Social Ecology Associates. Unpublished report. 15 p. On file with
the author, Social Ecology Associates, P.O. Box 3493, Ashland, OR 97520.

Shannon, M.; Sturtevant, V. 1995. Organizing for innovation: a look at the agencies and
organizations responsible for adaptive management areas: the case of the Applegate
AMA. Medford, OR: Report submitted to the Interagency Liaison, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Applegate Adaptive Management Area. 1995. On file with: Rogue River
National Forest, Star Ranger District, 6941 Upper Applegate Road, Jacksonville, OR
97530.

Smith River National Recreation Area Act of 1990; 16 U.S.C 460bbb et sea.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Land and resource management
plan, Six Rivers National Forest. Eureka, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. 1994a. Applegate adaptive management area ecosystem health
assessment. Medford, OR. 135 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on
management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth related, species within the
range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 322 p.

123

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 1995a. Applegate River watershed assessment: aquatic, wildlife, and
special plant habitat. Medford, OR. 112 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. 1995b. Southwest Oregon late-successional reserve assessment.
Medford and Grants Pass, Oregon. 150 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Coos Bay District
record of decision and resource management plan. North Bend, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995b. Record of decision
and resource management plan, Medford District. Medford, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996a. Western Oregon
transportation management plan. Portland, OR. 31 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996b. Williams watershed
analysis. Medford, OR. 112 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Environmental
assessment for the Williams Port-Orford-cedar management project. Medford, OR. 52 p.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, GM. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

124

Chapter 9

Methods of Assessing

Risk

Components of Risk Assessment 127

Introduction 127

Four Elements of Risk 127

The Social Context of Risk 128

Range of Possible Strategies 129

No-Action 129

Slow the Rate of Infection 129

Stop the Spread 130

Eliminate P. lateralis 130

Evaluating Risk for Port-Orford-Cedar 130

After the Risk Analysis 132

Quantification of Risk Factors 132

Literature Cited 133

Authors: Thomas Atzet and Donald L. Rose

June 2001

125

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

126

Chapter 9 — - Methods of Assessing Risk

Components of Risk Assessment

Introduction

Assessing ecological risk is complex. For example, how does one evaluate the risk of
wildfire in an urban interface area or the spread of Phytophthora lateralis in a watershed?
What is the objective and what is the potential for reaching that objective? Is it
elimination of all risk, or some reduction in risk? What actions are possible? What is the
cost of implementing those actions? What is the risk if nothing is done? Reducing risk
assessment to four key elements helps to simplify the concept and evaluate alternatives
for mitigation. The four essential elements of risk are: value, hazard, susceptibility, and
exposure (fig. 9.1). Removing any of the four elements results in eliminating risk. The
elements are interconnected and make up a "risk environment." Altering any element
(risk management) alters the risk environment.

Four Elements of Risk

Value — To have risk, value must be involved. Port-Orford-cedar is valued for its utility,
beauty, scarcity, and ecological function. Native American groups within the Port-
Orford-cedar region use the tree for many purposes. The Japanese have, in the past,
placed a high value on the fine-grained, light textured wood. Port-Orford-cedar has
been economically valued in the United States for its strength and resistance to decay.
In the 1930s, concern about past and current harvest rates by the public and the Forest
Service led to the establishment of "preserves." These areas, now known as the Port-
Orford-cedar and Coquille River Falls Research Natural Areas, were established in 1936
for scientific investigation, aesthetics, recreation, and concern for harvest rates, not for
protection from P. lateralis (Tucker and Milbrath 1942).

If Port-Orford-cedar had no value, whether social, economic, ecologic, or spiritual, there
would be no concern for its future. Spread of P. lateralis would be of no concern.

Figure 9.1. The four aspects of risk assessment.

Value

3
■Bb

So cial/ec onorri c/ecol o gical

Individuals
Populations

Ecosystems

Vulnerability

E--

Susceptibility

Assessment:

* Define value(s) as measurable variables that can be monitored

* Identify the hazard specifically (i.e. the spore is the hazard not vehicles)

* If measurable, quantify the probability of exposure (or qualify if only estimated )

* Is the individual or population susceptible to the frequency, intensity, and duration

of exposure at its present extent, density and location?

Figure 9.1 — The four aspects of risk assessment

127

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Hazard — P. lateralis is the hazard. It infects and kills trees. It is spread by vehicles,
animals, and humans through infested soil and water; streams and roads act as corridors
and habitat. On a large scale, it is highly unlikely that the hazard (disease) could be
eliminated. Because of the flexibility in reproductive behavior, involving four methods
of sexual and vegetative reproduction, elimination by direct action (i.e., applying
pesticides) would be extremely difficult. The disease may be eliminated if the host - the
Port-Orford-cedar - were eliminated, but that would not likely be tolerated by the public,
and would change the ecological systems in which it occurs. Therefore, any attempt to
eliminate the hazard on a large scale would be economically, socially, and biologically
prohibitive.

Susceptibility — Susceptibility is a measure of the vulnerability of the object of value to
the hazard. Some degree of resistance appears to be present in natural populations of
Port-Orford-cedar, and may be enhanced genetically. The Port-Orford-cedar resistance
and breeding program is working to produce genotypes with reduced susceptibility.

Currently most infections result in death. As research and development toward
resistance proceeds, an appropriate, aggressive, operational assumption is that all
individuals are susceptible and that infection is proportional to density of P. lateralis
propagules.

Exposure — Exposure is an expression of the frequency, intensity, and duration that the
host (Port-Orford-cedar) is in contact with the hazard (P. lateralis). In risk assessment,
exposure must account for both time (temporal aspect) and location (spatial aspect).
For example, if spores are deposited along a road once, the "frequency" of exposure
is smaller than if many vehicles drive along a road, each depositing spores along the
way. In another example, if vehicles are washed after leaving infested sites and before
entering uninfested sites, the spore load is decreased and the "intensity" is decreased.
Spatially, extent, location, and juxtaposition can be used to quantify exposure. Exposure
is increased when an uninfested stand is adjacent to an infested stand (juxtaposition).
Quarantine is primarily a spatial strategy whereby infested or non-infested areas are
isolated. The extent of the pathogen is then minimized by using information on location
and juxtaposition. Most strategies manipulate a combination of temporal and spatial
occurrences of P. lateralis.

" ! 1"^ f-T)\

Social Context of Risk

Practical goals concerning risk are determined within social constraints. Limits exist
on what society is willing to pay and the level of risk they are willing to accept. For
example, it is socially desirable to eliminate all traffic fatalities; however, regardless of the
high value society places on life, traffic fatalities are accepted as part of the risk associated
with driving. The resources that society is willing to commit, the restrictions they are
willing to endure, and the risks they are willing to assume are value dependent (Cooray
1985). When stressed, individuals will violate restrictions and accept increased risk. If a
speed limit of 15 mph is shown to reduce traffic fatalities to near zero, some individuals,
in a hurry, will drive faster and increase their risk of a fatal crash. Complete freedom, no
restrictions and no risk, represents the most desirable scenario but the least attainable.
Determining a strategy to balance restrictions with risk may be the next best option (fig.
9.2). With regard to control of P. lateralis, it is nearly biologically impossible to eliminate
the pathogen on a large scale and it is unlikely to be economically feasible or socially
acceptable.

128

Chapter 9 — Methods of Assessing Risk

General social context by management strategy

•s

-6

Exterminate
Phytophthora

(Hazard mgt.)

Low risk, but
total elinination
is not possible

Extreme effort,
high allocation
of resources

Low and /decreasing
social acceptance

Stop the
Spread

Si;;nific;mtly
Losverr:sk

\ Effort depends /

V on scale /

\ see below /

Moderate to
high social
acceptance

Slow the
Rate

/Decreasing\
/ risk \

VIn creasing/
\ effort /

\ Increasing

No Action

Accept current
risk levels

Limite< social
acceptatce

Risk

Effort

Acceptance

Scope of application:

Spatial scale: tree - stand - drainage - landscape - range1
Temporal scale: season - plan - life cycle - forever
Ownership: Federal - state - private - all
Strategy areas: operations - genetics - conservation

A combination of strategy areas
on various ownerships at various
scales could be considered with
each action strategy.

Figure 9.2 — The relationships of strategy to the risk, effort, and acceptance of
implementing that strategy

Range of Possible Strategies

Figure 9.2 shows a range of possible strategies and qualifies the relationships between
risk, effort, and acceptance. Some combination of any or all strategies may be an
appropriate approach for attaining the range- wide, long-term goal of maintaining the
ecological presence and economic viability of Port-Orford-cedar.

No-Action

A no-action strategy accepts the results of the ecological dynamics between Port-
Orford-cedar and P. lateralis within a changing environment. Historic experience with
introduced pathogens infecting five-needle pines, elm, and chestnut indicates probable
widespread mortality (even with control efforts) and diminished ecological and economic
function (Merkel, 1905; Swingle, et al, 1949). Given that resistance to the pathogen
appears only sporadically within natural populations of Port-Orford-cedar, the natural
selection process in the genetic evolution of this tree species is unlikely to contribute
significantly toward the goal of reducing the risk of infection in the short term.

Slow the Rate of Infection

The rate of infection may be slowed by low-effort, active or passive conservation
strategies. These may include: 1) quarantining (isolating) infected or healthy trees,
stands, or drainages; 2) washing vehicles; and 3) restricting seasonal access in certain
areas. While isolating uninfested stands may lower their risk for exposure, this

129

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

probability may be reduced if surrounding landowners do not cooperate. Operational
measures such as washing vehicles or restricting access to areas has been a part of
coordinated forest efforts and can slow infection rates (Goheen et al. 2000).

Stop the Spread

Scale is important to consider when defining a level of effort for "stopping the spread."
If stopping the rate of spread is defined at the individual tree level, rather than by stand
or drainage, then not one additional tree would become infected. This strategy would
be impossible to monitor and difficult to achieve, but would have a high probability of
lowering infection rates. Strategies might include increasing access restrictions, initiating
more control measures, and performing intense sanitation (removal of host Port-Orford-
cedar trees, especially along roadsides). Social acceptance may be limited with some of
these measures.

Eliminate P. lateralis

Eliminating P. lateralis from the range of Port-Orford-cedar would be a long-term
strategy and would require collaboration among all agencies, corporations, and private
landowners. This situation may be similar to eliminating all traffic deaths. Developing
methods to directly destroy P. lateralis would likely occur, as well as implementing
methods to prevent reintroduction. The risk of P. lateralis to Port-Orford-cedar would be
minimal to zero; however again, the necessary chemical, natural, and thermal methods
might make these strategies socially unacceptable. Their effectiveness would be difficult
and costly to monitor. Increasing restrictions and costs may lead to significant lowering
of social acceptance.

Evaluating Risk for Port-Orford-Cedar

It has been established that Port-Orford-cedar has value. P. lateralis presents a hazard
to Port-Orford-cedar. Currently almost all Port-Orford-cedar trees are susceptible to
this hazard upon exposure. The immediate opportunity to manage risk in this situation
comes from minimizing exposure of Port-Orford-cedar to P. lateralis. A long-term
strategy includes breeding Port-Orford-cedar for reduced susceptibility (increased
resistance) to P. lateralis.

The first step in a risk analysis is determining which of the four key elements (value,
hazard, exposure, susceptibility) has potential for management. In the case of Port-
Orford-cedar, current opportunities exist for management of exposure.

Table 9.1 lists the factors that are correlated with Port-Orford-cedar exposure to infection.
Each factor has been subjectively rated on importance to risk. The factors are rated
high (H), medium (M), or low (L) and are assigned a quantitative value of 3, 2, or 1,
respectively. Each factor is also rated and assigned a quantitative (3, 2, or 1) value
based on our ability to manage or control it. A "rank" is determined by adding the two
quantitative ratings. The highest-ranking factors (in this case, the 6s) have a high risk
along with a high level of ability to lower that risk. These factors would be a logical
choice to use in a risk assessment.

The physical factors span the range in importance from low to high, but there is little
opportunity to manage them, so the "control" rating is usually low. The risk from
biological factors, roads and road related vectors, and harvest/extraction is often rated
high or medium, and opportunities to control exposure often exist. The highest ranked
factors are adjacent infection, recent dead Port-Orford-cedar, road surface, culverts,

130

Chapter 9 — Methods of Assessing Risk

ditches, tree harvest method, and bough harvest. These deserve high priority when a
risk analysis is done.

The next step requires defining a risk rating for each of the factors being considered.
Suppose proximity to roads and proximity to infested areas are the factors being
considered. We can define high-risk areas as those closer than 50 feet from a road. We
may assign a quantitative value of 2 to these areas. Low risk areas would lie greater than
50 feet from a road and may have a quantitative value of 1 . High risk with regard to
distance from an infested area may be defined as less than 100 feet, and assigned a value
of 2. And low risk would be more than 100 feet from an infested area, with a quantitative
value of 1. Combining all combinations of the two factors would result in total risk
values ranging from 2 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk.

The next step is to apply these risk categories to an area. Areas could be mapped using
the Geographic Information System (GIS) to delineate each of the risk areas, the 2s, 3s,
and 4s. At this point, a map is available showing the risk areas and the next decision is
whether or not to mitigate the risk and what methods are available.

Table 9.1 — Factors that influence risk of infection of Port-Orf ord-cedar by P. lateralis, their
level of risk (high, medium, or low), and our ability to change or control the level of risk
(high, medium, or low)

Influencing Factor

Risk

Control Rank*

Physical factors Geologic rock type

Average rank = 2.7 Elevation

Aspect

Slope steepness

Slope position microtopography

Slope position macrctcpography

Soil moisture

Drainage density

Proximity to stream or water or flood - plains

Annual Rainfall

Average annual temperature

Biological factors Plant association

Average rank = 4.5 Port-Orford-cedar density, extent, juxtaposition

Density or cover of other hosts

Adjacent infection

Adjacent infection of cultivars

Recent dead (density and proximity)

Serai stage

Animal populations as vectors

Roads and road related vectors Road density

Average rank = 4.8 Road surface

Proximity to road

Other road design factors (usually drainage)

Culverts

Ditches

Traffic density

Traffic type

Right-of-way agreements

Off-road vehicle traffic

Trails (same as roads)

Fishing traffic

Harvest /Extraction Harvest frequency

Average rank = 5.3 Harvest method

Bough harvest

Mining

Opportunities to control exposure Ownership pattern

Average rank = 3.0 Land allocation

'Quantitative values for risk and control were assigned: 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high. The rank

is the sum

of the risk and control values.

131

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

After the Risk Analysis

Additional factors must be considered after the risk analysis to determine whether or not
action is to be taken and if so, what action. If the cost of treatment is high, it may prohibit
any action regardless of the risk. Social acceptance must also be considered, especially on
public land.

Quantification of Risk Factors

As risk analyses become more sophisticated, the values assigned to help quantify risk
will become more accurate.

For example, Jimerson (1999) has shown a highly significant difference between infested
and uninfested stands based on slope position. In California, stands in riparian areas
are much more likely to have Port-Orford-cedar infected with P. lateralis. Infested and
uninfested stands are significantly different in mean distance from roads. Infested
stands average 52 feet and uninfested stands 139 feet from a road. Distance from the
Pacific Ocean (an integration of several environmental factors, including fog, moisture,
temperature, etc.) and elevation also differed between infested and uninfested stands.
Mean distance from the ocean was 14 miles for infested and 24 miles for uninfested
stands. Mean elevation for infested stands was 475 feet and for uninfested stands, 866
feet. As means, these values can be used to assign high-risk and low risk categories.

Regression analysis expresses the relationship between two or more continuous variables,
for example, the percentage of a stand that is infested and the elevation of that stand. As
presented above, the average uninfested stand is higher in elevation than the average
infested stand. If we could sample several stands and develop a model (regression) of
the relationship between these two variables, we could assign stand risk values more
precisely than simply high risk-low risk.

In biological systems, usually several variables interact with each other. For example,
elevation and distance from the ocean may give a better estimate of infested stands than
either variable alone. This could be modeled with multiple regression techniques.

Most relationships are not likely to be linear and may display thresholds, limits,
maximums, and minimums. In such cases, even when the relationship is relatively weak,
it may be useful.

132

Chapter 9 — Methods of Assessing Risk

Literature Cited

Cooray, L.J.M. 1985. Risk avoidance, freedom of choice or government coercion. In:
Human rights in Australia. Sydney, Australia: ACFR Educational Publications. Chapter
11.

Goheen, D.J.; Marshall, K.; Hansen, E.M.; Betlejewski, F. 2000. Effectiveness of vehicle
washing in decreasing Phytophthora lateralis inoculum: a case study. SWOFIDSC-00-2.
Central Point, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwest Oregon
Insect and Disease Service Center. 7 p.

Jimerson, T.M. 1999. A conservation strategy for Port-Orford-cedar. Unpublished paper.
On file with: Siskiyou National Forest, 333 West 8th St. Medford OR 97501.

Merkel, H.W. 1905. A deadly fungus on the American chestnut. New York Zoological
Society. 10th Annual Report: 97-103.

Swingle, R.U.; Whitten, R.R.; Brewer, E.G. 1949. Dutch Elm disease. In: Yearbook of
agriculture. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Tucker, CM.; Milbrath, J.A. 1942. Root rot of Chamaecyparis caused by a species of
Phytophthora. Mycologia. 34:94-103.

133

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

134

Chapter 10

Management Techniques and

Challenges

Introduction 137

General Management Techniques 137

Operational Planning and Scheduling 137

Integrating Disease Treatments with Road Design, Engineering,

and Maintenance 138

Water Source Selection and Treatment , 141

Regulating Non-Timber Uses 141

Educational Efforts 142

Prescribed Fire Potential 143

Genetic Resistance Breeding Development 144

Specific Management Techniques 144

Vehicle Exclusion 144

Temporary Road Closures 146

Roadside Sanitation 147

Vehicle and Equipment Washing 149

Case Studies 152

Effectiveness Monitoring of Port-Orford-Cedar Roadside Sanitation

Treatments in Southwest Oregon 152

Effectiveness of Vehicle Washing in Decreasing Transport of

P. lateralis Inoculum 153

Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in Areas Not Favorable to the Pathogen 154

Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in Areas Favorable to the Pathogen 155

Manipulating Species Composition 156

Management Challenges 156

Difficulty of Monitoring Effectiveness of Management Activities .... 156
Few Opportunities to Obtain New Management-Related Research

Results 156

Public Opposition to Agency Management Activities 157

Coordination Difficulties 157

Funding Uncertainties 157

Literature Cited 158

Authors: Donald J. Goheen, Frank Betlejewski and Peter A. Angwin

July 2001
135

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

136

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Introduction

This chapter is a discussion of possible treatment alternatives that can be used alone
or in combination. In general, land managers seek to maintain Port-Orford-cedar as
a part of the forest ecosystem and reduce the occurrence of Phytophthora lateralis. The
determination of appropriate management regimes is the choice of the local manager,
dependant on site conditions and applicable land use objectives.

In the first three decades after the introduction of P. lateralis, few, if any, attempts were
made to manage Port-Orford-cedar root disease. The striking virulence of the exotic
pathogen and the speed with which it spread along roads and streams as well as the
obvious tie between spread, and then-practiced timber harvesting techniques, led to
statements such as "there appears to be no hope of raising another crop of Port-Orford-
cedar under existing conditions of disease and land use" and production of Port-Orford-
cedar "... will likely decline and ultimately drop to nearly nothing as the remaining
merchantable trees die or are harvested" (Roth et al. 1972). Many felt that with the
pathogen established, active management of Port-Orford-cedar, as a timber species, was
no longer possible. Emphasis was placed on extensive salvage of large disease-killed
cedars.

Management for Port-Orford-cedar root disease has changed dramatically in the past 30
years. Many forest managers on federal lands administered by the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management are now involved in an integrated program to minimize
detrimental impacts of the root disease. The difficulties, expenses, and inconveniences
associated with managing Port-Orford-cedar are carefully weighed against the need and
potential for limiting the spread of the disease.

While P. lateralis has caused negative impacts on Port-Orford-cedar populations, the
severity varies, in spite of concerns early in the epidemic, the natural range of Port-
Orford-cedar has not diminished because of the root disease and the species has not been
extirpated from any major area where it has historically been located (Kliejunas 1994).
Management techniques discussed in this chapter have been shown to be effective in
lessening the occurrence of P. lateralis and maintaining Port-Orford-cedar population
viability.

General Management Techniques

Operational Planning and Scheduling

Planning access routes and timing projects to minimize the likelihood of P. lateralis spread
have been routinely suggested as Port-Orford-cedar root disease management techniques
and are widely practiced (Erwin and Ribeiro 1996, Goheen et.al. 1997, Harvey et al. 1985,
Kliejunas 1994, Roth et al. 1987, Scharpf 1993, Thies and Goheen in press, USDA 1983,
Zobeletal. 1985).

Separating forest operations in diseased stands from those in disease-free locations, both
in space and time, is a common technique that can be applied to minimize the likelihood
of P. lateralis spread.

137

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

When the local land manager chooses this technique, forest management projects in
stands with Port-Orford-cedar, especially in uninfested areas, are typically performed
when conditions are unfavorable for pathogen survival and spread. The following
practices may be implemented:

• Projects are preferentially scheduled to be completed in the warm, dry months and are
discontinued when wet conditions develop, even during the stated operating season.

• Repeated entries into vulnerable microsites are avoided, and work is scheduled to
proceed sequentially, from uninfested to infested sites.

• Equipment is not allowed to move from an infested area into an uninfested one.

• Access to project areas is generally planned along routes with the least occurrence of
infested sites.

There is abundant evidence that spread of P. lateralis is associated with timber harvesting
operations that have not addressed timing and access of harvest operations. (Roth et al.
1972, Trione 1959). Where timber-harvesting operations are conducted in stands with
Port-Orford-cedar or where streams intersect stands with Port-Orford-cedar below
harvest units, systems that minimize the amount of soil movement, especially across
slope movement, help minimize the spread of P. lateralis.

Use of cable systems or helicopter logging systems lowers the risk of spread compared
to tractor-logging systems. Where possible, root disease prevention and management
activities can be coordinated with adjacent landowners.

Some forest management projects are limited to wetter periods of the year. Examples
include tree planting, prescribed burning, and surveys for certain survey and manage
species. Managers may consider precautions such as washing vehicles and other
equipment, avoiding routes that pass through infested areas, and walking to project sites
rather than driving in such cases.

Integrating Disease Treatments with Road Design,
Engineering, and Maintenance

Minimizing the risk of P. lateralis spread is an important consideration in designing and
building new roads and in maintaining or improving existing roads in areas with Port-
Orford-cedar.

For new construction, routing decisions could be made with the knowledge of where
Port-Orford-cedar concentrations occur. The risk of the spread of P. lateralis can be
minimized when new roads or spurs are located below known concentrations of Port-
Orford-cedar, or on the opposite sides of ridges.

In new road construction, culverts and waterbars are designed to quickly direct water
into existing well-defined water channels away from areas where Port-Orford-cedars
exist. Roads may be insloped, and, in some cases, site-specific berms may be used on the
outside edges of roads to prevent downslope flow of water. Reshaping of existing roads
is sometimes done to create a convex profile.

138

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Risks may further be reduced during road building and maintenance when:

• Road building and maintenance is restricted as much as possible to the dry season and
cleaned equipment is used.

• Movement of soil and debris from one place to another during construction or
maintenance is minimized.

• Side-casting material into drainage ditches, streams, or over road berms during
maintenance along road segments with infected trees is avoided.

• Clean rock (treated rock or rock from disease-free quarries) is selected over river rock.

• Clean rock or pavement is added to existing roads to raise those sections of roadbeds
that pass through infested sites.

• Surfacing materials are applied to natural surface roads in areas with P. lateralis to
reduce the likelihood of vehicle tires coming into contact with infested soil (fig. 10.1).

• Stream crossings on new roads are designed to keep vehicles out of contact with water,
and primitive roads that cannot be closed are upgraded so that fords and puddles are
eliminated.

• Care is taken in moving soil and other material when end-hauling, repairing flood
damage, or removing slides, especially in, or near, infested areas.

Road systems and drainages are the main avenues by which P. lateralis invades new
areas. The battery of management techniques available to the manager in new road
construction and maintenance seeks to: 1) limit the likelihood that vehicles will pick up,
carry, and deposit contaminated soil along roads and in cross drainages; 2) minimize
direct movement of infested soil in road building and upkeep; and 3) where possible,
decrease exposure of Port-Orford-cedars to roadside influences by design and location.
Road treatments have been frequently suggested and used as parts of Port-Orford-cedar
root disease management (Betlejewski 1994, Goheen et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 1999,
Kliejunas 1994, Roth et al. 1987, Thies and Goheen in press, Zobel et al. 1985).

Figure 10.1 — Surfaced roads reduce the likelihood of spreading Phytophthora lateralis

139

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Use of road design, engineering, and maintenance techniques for Port-Orford-cedar
disease management requires understanding and commitment by the organizations and
individuals involved in the development, building, and maintenance of roads. Problems
sometimes arise in emergency situations when quick repairs are needed.

Many of the road systems on federal lands were originally engineered and built when
opportunities to incorporate Port-Orford-cedar root disease management treatments
were not recognized. Such efforts as reshaping road surfaces for improving drainage,
adding aggregate rock, paving, or improving stream crossings, are expensive. Cost
limits their use. When considering upgrading roads to decrease risk of P. lateralis
spread, the possibility that road improvements will encourage much greater road use
can be considered and weighed in determining whether or not to implement the project.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^* Greatly increased road use may offset disease

management benefits achieved by the treatments.

Reciprocal Right-of-Way Agreements
(RWAs) have played important roles in the admin-
istration of the Oregon and California Act (O & C)
lands' of western Oregon since the early 1950's. A
RWA is basically an exchange of access rights be-
tween a private timberland owner and the United
States. In a RWA, each party grants to the other
the right to construct roads on the other party's
land and the right to use existing roads for certain
purposes owned or controlled by the other party.
Guaranteed access to Federally-owned timber of-
fered for sale by the Bureau of Land Management
encourages competitive bidding among private
timber companies. The rights granted or received
in a RWA are for forest management activities and
the transportation of forest or mineral products. A
RWA does not necessarily include access rights for
the public. Each RWA is unique, bounded, by the
applicable laws and regulations in place at the time
the RWA is signed.

Although BLM roads are available for
use by the public, they are not "public roads" as
defined by State statute ORS 386.010(2). BLM
roads are considered "private government roads"
and the agency retains the authority to control ac-
tivities on these roads including use by the general
public. BLM roads are subject to closure by the
agency for public safety and environmental protec-
tion reasons. An example would be closure during
periods of extreme fire danger. The BLM requires
permits for the use of these roads for commercial
purposes. Terms and conditions of a RWA cannot
be modified without approval by both parties to the
agreement.

Road management techniques may be less
effective under the checkerboard ownership
pattern that is found on most western Oregon
BLM lands and many northern California Forest
Service lands. In western Oregon, on BLM-
administered lands, many roads are covered
by Reciprocal Right of Way Agreements (fig.
10.2). These agreements are legal contracts that
may constrain road management techniques.
BLM roads covered by these agreements require
concurrence from the private entity that is party
to the agreement prior to any road management
activity implementation not specifically
addressed in the agreement.

Figure 10.2 — Reciprocal Right of Way Agreements

140

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Water Source Selection and Treatment

Once P. lateralis has been introduced into a stream or body of water, there is always the
possibility that propagules of the pathogen can be taken up and transferred with water
from that source. Propagules are especially likely to be numerous if current or recent root
disease-caused mortality and decline in cedars is readily detectable adjacent to the water;
but they also may be present even in areas where all mortality appears to have occurred
years previously. If water is taken only from sources that exhibit no evidence of root
disease, probability of spreading propagules of the pathogen in water is reduced. Using
water from uninfested sources for forest use has been suggested as a component of Port-
Orford-cedar root disease management (Goheen et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 1999, Roth et al.
1987).

Many water sources have been inventoried and those that are potentially infested by
P. lateralis have been identified. Subsequently, when water is needed for activities such as
road construction, fire fighting, or dust abatement, uninfested water sources can be used
when possible. Where disease-free water sources are not available and water must be
taken from a potentially infested source, it can be treated with Clorox® Ultra Institutional
before use (1 gallon of Clorox® to each 1,000 gallons of water). In areas where water
sources have not been inventoried, Clorox® can also be used.

Adding chlorine bleach to P. lateralis-infested water will kill many propagules of the
pathogen. Murray et al. (1995) demonstrated that complete mortality of P. lateralis
zoospores occurred after 60 minutes in 100 parts per million (ppm) chlorine bleach, and
complete mortality of chlamydospores occurred after 30 minutes in 5000 ppm chlorine
bleach. Clorox® is registered for use in forest environments in California and Oregon.

Chlorine bleach, however, will not kill P. lateralis in infected rootlet fragments at
any concentration (Murray et al. 1995). If mud is stirred up to any extent before an
intake hose is placed into the water, suspended organic particles containing P. lateralis
propagules may be taken up in spite of precautions taken with placement of the hose.
Risk is minimized when bottom disturbance is avoided.

Regulating Non-Timber Uses

A number of special use activities including Port-Orford-cedar bough collecting,
mushroom picking, salal gathering, grazing, and mining occur on federal forest lands
and have potential to influence the spread of P. lateralis. Several of these activities
involve extensive vehicle travel, and can involve vehicle movement from infested to
uninfested areas. And some, especially bough collecting and mushroom hunting,
are preferentially engaged in at times of the year when the cool, wet conditions most
favorable for spread of the pathogen prevail. There is considerable anecdotal evidence
associating bough collecting with the spread of P. lateralis.

Concerns about spreading P. lateralis with special use activities are similar to those
associated with forest management projects, but special use activities are much more
difficult to regulate.

141

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

The following permit restrictions may be selected by managers to help to minimize the
spread of P. lateralis:

• specify where activities can be done;

• regulate the sequence of operations;

• determine the appropriate timing of activities with the objectives of limiting Port-
Orford-cedar root disease spread;

• inform permitees about the disease and the need to cooperate with disease
management requirements.

Difficulties associated with controlling special use activities include:

• lack of cooperation by some permitees;

• difficulty in tracking often widely scattered, transient, non-systematic operations

• language barriers with some workers;

• shortages of trained agency personnel for monitoring activities and enforcing
regulations;

• laws that limit the degree to which some activities can be regulated on public lands
(example: mining).

Recreationists, including hikers, mountain bike riders, horseback riders, hunters, off-
road vehicle users, and campers also have potential to spread P. lateralis. Those involved
in these pursuits are more difficult to monitor and regulate than special use permitees.
Federally-sanctioned recreation activities may have specific, enforceable rules aimed at
decreasing risk of disease spread.

Educational Efforts

Humans are responsible for most of the spread of P. lateralis. Many people inadvertently
aid its spread due to lack of knowledge and understanding. A surprising number of
forest users, including forest workers as well as recreationists, are not aware of the
significance of the pathogen's adverse impacts on the forest. Some know about Port-
Orford-cedar root disease but do not fully appreciate the implications of their own
activities in spreading the disease organism.

Federal agencies are making extensive efforts to disseminate information on the biology
and ecology of P. lateralis, with emphasis on how the pathogen spreads and how its
spread can be prevented. Presentations at training sessions, workshops, and symposia,
as well as newspaper articles, television interviews, pamphlets, journal articles, displays
at public functions, classroom teaching materials, and information signs at BLM offices,
Ranger Stations, visitor information centers, campgrounds, trail heads, and along forest
roads are used.

Problems associated with current educational efforts include:

• difficulties in convincing people that their individual activities really can have effects
on spread of the root disease organism (the "who me?" syndrome);

• difficulty in reaching the groups most in need of receiving the information, for
example, off-road vehicle users or miners;

• problems disseminating information to non-English speaking individuals;

• challenges associated with making material interesting and /or readable;

• getting needed information across to large numbers of people within a short time
period or with a limited amount of written material.

142

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Of particular importance in the educational effort is reaching federal, state, and county
agency employees. Not only do these employees spend considerable amounts of time
in the forests where the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease is of most concern,
members of the public also frequently observe them. If informed employees follow
management direction for minimizing the spread of P. lateralis, they will directly
influence others, encouraging them to do the same. Their examples will also demonstrate
the commitment of the agencies to follow their own recommendations.

Prescribed Fire Potential

Use of prescribed fire as part of Port-Orford-cedar root disease management has been
discussed, but not thoroughly investigated. In theory, fire could decrease or even
eliminate P. lateralis on a site by killing hosts, as well as reducing or eliminating inoculum
in the soil.

Use of fire for vegetation management or hazard reduction is routinely prescribed in
many forested areas. Fire is a natural disturbance agent in many plant communities
where Port-Orford-cedar occurs; prescribed fire may mimic the less severe, natural
disturbance events that occurred historically.

Large Port-Orford-cedar trees are thick-barked, fire resistant, and can survive fire as well
as mature Douglas-fir; young Port-Orford-cedar, however, are readily killed by even low
intensity fires (Zobel 1990). P. lateralis does not infect dead trees, and killing all hosts in a
strategic location is the basis for the sanitation treatments described later in this chapter.
In certain situations, prescribed burning may be a way to accomplish this objective,
especially when only small cedars are to be treated. Fire is being tested as a way to
treat or retreat roadside sanitation segments where Port-Orford-cedars have reseeded
in substantial numbers. Another potential treatment is the application of extremely hot
water.25

P. lateralis itself is very sensitive to heat. It has been demonstrated that survival of the
pathogen is minimal in soil exposed to temperatures of 104° F or greater, especially
if conditions are dry (Hansen and Hamm 1996). If prescribed fires can generate
temperatures in this range at sufficient depths in the soil to reach roots and organic
material that are harboring the pathogen, it could significantly reduce or eliminate
P. lateralis inoculum. In one trial (DeNitto 1992), soil baiting26 was usedito evaluate
the effects of fire on P. lateralis in soil following a fire. In this case, the fire was of low
intensity and temperatures did not exceed 100° F at a depth of 4 inches. The pathogen
was recovered after the fire at the same level as before treatment. Effects of higher
intensity fires have not yet been evaluated. Burn areas with substantial amounts of
woody material, especially material that is greater than three inches in diameter, can be
expected to generate higher intensity fires than that evaluated by DeNitto.

If prescribed burning proves effective and is implemented as a Port-Orford-cedar root
disease management tool, certain precautions could be taken:

• use uninfested or treated water and equipment;

• units will be sequenced so that all uninfested units are treated before infested units in
a project;

2,Casavan, K. 1999. Personal communication. Natural Resource Specialist, Roscburg District Office, 777 Garden Valley Boulevard,
Roseburg, OR 97470.

26 Baiting is a type of bio-assay that uses Port-Orford-cedar seedlings to determine the presence of Phytophthora lateralis. Non-resistant Port-
Orford-cedar seedlings are planted in soil or placed in streams where P. lateralis is suspected to occur. After an exposure period of four to
eight weeks, the seedlings are recollected and examined for cambial stain, a diagnostic symptom of infection by P. lateralis. To confirm the
diagnosis, root tissue from a subsample of seedlings is cultured on a selective media and examined under a microscope for the sporangia
characteristic of P. lateralis.

143

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

fire lines around prescription areas could be constructed using techniques that do not
cause undesired changes in drainage patterns;
fall or remove trees or snags to facilitate burning.

Genetic Resistance Breeding Development

An intriguing, long-term potential disease management option is the development of
Port-Orford-cedar that are resistant to P. lateralis. Development of resistant Port-Orford-
cedar stock could be especially valuable to managers attempting to restore the species in
heavily impacted riparian areas. Host resistance has proven to be an especially effective
disease management technique for use against many other Phytophthora species (Erwin
and Ribeiro 1996, Umaerus et al. 1983). In 1989, evidence of resistance in natural Port-
Orford-cedar populations was first demonstrated at Oregon State University (Hansen
et al. 1989), and the Forest Service and BLM are now actively involved in a resistance
enhancement-breeding program.

Results of the breeding effort so far are encouraging; however, there is no guarantee that
usable resistance will result. There are several factors that will determine whether or not
resistant Port-Orford-cedar will be used. These include: 1) durability of resistance; 2)
practicality of producing stock (cost); 3) match of resistant material to appropriate seed
zones and sites; 4) mechanisms of resistance involved, and, in some cases; 5) quality of
resistant trees (e.g., form, growth rates). Managers with different objectives will have
different priorities for these factors, but each will probably be concerned with most or all.

Port-Orford-cedar resistant stock will not be immune to P. lateralis. Rather, it will tolerate
infection. If such stock is planted on an infested site, some level of infection will occur,
and inoculum will be maintained even though many planted trees survive. Therefore,
there is some concern about establishing resistant trees in certain situations. For example,
in infested areas adjacent to heavily used roads, planting resistant stock might maintain
inoculum that could be picked up and spread by vehicles. In such cases, having no
Port-Orford-cedar would be better. Another example wotild be adjacent to uninfested
natural stands where resistant trees could act as inoculum bridges, allowing spread of the
pathogen.

Specific Management Techniques

Vehicle Exclusion

Vehicle exclusion is a quarantine technique that may be used to protect Port-Orford-cedar
by preventing vehicle entry. If a manager chooses this technique, new roads are not built
in uninfested areas, and existing roads are permanently closed (fig. 10.3). Road closures
are done in ways that vehicles cannot broach them or detour around them. Large berms,
"tank traps," or rock piles are strategically located at sites where it is virtually impossible
to bypass them (fig. 10.4). Alternatively, roads may be completely obliterated.

144

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Figure 10.4 — Road closed to prevent the spread of Phytophthora lateralis (permanent
closure)

145

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

If vehicle exclusion is selected, to be truly successful it should be practiced in a location
that can be protected. Effectiveness has not been documented by systematic monitoring,
but is supported by numerous, long-term observations.

When selected as a management technique, exclusion is best used where an entire
drainage, or at least the upper portion of a drainage, can be treated as a unit. Exclusion is
not likely to be useful in the lower portions of drainages if the upper portions are not also
protected. Closing individual roads to prevent spread at lower elevations makes little
sense if other roads higher up in the same drainages remain open.

Exclusion can be a controversial management technique. Some sectors of the public
consider prevention of vehicle access to constitute an infringement on their rights to use
public lands. Closing already existing roads is particularly unpopular. Legal precedents
may make closing some roads difficult or impossible. Closing roads is often not an
option, particularly where federal lands occur in checkerboard patterns interspersed with
privately owned lands. Right-of-Way agreements that govern use of these roads usually
prevent agencies from unilaterally denying access to land owners who have previously
entered into a right-of-way agreement.

Temporary Road Closures

Like exclusion, temporary road closure (fig. 10.5) seeks to protect Port-Orford-cedar by
preventing vehicles from spreading P. lateralis propagules into uninfested areas. It differs
from total exclusion by allowing controlled road use into vulnerable areas during times
when conditions are unfavorable for establishment and spread of the pathogen. If a
manager chooses this technique, roads are closed during the cool, wet season of the year,
typically from October 1 to June 1 . In addition, special closures may be applied during
particularly wet periods at other times of the year (June through September). Roads
can be closed with locked gates, guardrails, or other movable barriers, and closures are
located in areas where they are difficult to bypass.

Figure 10.5-
closure)

-Road closed to prevent spread of Phytophthora lateralis (temporary

146

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Temporary road closures require considerable attention to ensure that they are indeed in
place when they need to be (during wet, cool periods at any time of year) and that they
are not breached. Placement and strength of barriers are important considerations in use
of temporary closures, as is constant vigilance. Because roads are still present beyond the
closures, people in some areas have found ways around the closures, or have forced open
or destroyed gates or other structures to gain access. Gate vandalism and the associated
costs of repairing or replacing gates can be a major drawback of this technique.

Closing roads during the cool, moist season in uninfested areas keeps the probability of
disease introduction and spread low. Research has demonstrated that successful spread
and establishment of P. lateralis occurs when moist conditions prevail and temperatures
are between 50° F and 68° F. These functions decline greatly as temperatures increase to
79° F and, under dry conditions, there is little activity of the organism at any temperature.
Under dry, warm conditions, even survival of chlamydospores is greatly reduced
(Hansen and Hamm 1996, Ostrofsky et al. 1977, Trione 1974, Tucker and Milbrath 1942).

Because of these temperature and moisture requirements, initiation of new P. lateralis
infections occur almost entirely in the rainy and cool late fall, winter, and early spring
months and very little in the warm, dry months. Flexibility to close roads during the
summer months if unusual wet, cool conditions develop can further reduce probability of
spread. Temporary road closure has been widely suggested as a Port-Orford-cedar root
disease management technique (Betlejewski 1994, Goheen et al. 1997, Goheen et al. 1999,
Hadfield et al. 1986, Hansen and Hamm 1996, Hansen and Lewis 1997, Hansen et al.
1999, Harvey et al. 1985, Nielsen 1997, Roth et al. 1987, Thies and Goheen in press, Zobel
et al. 1985).

Roadside Sanitation

Roadside sanitation is a potential management technique that eliminates Port-Orford-
cedar in buffer zones along both sides of a treated road (fig. 10.6). Silviculture texts
define sanitation as "the elimination of trees that have been attacked or appear in
imminent danger of attack by damaging insects or pathogens in order to prevent these
agents from spreading to other trees" (Smith 1962, Daniel et al. 1979).

Figure 10.6 — Roadside sanitation treatment to help prevent the spread of Phytophthora

lateralis ,47

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

The objectives for sanitation treatments are either 1) preventing new infections along
roads that cannot be closed in currently uninfested areas; or 2) eliminating or minimizing
the amount of inoculum readily available for vehicle transport from already-infested
roadsides. The key feature of a sanitation treatment with either objective is to create a
zone where live Port-Orford-cedar roots are absent.

Roadside sanitation is believed to be effective because P. lateralis only infects living hosts.
The pathogen can survive in the roots of dead trees that were infected while alive, but it
cannot colonize the roots of already dead Port-Orford-cedars. Therefore, if all living Port-
Orford-cedars are killed in an infested area and establishment of new host regeneration
can be prevented, the amount of inoculum should progressively decrease on the site
and eventually disappear. Hansen and Hamm (1996) demonstrated that P. lateralis
could survive in dead infected roots for up to seven years under ideal environmental
conditions; under more typical conditions it probably survives four years or less.

To be most effective, sanitation treatments need to be thorough and based upon a
prioritization of treatment areas. Much depends on the quality and completeness of
the job. In any sanitation project, the actual treatment should be conducted with the
utmost care to avoid the possibility of spreading the pathogen via the operation itself.
Precautions such as timing treatments in the dry period of the year, treating uninfested
areas first, keeping equipment clean, and not allowing vehicles used in the operation
to travel from infested to uninfested areas without washing, can be standard. The
importance of continued monitoring to determine if or when treated areas need re-
treatment cannot be over emphasized.

Girdling, cutting, pulling, or burning may kill Port-Orford-cedar. Ideally, if roadside
sanitation is applied, all Port-Orford-cedars of any size adjacent to the road are treated.
The general buffer width recommendation is 25 feet above the road or to the top of
the cutbank. Below the road, suggested treatment width is 25 to 50 feet with greater
distances where streams or drainages cross the road or where amount of road fill is
particularly substantial, resulting in especially steep slopes. Local conditions may make
recommendations outside of this general range appropriate.

Sanitation treatments need to be repeated periodically to maintain roadside buffers free
of Port-Orford-cedar regeneration. The preferred approach is to monitor treated areas
and re-treat them whenever Port-Orford-cedar seedlings 6 inches or taller are detected.
The early establishment of other plants that out compete Port-Orford-cedar may also
minimize roadside Port-Orford-cedar re-invasion.

Where a road runs through an uninfested area with Port-Orford-cedar, elimination
of live cedar roots in a buffer along the roadside results in no live hosts close to spots
where contaminated soil is most likely to fall off vehicles using the road. Zoospores, the
propagules of P. lateralis that would most likely be spread away from a road, are delicate
and vulnerable to desiccation. They are unlikely to reach and infect hosts beyond the
buffer created in a sanitation treatment. Other spore types (chlamydospores or encysted
zoospores) also have a greatly reduced probability of crossing a sanitation buffer.
Roadside sanitation has been widely suggested for use in Port-Orford-cedar root disease
management (Erwin and Ribeiro 1996, Goheen et al. 1997, Goheen et al. 1999, Hadfield
et al. 1986, Hansen 1993, Hansen and Hamm 1996, Hansen and Lewis 1997, Hansen et al.
1999, Harvey et al. 1985, Kliejunas 1994, Nielsen 1997, Thies and Goheen in press, Zobel
et al. 1985).

Some sectors of the public find sanitation treatments unpalatable because they entail
removal of live individual Port-Orford-cedar to protect the population. There are also
objections to the name "sanitation." Many believe that "sanitation" implies only removal
of dead trees.

148

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

There is also concern about the effectiveness of sanitation treatments. Starting in 1997,
the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center initiated an investigation
to obtain more quantitative data to evaluate the effectiveness of roadside sanitation
treatments. Preliminary results indicate significant decreases in inoculum three to four
years following treatments of already infested road sections (see following case studies).

Some federally-administered lands are interspersed with private lands. Frequently
road traffic cannot be legally restricted and if sanitation is not done across property
boundaries, the sanitation treatment becomes fragmented. Overall effectiveness can be
reduced if non-federal lands remain untreated.

Sanitation treatments may also be valuable in other areas besides roadsides; for example,
treatments in infested riparian zones or in infestation centers not associated with roads
and streams where: 1) the infested area is limited and discrete; 2) the mechanism
of spread in the area is understood and lends itself to treatment; and 3) significant
populations of uninfected Port-Orford-cedar are at risk in proximity to the infested area.

Vehicle and Equipment Washing

If the manager selects this technique, vehicles and equipment are thoroughly cleaned to
remove adhering soil or plant debris that may contain P. lateralis before moving them into
uninfested areas (fig. 10.7) and conversely, washing them before leaving infested areas of
the forest (figs. 10.8 and 10.9).

Figure 10.7

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

■** &$ Figure 10.8 — Washing

b t equipment to remove soil

%*a*|l| potentially infested with

\jfr Phytophthora lateralis

Figure 10.9 — Washing a log truck to remove soil potentially infested with
Phytophthora lateralis

150

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Vehicles that carry soil infested by P. lateralis are known to be by far the most important
long-distance carriers of the pathogen. Vehicle washing has been widely suggested and
used as a disease management technique (Betlejewski 1994, Goheen et all. 1997, Goheen et
al. 1999, Hadfield et al. 1986, Hansen and Hamm 1996, Hansen and Lewis 1997, Hansen
et al. 1999, Harvey et al. 1985, Jimerson 1994, Kliejunas 1994, Kliejunas and Adams 1980,
Roth et al. 1987, Thies and Goheen in press, Zobel et al. 1985).

Location and design of washing stations are extremely important considerations. To
reduce the potential for spread of P. lateralis, the following practices may be implemented:

• Locate washing stations as close as possible to infested sites. Ideally, vehicles would
not travel for any substantial distance prior to being washed. Vehicles moving into
uninfested areas may be washed miles away as long as they do not travel through
infested areas to reach their destination.

• Locate washing stations in areas where run-off water has no chance of entering
adjacent streams or drainages, or of threatening nearby cedars.

• Design washing stations so that vehicles that have been washed are not likely to be re-
contaminated by passing through wash water that contains P. lateralis propagules on
their way out of the station.

An evaluation to test the effectiveness of a vehicle washing treatment was conducted
by the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center in June, 1999. This
study, summarized later in this chapter, used Port-Orford-cedar as bait trees to test the
effectiveness of a vehicle washing treatment following exposure to P. lateralis. Results
indicated that there were large reductions in inoculum on the vehicles following washing.

A major problem with vehicle washing as a Port-Orford-cedar root disease management
technique is the difficulty of applying it consistently to all vehicles. Managers have a
degree of control over vehicles used in projects and can require vehicle washing in the
project contract, but many other vehicles are outside of their control and may or may not
be cleaned. Efforts are underway to encourage a variety of forest users to voluntarily
clean their vehicles, both through education to convince drivers that vehicle cleaning is
worthwhile and through access to agency sponsored or supported washing stations (fig.
10.10).

Figure 10.10 — Vehicle washing station

151

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Case Studies

Effectiveness Monitoring of Port-Orford-Cedar Roadside
Sanitation Treatments in Southwest Oregon

(Marshall and Goheen 2000)

In 1997, the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center began
monitoring four sites with a systematic sampling procedure using small, tubed Port-
Orford-cedar seedlings as baits. The baits were out-planted in ten transects along a 0.25
to 0.50 mile segment of road at each site. Transects were located where introduction or
movement of inoculum was likely (existing dead Port-Orford-cedar, stream crossings,
swampy areas, pullouts, etc) and also at random points along the road. The baits were
removed from the tubes and planted perpendicular to the road, on both sides of the
road, beginning at the edge of the road and then periodically along the transect and into
the adjacent stand beyond the boundary of the sanitized area. They were also planted
in the roadside ditches above and below the intersection with each transect. At stream
crossings with water present, seedlings were left in their tubes and secured in the channel
with metal stakes. The locations of the baits were mapped so the transects could be re-
sampled in subsequent years. Throughout the process, precautions were taken to avoid
contamination such as scrubbing boots and planting tools in chlorinated water before
planting each new seedling. Baits were left in the streams for two weeks, then retrieved
and incubated in the tubes for four weeks. Planted baits were left on the site for six
weeks and then all baits were examined for evidence of infection by P. lateralis.

As of 2001, 13 different sites have been monitored annually (including the original four).
Two sites are infested but had not been sanitized, one was sanitized but is not infested
and the other ten are infested and have been sanitized. Once transects are installed, the
procedure is repeated with the baits in the same locations at approximately the same time
each year. The intent is to monitor each site for at least 10 years.

Preliminary Results and Conclusions — There has been an overall decrease in the
number of infected bait trees beginning in the third year after the sanitation treatment.
Prior to treatment (year zero), an average of 24 percent of bait trees were infected. Five
years after treatment, an average of 6 percent of bait trees were infected. In three years
of monitoring at the infested site that has not been treated, the level of infection in the
bait trees has remained between 14 and 22 percent. It is believed that the reduction of
inoculum observed in areas that were infested prior to sanitation treatment suggests that
treatments in such areas are indeed worthwhile.

Within transects, the location of infected baits has varied greatly from year to year.
Location of viable inoculum is probably affected by the highly variable weather
conditions during the spring in southwest Oregon. This affects soil moisture and
temperature and the amount and temperature of water in streams and ditches, all factors
that would affect the activity of the pathogen. In general, we have found the greatest
number of infected baits in the roadside ditches. This suggests that these ditches function
as traps for infested water. It means that design and maintenance of the ditches is an
important component of managing roads to limit the spread of P. lateralis. Relatively few
infected baits have been found near the outer edges of the sanitized areas.

In general, fewer infected bait trees were retrieved from streams than expected. Putting
the seedlings in the stream with the tubes still in place may make it more difficult for
infection to occur, or the high velocity of the water in many of the streams may make it
unlikely for infection to occur during the short duration of the trial.

152

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

One shortcoming of this procedure so far is the difficulty and uncertainty of monitoring
success of sanitation treatments in uninfested areas. The baiting technique is only
accurate for identifying the positive presence of P. lateralis. This technique will not
necessarily predict the absence of P. lateralis if the baits were not located in the right
places to intercept the pathogen.

Effectiveness of Vehicle Washing in Decreasing
Transport of P. lateralis Inoculum

(Goheen et al. 2000)

An evaluation to test the effectiveness of washing treatments was conducted by the
Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center on the Grants Pass Resource
Area, Medford District, BLM, in early June, 1999. This study used a sample-based
approach, using Port-Orford-cedar as bait trees to test the effectiveness of vehicle
washing following exposure to P. lateralis inoculum in soil.

A muddy roadside in an area known to be infested with P. lateralis was selected as an
exposure site. Two vehicles, a road grader and a pickup truck, and a pair of high top
rubber boots were intentionally exposed to the mud in the infested area by driving or
walking through the site. Following the exposure, the vehicles and the rubber boots
were washed separately at two staged wash sites; the first wash site was 50 feet up the
road from the exposure site, and the second was located 100 feet up the road from the
first wash site. The length and intensity of each wash was comparable to operational
washing treatments currently being used in Port-Orford-cedar root disease prevention
projects. Samples of the wash water from the first and second wash were collected by
placing ten gallon plastic tubs below the test vehicles and boots; one tub was partially
filled with water directly from the tank to act as a control. Water from the second wash
was collected in the same locations relative to the vehicles and the boots as with the
first wash. The wash samples were transported to an incubation facility in Central
Point where one-year-old Port-Orford-cedar seedlings were used as bait trees to test for
the presence of inoculum in the various samples of wash water (20 seedlings per wash
sample). After eight weeks, the seedlings were removed and examined for evidence
of infection by P. lateralis. The seedlings exposed to water from the first wash of the
boots averaged 65 percent infection while those exposed to water from the second wash
showed 2.5 percent; seedlings exposed to water from the first wash of the pickup truck
averaged 41 .2 percent infection while those exposed to water from the second wash
exhibited 3.7 percent; and seedlings exposed to water from the first wash of the road
grader averaged 27.8 percent infection while those exposed to water from the second
wash showed 2.2 percent infection.

This case study showed that an operational-type washing affected the amount of
P. lateralis inoculum on vehicles and boots that were purposely exposed to infested soil.
Although the inoculum was not completely eliminated, it was greatly reduced as a result
of the first wash. It is possible that in moving from the first wash site to the second,
the vehicle tires and rubber boots picked up additional inoculum left on the roadway
by other vehicles passing through the infested area. The results also suggest that some
places on the vehicles, such as the blade of the grader and the under side of the pickup
truck, may be more difficult to clean completely with the type of washing treatments
currently in use. Results of this case study support the use of vehicle washing as one
treatment for reducing the probability of spreading P. lateralis from infested to uninfested
areas. However, washing by itself should not be considered a completely effective

153

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

treatment. Vehicle washing may be considered for use in combination with other
treatments in an integrated Port-Orford -cedar root disease management strategy. The
following recommendations were included:

• Locate and design vehicle washing stations to reduce the likelihood of vehicles being
re-contaminated by passing through wash water containing P. lateralis, and where
there is no chance of runoff water entering adjacent streams, drainages, or uninfested
concentrations of Port-Orford-cedar. Washing stations should be located in well-
drained areas where vehicles can be washed over rocks or gravel; wash ramps could
also provide a good area for washing vehicles.

• When possible, use the most effective and techniques for cleaning hard to reach areas.

• A stiff bristle brush should be carried in each vehicle for cleaning boots. Footwear
should be brushed vigorously to remove obvious adhering soil and mud before
entering the vehicle to travel to a new location (fig. 10.11), especially when leaving an
area with obvious current disease-caused Port-Orford-cedar mortality.

Managing Port-Orford-Cedar in Areas Not
Favorable to the Pathogen

In spite of the virulence of P. lateralis, and the fact that it has spread widely along
roads and streams through a good portion of Port-Orford-cedar's range, there are
still considerable numbers of sites, many of them substantial in size, where naturally
occurring Port-Orford-cedar are thriving. Cedar on such sites has escaped infection
because the sites have characteristics that are unfavorable for spread of the pathogen.

Port-Orford-cedar can be preferentially managed on sites where conditions make it likely
they will escape infection by P. lateralis, even if the pathogen has already been established

Figure 10.11 — Boots are cleaned to avoid spreading Phytophthora lateralis

154

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

nearby or may be introduced in the future. Port-Orford-cedar on low-risk sites-above
and away from roads, uphill from creeks, on ridgetops, and well-drained locales- are
likely to survive.

Maintaining existing Port-Orford-cedar on low vulnerability sites such as convex slopes
and ridge tops above roads has been commonly suggested as a disease management
technique; actually developing "cedar production areas" by planting and actively
managing Port-Orford-cedar on sites with such characteristics has also been suggested
(Goheen et al. 1997, Goheen et al. 1999, Hadfield et al. 1986, Harvey et al. 1985, Hansen et
al. 1999, Koepsell and Pscheidt 1994, Nielsen 1997, Roth et al. 1987, Thies and Goheen in
press, USDA 1983, Zobel et al. 1985).

Maintaining natural Port-Orford-cedar on low risk sites has not been well evaluated,
but field observation strongly indicates its success. P. lateralis is clearly capable of killing
most, if not all, Port-Orford-cedar that it infects, so the widespread occurrence of healthy
hosts throughout the cedar's range is a testimonial to the fact that naturally occurring
trees on many kinds of sites do, indeed, escape infection.

Managing Port-Orf ord-Cedar in Areas
Favorable to the Pathogen

Within infested sites that have characteristics particularly favorable for P. lateralis spread,
observations show that some Port-Orford-cedar escape infection because of the microsites
where they occur. Even what appear to be very slight microsite differences (elevated
areas of only a few feet) can greatly influence the likelihood of infection. Spread of the
pathogen from tree to tree, particularly around the margins of infestation centers or areas
where overland flow of water is somewhat channeled, is also influenced by the spacing
of Port-Orford-cedar and location of individual trees. Some spread is known to occur via
root grafts between cedars; grafting potential has been shown to decrease substantially
when Port-Orford-cedar are 18 feet or more apart on flat ground and five feet or more
apart vertically on steeply sloping ground (Gordon 1974, Gordon and Roth 1976).

Distances between trees may also influence spread of P. lateralis via zoospores in water.
Zoospores are quite delicate and can swim only short distances (1.2 to 2.4 inches) in
standing water though they can be carried considerable distances in moving water
(Carlile 1983, Hansen and Lewis 1997). If trees are outside of drainage channels and are
widely spaced, they may escape infection. Wide-spacing and consideration of microsites
in determining where to plant or maintain natural Port-Orford-cedar has been suggested
(Hadfield et al. 1986, Harvey et al. 1985, Roth et al. 1987).

Port-Orford-cedar can be favored in plantings and thinnings on microsites that are
unfavorable for the pathogen within infested areas (especially mounds and other high
places) or, conversely, not favored on microsites optimal for infestation (close to and
below roads, in or very close to streams or drainage ditches, and in low lying wet areas).
Port-Orford-cedar may be planted or retained in thinnings in mixed species stands at
wide spacing (25 feet or more between individual trees) (Harvey et al. 1985, Hadfield et
al. 1986).

155

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Manipulating Species Composition

Favoring tree species other than Port-Orford-cedar that are appropriate for local sites
is especially applicable where P. lateralis is already established or in sites that are
particularly favorable for future establishment of the pathogen.

P. lateralis is host-specific and most tree species that grow within the range of Port-
Orford-cedar do not become infected (Zobel et al. 1985). Only Port-Orford-cedar
and occasionally Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) are infected by P. lateralis under natural
conditions (DeNitto and Kliejunas 1991, Erwin and Ribeiro 1996, Hepting, 1971, Murray
and Hansen 1997, USDA 1992). Planting alternate species has been suggested (Filip et al.
1995, USDA 1983) and has been done in some areas that have been severely impacted by
P. lateralis.

Management Challenges

Some particularly formidable challenges associated with Port-Orford-cedar root disease
management on federal lands are listed below.

Difficulty of Monitoring Effectiveness of Management
Activities

Effectiveness monitoring of Port-Orford-cedar root disease management activities is
extremely difficult. Frequently, monitoring has been subjective. A treatment may have
been rated as fully effective, partially effective or not effective. This type of monitoring
is not especially useful; it is not quantitative and cannot be statistically analyzed. What
constitutes an "effective" treatment has not been standardized. Ideally, effectiveness is
based on lack of new infections in an area, but in some cases it may be based on whether
or not the treatment was installed effectively, i.e., a gate remains free of vandalism or all
Port-Orford-cedar are indeed removed in a sanitation treatment. Optimally, to evaluate
treatment effectiveness, sample-based monitoring that determines P. lateralis presence
and abundance on a site after the treatment, is required.

In spite of past research efforts, no accurate, inexpensive, and quick soil assay technique
for P. lateralis has been devised that can be used easily in the field. Baiting, using Port-
Orford-cedar seedlings as described in the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease
Service Center's road sanitation monitoring effort, is the best technique currently
available (Goheen and Marshall, in press). It is fairly inexpensive and accurate, but takes
up to two months to provide results. It can be installed with a design that lends itself to
statistical analyses.

Few Opportunities to Obtain New Management-Related
Research Results

Although public and federal agency interest is great, and opportunities for investigating
new management techniques or using research to test effectiveness of established
techniques abound, there are few researchers working on Port-Orford-cedar root disease
or on management related questions. Funding for research on Port-Orford-cedar and
P. lateralis is essential for the success of the programs.

156

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Public Opposition to Agency Management Activities

Federal agencies have found that keeping all sectors of the public informed and, when
possible, supportive of the agencies' Port-Orford-cedar root disease management is an
important but difficult task. Environmental groups were instrumental in developing
awareness of the seriousness of the disease and the importance of managing it. But some
of these same groups actively oppose agency management because they do not believe
the techniques being employed will be effective. Some believe that only exclusion or
permanent road closures are worthwhile strategies.

Coordination Difficulties

Although coordination has improved in recent years among public land management
agencies, each agency has different regulations, management agendas, emphasis areas,
and administrative rules. A challenge is associated with trying to coordinate activities
with private landowners. Many landowners do not cooperate because maintaining Port-
Orford-cedar is not an important objective for them, because they are worried about the
costs, delays, and inconveniences associated with such management efforts, or because
they fear that cooperation may lead to future regulations that would impact their abilities
to manage their own lands as they see fit. Such lack of cooperation can severely decrease
the effectiveness of federal Port-Orford-cedar management or limit its success to only
parts of a landscape.

Funding Uncertainties

Many Port-Orford-cedar root disease management and research activities are
expensive. Both the Forest Service and the BLM have maintained funding for root
disease management efforts on federal lands at a reasonably high level for the past few
years. Funding for research, however, has been more difficult to obtain. A considerable
proportion of root disease management support for both agencies has come from national
Forest Health Protection funds (U.S. Department of Agriculture). To qualify for such
funding, local managers must apply annually and compete against other proposed
disease management projects from throughout the country. Agency managers are
concerned about the dependability of future Port-Orford-cedar root disease management
and research funding.

157

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Literature Cited

Betlejewski, F. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar management guidelines. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 32 p.

Carlile, M.J. 1983. Motility, taxis, and tropism in Phytophthora. In: Erwin, D.C.; Bartnicki-
Garcia, S.; Tsao, PH., eds. Phytophthora: its biology, taxonomy, ecology, and pathology. St.
Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society: 95-107.

Daniel, T.W.; Helms, J.A.; Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of silviculture. New York: McGraw-
Hill. 500 p.

DeNitto, G. 1992. Phytophthora lateralis eradication — Camp Six, Gasquet Ranger District.
Redding, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection,
Northern California Shared Service Area, 2400 Washington Avenue, Redding, CA 96001.
Administrative report. 3 p. On file with: Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease
Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, 2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

DeNitto, G.; Kliejunas, J.T. 1991. First report of Phytophthora lateralis on pacific yew
[Abstract]. Plant Disease 75:968.

Erwin, D.C.; Ribeiro, O.K. 1996. Phytophthora diseases worldwide. Saint Paul, MN:
American Phytopathological Society. 562 p.

Filip, G.M.; Kanaskie, A.; Campbell III, A. 1995. Forest disease ecology and management
in Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service. 60 p.

Goheen, D.J.; Marshall, K. In press. Monitoring effectiveness of roadside sanitation
treatments to decrease likelihood of spread of Phytophthora lateralis in southwest Oregon.
Proceedings of the second international meeting on Phytophthoras in forest and wildland
ecosystems, IUFRO working party 7.02.09. Perth, Western Australia: Murdoch University.

Goheen, D.J.; Marshall, K.; Hansen, E.M.; DeNitto, G.A. 1997. Port-Orford-cedar root
disease: ecological implications and management. In Beigel, J.K.; Jules, E.S.; Snitkin, B.,
eds. Proceedings of the first conference on Siskiyou ecology. Cave Junction, OR: Siskiyou
Regional Educational Project: 189.

Gordon, D.E. 1974. The importance of root grafting in the spread of Phytophthora root rot
in an immature stand of Port-Orford-cedar. Corvallis OR: Oregon State University; 116 p.
M.S. thesis.

Gordon, D.E.; Roth, L.F. 1976. Root grafting in Port-Orford-cedar : an infection route for
root rot. Forest Science 22:276-278.

Hadfield, J.S.; Goheen, D.J.; Filip, G.M.; Schmitt, C.L.; Harvey, R.D. 1986. Root diseases
in Oregon and Washington conifers. R6-FPM-250-86. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 27 p.

158

Chapter 10 — Management Techniques and Challenges

Hansen, E.M. 1993. Roadside surveys for Port-Orford-cedar root disease on the Powers
Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. Unpublished report. 17p. On file with:
Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, J. Herbert Stone Nursery,
2606, Old Stage Road, Central Point, OR 97502.

Hansen, E.M.; Goheen, D.J.; Jules, E.S.; Ullian, B. 1999. Managing Port-Orford-cedar and
the introduced pathogen Phytophthom lateralis. Plant Disease 84:4-14.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, PB. 1996. Survival of Phytophthom lateralis in infected roots of Port-
Orford-cedar. Plant Disease 80:1075-1078.

Hansen, E.M.; Hamm, P.B.; Roth, L.F. 1989. Testing Port-Orford-cedar for resistance to
Phytophthom. Plant Disease 73(10):791-794.

Hansen, E.M.; Lewis, K.J. 1997. Compendium of conifer diseases. St. Paul, MN: American
Phytopathological Society. 101 p.

Hepting, G.H. 1971. Diseases of forest and shade trees of the United States. Agriculture
Handbook No. 386. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
658 p.

Kliejunas, J.T. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. Fremontia 22:3-11.

Kliejunas, J.T.; Adams, D.H. 1980. An evaluation of Phytophthom root rot of Port-Orford-
cedar in California. Forest Pest Management Report No. 80-1. San Francisco, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5. 16 p.

Koepsell, P.A.; Pscheidt, J.W. 1994. Pacific northwest plant disease control handbook.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 349 p.

Marshall, K.; Goheen, D.J. 2000. Preliminary results of effectiveness monitoring of Port-
Orford-cedar roadside sanitation treatments in southwest Oregon. In: Hansen and Sutton,
eds. Proceedings of the first international meeting on Phytophthoras in forest and wildland
ecosystems, IUFRO working party 7.02.09. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest
Research Laboratory: 125-126.

Murray, M.S.; Hansen, E.M. 1997. Susceptibility of pacific yew to Phytophthom lateralis.
Plant Disease 81 :1400-1404.

Murray, M.S.; McWilliams, M.; Hansen, E.M. 1995. Survival of Phytophthom lateralis
in chlorine bleach. Unpublished report. 8 p. On file with: Oregon State University,
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Corvallis, OR.

Nielsen, J. 1997. Port-Orford-cedar: a reasonable risk for reforestation (under specific
conditions). Northwest Woodlands 13:22-23.

159

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Ostrofsky, W.D.; Pratt, R.G.; Roth, L.F. 1977. Detection of Phytophthora lateralis in soil
organic matter and factors that affect its survival. Phytopathology 67:79-84.

Scharpf, R.F., tech. coord. 1993. Diseases of pacific coast conifers. Agriculture Handbook
521. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Forest Research
Station. 199 p.

Smith, D.M. 1962. The practice of silviculture. 9th edition. New York, NY: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 578 p.

Tainter, F.H.; Baker, FA. 1996. Principals of forest pathology. New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. 805 p.

Thies, W.G.; Goheen, E.M. In press. Major forest diseases of the Oregon Coast Range and
their management. Summary of the COPE [Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhancement
Program] Project.

Trione, E.J. 1959. The pathology of Phytophthora lateralis on native Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana. Contributions to the Boyce Thompson Institute 17:359-373.

Trione, E.J. 1974. Sporulation and germination of Phytophthora lateralis. Phytopathology
64:1531-1533.

Tucker, CM.; Milbrath, J.A. 1942. Root rot of Chamaecyparis caused by a species of
Phytophthora. Mycologia. 34:94-103.

Umaerus, V.; Umareus, M; Erjefalt, L.; Nilsson, B.A. 1983. Control of Phytophthora by
host resistance: problems and progress. In Erwin, D.C.; Bartnicki-Garcia, S; Tsao, PH.,
eds. Phytophthora: its biology, taxonomy, ecology, and pathology. St. Paul, MN: American
Phytopathological Society: 315-326.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1983. Forest disease management notes.
GPO 1983 695-726. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Region. 52 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. An interim guide to the con-
servation and management of Pacific yew. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Region. 72 p.

Zobel, D.B. 1990. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Pari, Port-Orford-cedar. In: Burns,
R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: conifers. Agricultural
handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Vol. 1.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, pathology, and management of Port-
Orford-cedar {Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). General Technical Report PNW-184. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 161 p.

160

Appendices

Appendix A

The Relationship of the Port-Orf ord-Cedar
Range-wide Assessment to Other Legal
Documents and Authorities

June 2001

Other than an appendix reference the Northwest Forest Plan does not specifically address
Port-Orford-cedar or the root disease caused by Phytophthom lateralis, but it does place
emphasis on maintenance of riparian habitat and sustaining ecological viability of all
native species.

Existing Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Plans within the range of
Port-Orford-cedar recommend management actions that reduce the spread and severity
of the root disease, maintain Port-Orford-cedar as a component of appropriate forest
ecosystems, and incorporate analysis of effects to Port-Orford-cedar into environmental
analyses and project planning (USDA 1989, 1990, 1995a, b, c; USDI 1995a, b, c).

The Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, is authorized "to assist in . . .
the prevention and control of insects and diseases affecting trees and forests" on non-
federal lands (USC, Title 16, Chapter 41, Sec. 2101). The Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act of 1978, as amended, authorizes the Forest Service to provide technical and financial
assistance on forest lands administered by other federal agencies, tribal lands, and on
State and private forest lands.

This document does not contain a comprehensive analysis of Port-Orford-cedar on
all ownerships within the range of Port-Orford-cedar and does not make any blanket
recommendations for all lands within the range of Port-Orford-cedar. It provides tools
and information for any landowner who manages Port-Orford-cedar as a component of
their forest.

This assessment is closely tied to other ongoing and proposed analyses. These include
watershed analyses, late-successional reserve assessments, transportation management
plans, the BLM's Plant Genetics Plan, analyses of Forest Service road networks, and off-
highway vehicle strategies.

National emphasis on managing and reducing the impacts on native ecosystems from
non-native organisms is increasing. In 1996, a National Invasive Species Act was passed,
which targeted non-native species for control measures. The National Invasive Species
Council was established in 1999 to oversee management and prevention programs for
control of invasive species. P. lateralis is an invasive species. It is probably not native to
North America and certainly not native to the natural range of Port-Orford-cedar.

161

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Literature Cited

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Siskiyou National Forest land and
resource management plan. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Siuslaw National Forest land and
resource management plan. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995a. Land and resource management
plan, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995b Land and resource management
plan, Six Rivers National Forest. Eureka, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995c. Shasta-Trinity National Forest land
and resource management plan. Vallejo, CA.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Coos Bay District
record of decision and resource management plan. North Bend, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995b. Record of decision
and resource management plan, Medford District. Medford, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995c. Record of decision
and resource management plan, Roseburg District. Roseburg, OR.

162

Appendices

Appendix B

Occurrence of Plant Associations with Port-
Orf ord-Cedar by Ecoregion or Subsection

163

Ecoregion or Subsection

Mid-coastal

Sedimentary

and Southern

Oregon

Coastal

Coastal
Siskiyous

Eastern
Franciscan

Gasquet

Mountain
Ultramafics

Serpentine
Siskiyous

Western
Jurassic

Siskiyou
Mountains

Inland
Siskiyous

Pelletreau
Ridge

Rattlesnake

Creek

Eastern

Klamath

Mountains

Lower Scott
Mountains

Upper Scott
Mountains

California

Oregon

California

Oregon

Port-Orford-cedar/Hairy Honeysuckle/Fescue

Port-Orford-cedar/HuckleberryOak/
Beargrass

Port-Orford-cedar/PacificRhododendron-
Salal

Port-Orford-cedar/Salal

Port-Orford-cedar/Western Azalea

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/California
Hazelnut

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/Hazelnut//6-R

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fii/Huckleberrv
Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/Spicebush

Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir- Alder/Vine
Maple-Oregon-grape

Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen Huckleberry/
Western Swordfem

Port-Orford-cedar-Incense Cedar-Alder

Port-Orford-cedar - Mixed Conifer/
Huckleberry Oak - Western Azalea

Port-Orford-cedar-Mixed Conifer/Western
Azalea-Dwarf Tanbark

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Bush
Chinquapin

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/
Labrador Tea

Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Sierra
Laurel

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sadler Oak-
Thinleaf Huckleberrv

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sadler Oak-
Thinleaf Huckleberry //R-6

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sitka Alder/
California Pitcher Plant

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sitka Alder -Sadler
Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir-Brewer Spruce/
Sadler Oak-Huckleberry Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-Tanoak/Salal

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-
grape

Ecoregion or Subsection

Mid-coastal

Sedimentary

and Southern

Oregon

Coastal

Coastal
Siskiyous

Eastern
Franciscan

Gasquet

Mountain
Ultramafics

Serpentine
Siskiyous

Western
Jurassic

Siskiyou

Mountains

Inland
Siskiyous

Pelletreau
Ridge

Rattlesnake
Creek

Eastern
Klamath

Mountains

Lower Scott
Mountains

Upper Scott
Mountains

California

Oregon

California

Oregon

Port-Orford-cedar-Western Hemlock/Sierra
Laurel

Port-Orford-cedar- Western Hemlock/
Swordfem

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine//Dry
Herb Complex

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/
Huckleberry Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/
Labrador Tea/California Pitcher Plant

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/
Labrador Tea/California Pitcher Plant//
Coastal

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/Sitka
Alder

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/
Thinleaf Huckleberry

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/
Western Azalea-Dwarf Tanbark-Labrador Tea

Port-Orford-cedar-Western White Pine/ /Wet
Herb Complex

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Bush
Chinquapin- Western Azalea

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-
grape

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir//Herb

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Huckleberry Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sadler Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sierra Laurel-
Bush Chinquapin

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sitka Alder

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Vine Maple

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Western Azalea

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir /Western Azalea-
Huckleberry Oak

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir -Western White
Pine/Huckleberry Oak

Douglas-fir /Salal-Dwarf Oregon-grape

i*»

Douglas-fir/Salal-Pacific Rhododendron

Douglas-fir/Salmonberry/Swordfern

Ecoregion or Subsection

Mid-coastal

Sedimentary

and Southern

Oregon

Coastal

Coastal
Siskiyous

Eastern

Franciscan

Gasquet

Mountain
Ultramafics

Serpentine
Sisidyous

Western
Jurassic

Siskiyou
Mountains

Inland
Siskiyous

Pelletreau
Ridge

Rattlesnake
Creek

Eastern
Klamath

Mountains

Lower Scott
Mountains

Upper Scott
Mountains

California

Oregon

California

Oregon

Jeffrey Pine/Huckleberry Oak-Pinemat
Manzanita

Jeffrey Pine/Huckleberry Oak-Pinemat
Manzanita-Box-leaved Silk Tassel

Jeffrey Pine-Port-Orford-cedar/Huckleberrv
Oak

Tanoak-Bigleaf maple-Canyon Live Oak/
Swordfern

Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Dwarf Oregon-
grape

Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Evergreen
Huckleberry

Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Pacific
Rhododendron

Tanoak-Douglas-fir-Canyon Live Oak/Dwarf
Oregon-grape

Tanoak-Douglas-fir-Canyon Live Oak/Poison
Oak

Tanoak-Golden Chinquapin/Salal-Sadler Oak

Tanoak-Golden Chinquapin-Sugar Pine

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Dwarf Oregon-
grape/Twinflower

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen
Huckleberry

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen
Huckleberry-Western Azalea

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/HuckleberryOak

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Pacific
Rhododendron

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Red Huckleberry

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Salal

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/ Vine Maple

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/VineMaple//6-R

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar- Alder/ /Riparian

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-CaliforniaBay/
Evergreen Huckleberry

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Red Alder//
Riparian

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Redwood/
Evergreen Huckleberry

Ecoregion or Subsection

Mid-coastal

Sedimentar)'

and Southern

Oregon

Coastal

Siskiyous

Eastern
Franciscan

Gasquet
Mountain
Ultramafics

Serpentine
Siskiyous

Western
Jurassic

Siskiyou
Mountains

Inland
Siskiyous

Pellefreau
Ridge

Rattlesnake
Creek

Eastern

Klamath

Mountains

Lower Scott
Mountains

Upper Scott
Mountains

California

Oregon

California

Oregon

Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Western Hemlock/
Evergreen Huckleberry

Tanoak-VVestern white pine/Huckleberry
oak/Beargrass

Tanoak- Western Hemlock/Evergreen
Huckleberry/Swordfern

Western Hemlock-Tanoak-California Bav

Western Hemlock/Evergreen Huckleberry/
Swordfern

Western Hemlock/Pacific Rhododendron-
Dwarf Oregon-grape

Western Hemlock/Sadler Oak-Salal-Pacific
Rhododendron

Western Hemlock/Salal-Pacific Rhododendron

Western Hemlock/Swordfern

White Fir/Beargrass

White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-grape/Twinflower

White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-grape/ Vanillaleaf

White Fir/ Huckleberry Oak

White Fir/Pacific Rhododendron-Sadler Oak

White Fir/Pinemat Manzanita

White Fir-Brewer Spruce/Common Prince's
Pine-Whitevein Pyrola

White Fir-Douglas-fir/Baldhip Rose

White Fir-Douglas-fir/Poison Oak

White Fir-Tanoak/Common Prince's Pine

-13
3

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

168

Appendices

Appendix C

Unique Species and Regional Endemic, Rare
or Sensitive Plants Found in Ecology Plots
Used for Classification of Port-Orf ord-Cedar
and Species Known to Occur with Port-
Orford-Cedar

Revised 5/13/02 by Lisa Hoover and Maria Ulloa

Scientific Name

Antennaria suffrutescens Greene

Arabis koelheri Howell var. stipitata Roll.

Arabis macdomldiana Eastwood

Arctostaphylos hispidula Howell

Arctostaphylos klamathensis Edwards, Keeler-Wolf
& Knight

Arnica cernua Howell

Cardamine nuttallii Greene var. gemmata Greene
Roll. (C. gemmata, D. gemmata)

Carex gigas (Holm) Mackenzie includes
C. scabriuscula Mack

Castilleja hispida Benth ssp. brevilobata (Piper)
Chuang & Hechard

Castilleja miniata Hook ssp. elata (Piper) Munz
(Castilleja elata)

Chaenactis suffrutescens A. Gray

Cypripedium californicum A. Gray

Cypripedium fasciculatum Kell. S. Watson

Cypripedium montanum Lindlev

jr r j

Darlingtonia californica Torrey

Dicentra formosa (Haw.) Walp.

ssp. oregana (Eastw.) Munz

Epilobium oreganum Greene

Erigeron cervinus Greene

(includes E. deticatus Cronq.)

Eriogonum pendulum Wats.

Eriogonum ternatum Howell

Eriogonum umbellatum Torrey var. humistratum Rev.

Erythronium hendersonii S. Watson

Erythronium howellii Wats.

Gentiana setigera (Gray) (G. bisetaea)

Hastingsia bracteosa S. Wats var. bracteosa

(Becking) Lang & Zika

(H. bracteosa, Schoenolirion bracteosum)

Horkelia sericata S. Watson

Iris innominata L. Henderson

Common Name

evergreen everlasting
stipitate rock-cress
McDonald's rock-cress
Howell's manzanita
Klamath manzanita

serpentine arnica
yellow-tubered toothwort

Siskiyou sedge

short-lobed Indian paintbrush

Siskiyou Indian paintbrush

Shasta chaenactis
California lady's-slipper
clustered lady's-slipper
mountain lady's-slipper
California pitcher plant
Oregon bleeding heart

Oregon willow-herb
Siskiyou daisy

Waldo buckwheat
ternate buckwheat
Mt. Eddy buckwheat
Henderson's fawn lily
Howell's fawn lily
Waldo gentian
largeflowered rushlily

Howell's horkelia
Del Norte iris

169

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

.■-.■■■

. . :,

Iris tenax Douglas ssp. klamathensis L. Lenz

]uncus dudleyi Wieg.

Lathyrus delnorticus C. Hitchc.

Lewisia oppositifolia (Wats) Rob.

Lilium bolanderi S. Watson

Lilium pardalinum Kellogg ssp. vollmeri (East.)

M. Skinner

Lilium pardalinum Kellogg ssp. wigginsii

(Beane &Vollmer) M. Skinner

Lilium rubescens S. Watson

Lilium washingtonianum Kellogg ssp. purpurascens (Stearn)

M. Skinner

Lomatium howellii S. Watson

Penstemon filiformis (Keck) Keck

Phacelia dalesiana J. Howell

Pinguicula vulgaris ssp. macroceras (Link) Calder

& R. Taylor

P. macroceras var. macroceras,

P. macroceras ssp. Nortensis

Pityopus californicus (Eastw.) H. Copel

Poa piperi A. Hitchc.

Polystichum californicum (D. C. Eat) Diels

Potentilla cristae W Ferlatte & Strother

Pyrrocoma racemosa (Nutt.) Torrey & A. Gray

var. congesta (Greene) G. Brown & Keil

Raillardella pringlei Greene

Ribes marshallii Greene

Rubus nivalis Douglas

Salix delnortensis Schneid

Sanguisorba officinalis L.

Sanicula peckiana J. F. Macbr.

Sedum laxum (Britton) A. Berger

ssp. flavidum Denton

Sedum laxum (Britton) A. Berger

ssp. Heckneri (M. Peck) R. T. Clausen

Smilax jamesii Wallace

Streptanthus howellii Wats

Tauschia glauca (J. Coulter & Rose) Mathias

& Constance

Triteleia crocea (Alph. Wood) Greene

var. modesta (H. M. Hall) Hoover

Vancouveria chrysantha Greene

Veratrum insolitum Jepson

Viola primulifolia L. var. occidentalis (Gray)

L. E. McKenney & R. J. Little

<!:

Orleans iris
Dudley's rush
Del Norte pea
opposite-leaved lewisia
Bolander's lily
Vollmer's lily

Wiggin's lily

redwood lily

purple-flowered Washington lily

Howell's lomatium
thread-leaved beardtongue
Scott Mountain phacelia
Del Norte butterwort

California pinefoot

Piper's blue grass

California swordfern

crested potentilla

Del Norte pyrrocoma

showy raillardella

Marshall's gooseberry

snow dwarf bramble

Del Norte willow

great burnet
Peck's sanicle

pale yellow stonecrop

'-' " ■

Heckner's stonecrop

English Peak Greenbriar
Howell's jewelflower
glaucous tauschia

Trinity Mountain triteleia

Siskiyou inside-out-flower
Siskiyou false-hellebore
western bog violet

■■■■■!.:■

■

170

Appendices

Appendix D

Port-Orford-Cedar Short-term Raised Bed
Common Garden Study Analysis of Vc

Tables and Means

nance

Table D.l— Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for height traits for watershed and breed zone
models

Values for height columns are probabilities of getting as high or higher F-values when Ho: is true.

Source of Variation

Locations

Treatments

Loc * Trt

Blocks
Watershed Model:

Watersheds

Stands (wtrshd)

Families (stand)

Loc * Wtrshd

Loc * Stand

Loc * Fam (stand)

Trt * Wtrshd

Trt * Stand (wtrshd)

Trt * Fam (stand)

Loc * Trt * Wtrshd

Residual Mean Square
Breed Zone Model:

Breed Zones

Seed Zones (bz)

Families (sdz)

Loc * BZ

Loc * SdZ (bz)

Loc * Fam (sdz)

Trt * BZ

Trt * SdZ (bz)

Trt * Fam (sdz)

Loc * Trt * Bz

Residual Mean Square

Degrees of

2-Yr Total

Freedom

Height

.0010

.6384

.0414

.0001

.0074

246

.0001

.9999

246

.0001

.3470

.2824

246

.9999

.2013

2914

205.46

.0001

288

.0001

.8447

288

.0001

.0639

.2274

288

.9999

.4800

2961

206.53

1-Yr Total

2nd Yr Height

Height

Growth

.0252

.0005

.4016

.0022

.6468

.0006

.0001

.0112

.0185

.0001

.1758

.0002

.9999

.4500

.0052

.0001

.4529

.1291

.3001

.0691

.1041

.9999

.0374

.4884

34.86

110.42

.0001

.5465

.0001

.2259

.5505

.0060

.0001

.3957

.0017

.4035

.2289

.0586

.9999

.0565

.5823

34.92

111.17

171

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Table D.2— Least square means and standard errors main effects and some interactions for
the watershed model for height (in centimeters) traits1

Effect

Loc

Trt

Wtrshd

Loc

Dor

Loc

Hum

Trt

Loc*Trt

Dor

LoCTrt
Loc*Trt

Dor
Hum

Loc*Trt

Hum

Wtrshd

Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd
Wtrshd

-: ! ■- "".Ill*

Sha

Sun

Sha

Sun

Sha

Sun

App

Coq

Dun

Ilv

Kla

Rog

Sac

Six

Smh

Trn

1 HTl = first year total height; HT2 =
sites.

LSMean Std Error
Ht2 Ht2

LSMean Std Error
Htl Htl

LSMean
Ht2-1

Std Error
Ht2-1

114.29

2.77

60.71

3.02

53.58

1.08

94.52

2.77

49.02

3.02

45.50

1.08

103.39

2.77

56.81

3.02

46.57

1.07

105.42

2.77

52.92

3.02
4.25

52.51

1.07

108.87

3.80

61.61

47.25

1.42

119.72

3.80

59.81

4.25

59.91
45.89

1.42

97.92

3.80

52.02

4.25

1.42

91.12

3.80

46.02

4.25

45.10

1.42

103.40

3.27

54.31

2.46

49.11

1.71

115.97

2.31

59.34

2.21

56.62

1.04

124.52

3.32

63.54

2.47

60.96

1.75

101.75

4.41

53.15

2.82

48.63

2.44

99.25

3.61

52.88

2.56

46.37

1.93

105.80

3.03

55.41

2.40

50.37

1.56

85.88

3.48

48.48

2.51
2.82
2.33

37.39
62.82

1.84

127.46

4.42
2.80

64.67

53.17

2.45

100.66

47.43

1.40

79.38

4.59

43.70

2.89

35.71

2.56

height; HG2-1

= second year height grow

th increment

traits are averages across both

172

Appendices

Table D.3 — Least square means and standard errors main effects and some interactions for
the breed zone model for height (in centimeters) traits ]

Effect

Loc

Trt

SdZ

LSMean
Ht2

Std Error
Ht2

LSMean
Htl

Std Error LSI
Htl H

Mean
t2-l

Std Error
Ht2-1

Loc

Dor

109.86

2.69

59.08

3.00

50.79

1.01

Loc

Hum

91.67

2.69

47.48

3.00

44.19

1.01

Trt

Sha

99.91

2.68

55.15

3.00

44.76

0.98

Trt

Sun

101.62

2.68

51.41

3.00

50.21

0.98

Loc*Trt

Dor

Sha

104.60

3.74

59.95

4.24

44.64

1.36

Loc*Trt

Dor

Sun

115.13

3.74

58.21

4.24

56.93

1.36

LocTrt

Hum

Sha

95.23

3.74

50.36

4.24

44.87

1.36

LocTrt

Hum

Sun

88.11

3.74

44.61

4.24

43.50

1.36

115.97

2.03

59.61

2.15

56.36

0.81

102.25

2.19

53.69

2.19

48.55

0.95

101.90

2.41

53.62

2.25

48.28

1.12

82.96

2.53

46.20

2.28

36.76

1.21

SdZ(BZ)

071

124.38

2.57

63.31

2.29

61.08

1.24

SdZ(BZ)

072

118.15

2,04

60.33

2.16

57.82

0.82

SdZ(BZ)

081

105.36

2.53

55.18

2.28

50.18

1.20

SdZ(BZ)

511

104.07

2.51

54.58

2.27

49.49

1.19

SdZ(BZ)

512

100.42

2.53

52.81

2.28

47.61

1.20

SdZ(BZ)

091

105.59

3.24

55.02

2.48

50.57

1.70

SdZ(BZ)

301

95.42

2.53

51.65

2.28

43.75

1.20

SdZ(BZ)

302

104.70

3.96

54.19

2.72

50.51

2.16

SdZ(BZ)

331

80.03

3.60

43.90

2.60

36.13

1.93

SdZ(BZ)

IK' l!'

521

85.88

2.49

48.49

2.27

37.38

1.17

Loc*BZ

Dor

127.35

2.77

65.43

3.02

61.92

1.09

Loc*BZ

Dor

112.53

2:94

59.82

3.05

52.71

1.26

Loc*BZ

Dor

110.08

3.16

59.19

3.10

50.88

1.46

Loc*BZ

Dor

89.49

3.29

51.86

3.13

37.63

1.57

Loc*BZ

Hum

104.58

2.77

53.78

3.02

50.80

1.09

Loc*BZ,

Hum

91.96

2.94

47.57

3.05

44.39

1.26

Loc*BZ

Hum

93.72

3.16

48.05

3.10

45.68

1.46

Loc*BZ

Hum

76.42

3,29

40.53

3.13

35.88

1.57

Trt*BZ

Sha

114.46

2.75

61.73

3.02

52.73

1.05

Trt*BZ

:"M ::.. , ,

Sha

. . "

101.32

2.90

55.70

3.05

45.62

1.20

Trt*BZ

Sha

100.18

2.10

55.14

3.10

45.04

1.37

Trt*BZ

Sha

83.69

3.22

48.04

3.12

35.64

1.47

Trt*BZ

Sun

117.47

2.75

57.48

3.02

59.98

1.05

Trt*BZ

Sun

103.17

2.90

51.69

3.05

51.48

1.20

Trt*BZ

Sun

103.62

3.10

52.11

3.10

51.52

1.37

Trt*BZ

Sun

82.23

3.22

44.35

3.12

37.88

1.47

1 HTl = first
sites.

/ear total height; HT2 =

•■ second year

total height,

HG2-1 = second year heig

tit growth increment; traits are a

verages across both

173

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Or ford-Cedar on Federal Lands

Table D.4 — Distribution of variance components (%) for height traits using the watershed
model

Varcomp Trait

1st Yr Ht
HG 2nd Yr
2nd Yr Ht

Total 2nd Ht.

** = significant at p<0.01.

Watershed Stand/W Family/S LocxW hoc x S LocxF Block Error

26.5**

2.8**

9.1**

0.1

0.0

1.2**

35.0**

25.4

28.0**

2.6**

2.8**

3.6**

0.1

6.7**

11.2**

45.0

37.4**

3.4**

6.7**

1.6**

0.0

4.5**

g 9**

36.5

47.5

6.1

«-«-«- 46.4 ->->-»

Table D.5 — Distribution of variance components (%) for height traits using the breed zone
model

Varcomp Trait

lstYrHt

HG 2nd Yr
2nd Yr Ht

Total 2nd Ht.

Breed Seed
Zone Zone/BZ

18.6*

21.8*
28.1*

Family jSZ hoc x BZ hoc xSZ hoc x F

5.6**
6.1**

46.0 ■*->-►

12.5*

4.9**
10.2*

0.0

3.2*
1.8*

6.1

0.1

0.0
0.0

-I ry-k-k
1-7 '| **

4.6**

Block

36.0**

11.4**
10.2**

Error

26.0

45.5
37.4

<-«-<- 47.6 -»->->

significant at p<0.01.

174

Appendices

Appendix E

Details of Resistance Screening Process

The initial screening of 193 parent trees from the Siskiyou and Six Rivers National Forests
utilized the wound inoculation technique. The parent trees tested were selected from
areas where other Port-Orford-cedar had died, likely from Phytophthora lateralis. The
range of lesion lengths varied widely among these selected trees, with some trees having
small lesion scores comparable to the best trees previously tested, while other trees
appeared to have little resistance based upon this technique. Since this was early in the
testing process, rooted cuttings from over half of the selections were kept and placed into
a breeding or preservation orchard.

Ten branch tips were collected from each of 190 candidate trees from five sites on the
Bureau of Land Management Medford District. Most of the candidate trees were
from forest areas with established P. lateralis infections. Branches for the five sites
were screened at different time periods in the summer of 1995. Large differences were
observed for lesion length among the 190 candidate trees, with some trees showing
resistance comparable to the resistant checklot (PO-OSU-CF1), and others being no better
than a low resistance checklot (OSU-HH). The highest-ranking parent trees (generally
those comparable to PO-OSU-CF1 and /or with a lesion length less than 20 mm) were
selected for placement into a breeding orchard.

In 1996, seedling offspring from 344 parents (and two bulk seedlots) selected for a
common garden study (see Chapter 5) were screened for resistance. Each family was
evaluated using two screening techniques: a stem dip method and a root dip method.
Different seedlings from each family were used for the two inoculation methods; in
general, 15 seedlings per family were inoculated. Families screened in 1996 represented
random selections, and were generally not selected with disease resistance in mind.

Significant variation among families was found in the 1996 range- wide screening for both
tests. Individual tree heritabilities (h;2) were very high using the root dip technique and
fairly low using the stem dip technique. In addition, a low correlation between the two
inoculation methods was noted. However, the frequencies of these types of resistance
appear to be low in natural populations. Since the stem dip test allows for a more rapid
assessment, it has been used for the initial phase of operational screening since 1997 with
the contingency that the root dip test and /or field plantings will be used for selection
validation and possible identification of other types of resistance. Two or three seedlings
from 148 families representing the top 90 families from the stem dip test and top 90
families from the root dip test (an overlap did occur) were selected for placement into a
breeding orchard.

Since 1997, more than 9,000 field selections have been screened using the stem dip
technique. Approximately 10 percent of the candidates are being selected for placement
into a breeding orchard. Results from the 1997 and 1998 screening showed that the high
resistant checklot, PO-OSU-CF1, had a smaller lesion length (often considerably smaller)
than the mean of the clones in each run for 70 of the 71 runs, the only exception being in
Run 5 in 1998 where PO-OSU-CF1 had an abnormally high lesion length.

The lesion length of the best candidate tree in each run was often similar, or slightly
less than for PO-OSU-CF1. In these runs, lesion length for the low resistant checklot,
PO-OSU-CON1, was usually much larger than for the run mean, but often was less
than the candidate tree with the largest lesion length. Within a run, there was generally

175

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

wide variation in branch lesion means among the clones in 1997 and 1998, with some
outstanding clones for both high and low lesion length. From examination of the data
collected in 1997 and 1998, no obvious geographic trend is notable for relative branch
lesion length.

176

Appendices

Appendix F

Field Validation Plantings of Potentially
Resistant Port-Orf ord-Cedar

In 1993, two sites on the Siskiyou National Forest, known to have Phytophthora lateralis,
were planted with one-year-old Port-Orford-cedar seedlings (Quosatana on the Gold
Beach Ranger District and Flannigan on the Powers Ranger District). Twenty-eight
seedling families (whose parents were screened in 1989/90), representing a range of
resistance, were planted. Individual replications at each site encircled previously dead
Port-Orford-cedar. Assessment of these plantings involves recording the presence of
trees dead from P. lateralis. Survival in 1999 was 13 percent at Quosatana and 23 percent
at Flannigan. Comparison of family means at the two sites showed some parents,
such as 510015, with relatively good survival at both sites (31 percent at Quosatana, 53
percent at Flannigan), but some inconsistencies among other parents. Fifty percent of the
mortality at the sites occurred within one year of out- planting, indicating that rapid field
assessment of resistance may be possible. Variation in mortality among replications at a
site indicates that microsite may play an important role. A remaining question that this
early planting will help elucidate is how long will the best families from natural stands
continue to show survival, and what percentage of the trees in these families survives.

Because Quosatana, on the Gold Beach Ranger District, was known to be a high hazard
site for P. lateralis, a second validation planting was installed in 1996. This planting
included a subset of the families screened at OSU in 1996. However, almost all of these
seedlings died within a few months of planting. High early mortality was possibly due
to a combination of factors including seedling stress and P. lateralis infection (a small
sample of trees was evaluated by Dr. Everett Hansen at OSU and a high proportion of the
trees were infected). Physiological stress was noted as evidenced by foliage scorching,
sunburn or freeze-drying. Symptoms were most severe on the top side of the foliage.27
No further assessments of the planting have been made, although observations at the site
made while assessing other plantings have indicated that a proportion of the resistant
checklots are still alive.

In 1998, 107 seedling families were planted at three sites: (1) Quosatana on the Gold
Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, (2) Camas Valley on the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Roseburg District, and (3) the raised beds at Oregon State University.
Two major categories of families were utilized in these plantings: (1) approximately
95 families that were screened in 1996 which were a subset of the families used in the
common garden study and (2) families from control pollinations and open pollinated
seed involving some of the more resistant parents tested. Examination of survival data
indicates that, in general, there is not a strong correlation in family performance between
the sites. Two methods of assessment were utilized for these three plantings and this
may be one of the principal factors in the lower than expected correlation between family
means. Depending upon the site, seedlings in some or all of the replications were pulled
to examine disease progression. On the remaining replicates the seedlings were left and
mortality was recorded. In general, it appears that the seedlings pulled for evaluation at
the three sites, were pulled at relatively light (Quosatana), moderate (Camas Valley) and
very heavy (OSU) levels of infestation. Several common families were highly ranked at
all three sites, notably in the control pollination families. However, infestation levels at
the OSU site were so high that few families stood out, while the infestation levels at the

' Hansen, E.M. 1996. Personal communication. Professor of Forest Pathology, Oregon State University, Department of Botany and Plant

177

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

time of examining roots at Quosatana may have been too low to allow full discrimination
between families. Unknown at this time are how many (and which) resistance
mechanisms may be present, and whether a variation in screening method or assessment
method is needed to include families with different resistance mechanisms.

The Camas Valley site and the raised beds at OSU were utilized again in 1999 as planting
sites. Two types of material were utilized in the plantings: (1) 29 seedling families from
control pollinations and open pollinated seed involving some of the more resistant
parents tested and (2) rooted cuttings of a number of parents selected from the 1997
operational screenings (20 clones for Camas Valley and 165 clones at OSU). Similar to
the results from the 1998 planting, the survival data indicates that there is not a strong
correlation in family performance between the sites. The level of infection and mortality
at Camas Valley was much lower than that at OSU and probably too low to be able to
distinguish family differences. However, significant differences between family means
were detected for percent mortality at OSU. In addition, three small demonstration
plantings, comparing rooted cuttings of the high resistant checklot PO-OSU-CFI to
more susceptible seedlings and cuttings were established. The plantings will help
validate some previous screening results and may provide some long-term evaluation of
resistance.

Four sites were planted in 2000. The Camas Valley site and the OSU raised beds were
planted again as well as new sites on the BLM Medford District (Bill Creek) and a site
on private land in Hiouchi, California. As in 1999, two types of material were utilized
in the plantings: (1) 108 seedling families from control pollinations and open pollinated
seed involving some of the more resistant parents tested and (2) 128 rooted cuttings of a
number of parents selected from the 1997 and 1998 operational screenings. Preliminary
results indicate very strong differences among both seedling families and parents tested
via rooted cuttings. Preliminary results from the root dip screening of the top ranking
candidates from stem dip screening indicate that a moderate percentage of the initial
selections may have resistance comparable to the high-resistant checklots.

178

Appendices

Appendix G

Development of the Interagency Port-
Orf ord-Cedar Root Disease Management
Coordination Effort: A Brief History

Although individual National Forests and Ranger Districts had been instituting Port-
Orford-cedar root disease management activities in their own areas for some years, there
was no attempt to develop a coordinated effort for federal lands prior to the mid-1980s.
In October 1985, the Western Natural Resources Law Clinic, representing the Northcoast
Environmental Center, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, and the Oregon Native
Plant Society expressed concern that the Forest Service was not protecting Port-Orford-
cedar from root disease. The groups requested the establishment of an inter-regional
committee, composed of Forest Service and citizen members, with authority to formulate
binding Port-Orford-cedar root disease policy. In response to this request, the Forest
Service met with the Western Natural Resources Law Clinic on January 21, 1986 to
discuss their concerns about management of Port-Orford-cedar and its root disease.
Following this meeting, the Western Natural Resources Law Clinic formed a Citizens'
Panel in February 1986. The stated purposes of the Citizens' Panel were to develop
recommendations for management standards and guidelines designed to protect Port-
Orford-cedar from the spread of root disease, to preserve Port-Orford-cedar in its natural
diversity throughout its native range, and to reestablish the commercial viability of the
species.

In May 1987, an inter-regional Port-Orford-cedar Coordinating Group was formed by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Coordinating Group was
composed of a line officer, pathologists, ecologists, geneticists, representatives from the
national forests with Port-Orford-cedar, and a representative of the BLM. The purpose of
the group was to coordinate all activities affecting Port-Orford-cedar within and between
Forest Service Regions 5 and 6 and the BLM. The Coordinating Group was charged with
developing an action plan directed at the issues of highest concern (inventory, research
needs, management, and public education). The Port-Orf ord-Cedar Action Plan was
completed in 1988.

The Port-Orford-cedar program manager, an inter-regional Forest Service position, was
added in 1989 to oversee the activities of the Port-Orford-cedar coordinating group. This
full-time position was established to serve as a vital link in coordinating and completing
the tasks listed in the Action Plan and to provide a lead person for evaluation and
transfer of new technology as research findings become available for management of
Port-Orford-cedar and its root disease.

In October 1994, the BLM issued the Port-Orford-Cedar Management Guidelines. The
Guidelines contained management objectives, implementation strategies, measures for
timber sale and service contracts to minimize spread of the pathogen, and specifications
for equipment washing and cleaning. The intent of the Guidelines is to assist in retaining
Port-Orford-cedar as a viable part of the forest ecosystem and to reduce the occurrence of
the root disease. The BLM Guidelines recommended administrative procedures and best
management practices, to be considered on a site-specific basis and analyzed in National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents. In August, 1995, the BLM created and
also filled a full-time Port-Orford-cedar Coordinator position.

179

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

From 1993 to 1998, several lawsuits were pursued by various environmental
organizations, heightening the level of awareness of the Port-Orford-cedar issue within
and outside of the federal agencies.

'&*■

Environmental groups filed an action in January 1995 in the District Court in Northern
California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under NEPA and the National Forest
Management Act against the Forest Service's Port-Orford-Cedar Action Plan and the
BLM's Port-Orford-Cedar Management Guidelines. They sought an order enjoining the
Forest Service and the BLM "to prepare a comprehensive, inter-regional environmental
impact statement (EIS) on their management of the Port-Orford-cedar and its habitat"
and, in the meantime, "to undertake all necessary actions to prevent the spread or
introduction of Phytophthora lateralis and to maintain healthy diverse Port-Orford-cedar
stands and habitat."

The U.S. District Court issued a decision in August 1996 agreeing with the government's
argument that the plaintiffs cannot challenge under the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) government "programs" in general. The court found that the alleged "Port-
Orford-cedar Program" was a term loosely applied to all the actions that the government
took regarding managing Port-Orford-cedar including public education efforts, research,
and sharing databases. Such a general program was not a "final agency action"
reviewable under the APA.

As to the challenges to specific decisions such as the adoption of the BLM's Port-Orford-
Cedar Management Guidelines in the BLM's Resource Management Plan decisions, the
court found that the Guidelines merely contained possible control strategies for root
diseases that managers may or may not select in subsequent site-specific NEPA decision
processes.

The court concluded that since the Guidelines did not require land managing agency
managers to take any action or make any specific proposal or commit any resources, it
was reasonable for the government to determine that the Guidelines did not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on appeal.

However, in Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, plaintiffs challenged an action which
used the Guidelines, alleging that BLM failed to consider the impacts of the spread
of P. lateralis in the Resource Management Plan EIS or in the Sandy-Remote Analysis
Area Environmental Assessment. The plaintiffs also complained that the BLM failed
to monitor and inventory the root rot disease or to control adverse effects posed by
off-highway vehicle use. The U.S. District court of Oregon ruled that the BLM had
adequately inventoried and analyzed the impacts on Port-Orford-cedar in the geographic
area affected by the proposed project. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower
court and ruled that when the programmatic EIS to which a project is tiered does not
contain an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts of the adoption of the Guidelines in
the programmatic decision, the tiering EA will also be inadequate if it does not include
a cumulative impact analysis which would be sufficient for the programmatic level,
even if the site specific analysis may have been sufficient for the particular watershed
where the proposed action was located. As a result of this decision, the BLM and Forest
Service administrative units in southwestern Oregon are preparing a supplemental
environmental impact statement on the effects on the Port-Orford-cedar species from the
management of the federal forests under the Northwest Forest Plan.

The Forest Service reviewed accomplishment of the tasks within the Action Plan in
April 1995. The review determined that the majority of the items on the Action Plan had
been accomplished or concluded and that ongoing items, such as monitoring, had been
incorporated into individual forest plan management direction and forest-wide standards
and guidelines. Based on these findings, the Forest Service found that the Action Plan

180

Appendices

had been completed and could be concluded. The Regional Foresters accepted the
recommendation and the Action Plan ceased to be operative May 16, 1995.

The Coordinating Group continues to function as a clearinghouse of information, to
transfer technologies, and to coordinate range-wide activities dealing with Port-Orford-
cedar. Two federal agency coordinators are responsible for disseminating information,
coordinating activities to insure that protective measures are understood and used,
educating the public on issues surrounding Port-Orford-cedar, and pursuing measures
that will protect this species in its natural habitat.

Jfc£o-S

181

A Range-Wide Assessment of Port-Orford-Cedar on Federal Lands

182

o
o

«w

■P

,1;.

CO
03 0)

is o

w
<2

a f-

QK 494.5 .0975 R24 2003

A range-wide assessment of
Port-Or ford-cedar

BLM LIB!
BLDG50, 8T-150A
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER

P.O. BOX 25047
DENVER, COLORADO 80225

A Range- Wide
Assessment of

Port-Orford-Cedar

(Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana)

on Federal Lands

B ■

;

Bureau of Land Management

Oregon State Office

333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Region

333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region

1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, California 94592

BLM/OR/WA/PL-004/004-1 792

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A range-wide assessment of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) on federal lands"

See other formats