(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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

BLM LIBRARY 



88054390 




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

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)' 

on Federal Land: 







QK 

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 



$ 



\\ 



a! 



& 



/"! I 



05 l r 



A Range-Wide Assessment of 

Port-Orford-Cedar 

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) 

on Federal Lands 



O^cft* 1 



0" 









gPVW 





O v 






r 



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 



XI 



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 



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 subsection 7 



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 ? s f -l '"i {>> •<"' 






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





Srtj. \ '■-. 


ffirtniWitiV^ 




■tftft 


,3 


y, 


J j-«. 


-^ CJwJ. 


\w^ 


Jp 






t» W 


nw \ 


J 


i 












% 


1 

> 


-A 





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



10 



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



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













Mean 


Mean 












Distance 


July 


Jan. 






Area 


Elevation 


Precipi-tation. 


to Ocean 


Temp. 


Temp. 


Predominant 


Ecoregion/Subsection 


(acres) 


(feet) 


(inches) 


(miles) 


(F.) 


(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 


55 


35 


metaclastic rocks 


Serpentine Siskiyous/ 
















Gasquet Mountain 


400,980 


200-4800 


45-140 


6-45 


57 


46 


ultramafic 


Ultramafics 
















Western Jurassic 


data gap 


250-4000 


50-120 


7-45 


57 


45 


ultramafic 
sedimentary 


Inland Siskiyous/ 
Siskiyou Mountains 


1,862,497 


1000-7309 


35-100 


13-57 


53 


40 


metasedimentary 

peridotite 

granitics 


Pelletreau Ridge 


73,915 


1500-5000 


60-80 


20-25 


54 


45 


sedimentary 


Rattlesnake Creek 


312,703 


400-5881 


40-60 


20-25 


57 


45 


metavolcanic 


Eastern Klamath 


data gap 


1950-3000 


70 


84 


56 


42 


metavolcanic 
metasedimentary 


Lower Scott Mountains 


127,297 


1500-5000 


40-60 


60-90 


55 


45 


ultramafic 
granitic 


Upper Scott Mountains 


389,795 


4000-9025 


30-70 


60-90 


45 


30 


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. 



11 



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. 



12 



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 



29 

32 
93 
446 
44 



13 



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 



14 



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 



15 



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. 



16 



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 

17 



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 



18 



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

CHLA-ABCO/QUSA 

Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sadler Oak 

Elevation rang e: 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 



20 



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 



21 



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 

Aspec t: 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 



22 



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 

Aspec t: 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 

Aspec t: 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 

Under story 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 



23 



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. 



24 



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 

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 



27 

25 

22 

25 

34 

24 

31 

20 

19 

22 

7 

18 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

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). 



25 



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) 


0(0) 


0(0) 


- 


Decay Class 2 


16 (23) 


18 (26) 


1(2) 


10 


Decay Class 3 


32 (46) 


2(3) 


0(0) 


37 (24) 


Decay Class 4 


0(0) 


0(0) 


0(0) 


— 


Decay Class 5 


0(0) 


0(0) 


0(0) 


— 


Tons/Acre 










Decay Class 1 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 




Decay Class 2 


0.5 (1) 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 




Decay Class 3 


2.0 (3) 


1.0 (2) 


0.0 (0) 




Decay Class 4 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 




Decay Class 5 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 


0.0 (0) 




Snags/Acre (n = 3) 










Decay Class 1 


0(0) 


0(0) 


1(0) 




Decay Class 2 


0(0) 


0(0) 


0(0) 




Decay Class 3 


0(0) 


4(4) 


1(2) 




Decay Class 4 


0(0) 


0(0) 


0(0) 




Decay Class 5 


0(0) 


0(0) 


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. 







26 



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) 


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 



41 


SS 


25.4 


15.6 


41 


MS 


2.9 


4.1 


41 


LS 


1.9 


3.2 


98 


SS 


25.8 


17.3 


98 


MS 


3.2 


4.2 


98 


LS 


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. 

27 



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 



49 


10-14" 


22.5 


23.9 


49 


15-19" 


11.5 


11.1 


49 


20-29" 


10.9 


13.4 


49 


>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. 







28 



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

Ml 




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 



30 



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. 



31 



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. 



32 



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 



33 



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



34 



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 



35 



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. 

36 



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 baiting 3 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 



W 



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. 



37 



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 




38 



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 



39 



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. 



40 



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. 



43 



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. 



44 



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. 



45 



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



46 



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 



47 



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 trees 4 (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. 

49 



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 analysis 5 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. 



SO 



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 



51 



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 1999 6 . 

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 2000 7 . 



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. 

52 



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




Figure 4.3 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1980 



53 



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 



54 



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 



55 



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' l bo 



I I State line 

□ Smith River Wat 



Figure 4.6 — Phytophthora lateralis infestation, Smith River 1999 



56 



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 



^7 



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 



58 



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). 



SU 



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 City 8 . 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. 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. 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 



61 



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



62 



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 



63 



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. 



64 



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. 



65 



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. 



66 



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 


2 


9 


5200- 


- 5299 feet 


41.0885 


- 0.1255 


122.4720 


- 0.5301 


Sacramento 


3 


30 


3750- 


- 5200 feet 


41.2200 


- 0.2500 


122.3959 


- 0.4600 


Klamath 


3 


24 


2999- 


- 4501 feet 


41.0000 


- 0.8234 


123.4651 


- 0.9000 


Smith 


8 


40 


1319- 


- 5200 feet 


41.7237 


- 0.9657 


123.6493 


- 124.0690 


Illinois 


2 


13 


3360- 


- 3501 feet 


42.0332 


-0.1250 


123.3553 


- 0.5535 


Applegate 


4 


29 


2300- 


- 4501 feet 


42.1188 - 


0.2073 


123.2789 


- 0.4057 


Rogue 


6 


28 


2178- 


- 3599 feet 


42.4277 


-0.6917 


123.7248 


- 124.2843 


Coquille 


18 


82 


400- 


2749 feet 


42.7083 


- 43.2600 


123.7800 


- 124.1333 


Dunes 


4 


26 


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 


57 


South Coast 


091, 301, 302 


Smith, Klamath 


47 


South Interior 


331, 521 


Trinity, Sacramento 


39 




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



67 



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. 

69 



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. 




^ 




: 


i 






mg j 






{ 

1G3V / 










i^rfSRS^ 


3 





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



70 



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 



71 



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) 



72 



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. 



73 



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. 



74 



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 



75 



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



76 



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. 

77 



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 



1 


4ii Jm- ' 


" "■} i 
■ / 


Kr ... * 







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



78 



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 



79 



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 



80 



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 



10 



13 



40 



10 



50 



20 



99 
30 
10 39 

28 203 



34 

27 

19 

148 



3 
3 

6 
383 



4 

13 

112 

121 



10 

3 



263 



19 

2 
20 

21 

5 

3 
1 
1 

152 
224 



8 

10 



49 
68 



178 

50 

182 

1 

423 
5 

6 

16 

56 

28 

234 

1179 



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



81 



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 


50.0 


25.0 


117499 


83.3 


66.7 


50.0 


510044 


66.7 


75.0 


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 to 5 percent survival; in 
the earliest tests open-pollinated seedlings from the most resistant parents have shown 
25 to 50 percent survival versus to 35 percent for other parents. Detail on validation 
plantings is presented in Appendix F. 



82 



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. 



83 



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 



84 



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 




85 



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, to 76 percent) filled 
seed, while outcrosses produced an average of 51 percent (range, to 94 percent). Selfing 
averaged 2.8 filled seeds per cone (range, to 11.7) and outcrosses, 6.7 filled seeds per 
cone (range 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. 



86 



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. 



87 



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. 



88 



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. 



89 



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



90 



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 



91 



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



92 



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 




8 


8 


BLM - Medford 




10 


10 


Siskiyou National Forest 


240 




422 


Six Rivers National Forest 


87 




420 


Klamath National Forest 


17 




18 


Shasta-Trinity National Forest 




75 



*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 



93 



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 1990s 11 
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. 

94 



Chapter 7 — Economic Value of Port-Orford-Cedar 



Historical Export of Port-Orford-Cedar 



70 




530 



23 



to 



yw 



L 






w 




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 




A, 






1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Year 



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



95 



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 value 13 . 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 

to 

- $3,000 1 


H $10,000,000 - 


a. 


■ $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 

$0 



fa 

CO 



1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199S 
Year 



Figure 7.4— Domestic values of milled Port-Orford-cedar 1990 - 1998 14 



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 Dac k 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. 



97 



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. 



98 



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). 



IS 



-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 

$0 




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. 

99 



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 

50 




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 

no 



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 



U 

M 



3 
■Bb 



1 



So cial/ec onorri c/ecol o gical 



Individuals 
Populations 

Ecosystems 



Vulnerability 



OS 

o 

1 



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 

I 



i 

-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 

H 


/ 








No Action 


Accept current 
risk levels 








Limite< social 
acceptatce 




Risk 




Effort 




Acceptance 



Scope of application: 



Spatial scale: tree - stand - drainage - landscape - range 1 
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 


L 


L 


2 


Average rank = 2.7 Elevation 


L 


L 


2 


Aspect 


L 


L 


2 


Slope steepness 


M 


L 


3 


Slope position microtopography 


M 


L 


3 


Slope position macrctcpography 


M 


L 


3 


Soil moisture 


M 


L 


3 


Drainage density 


M 


L 


3 


Proximity to stream or water or flood - plains 


H 


M 


5 


Annual Rainfall 


L 


L 


2 


Average annual temperature 


"l 


L 


2 


Biological factors Plant association 


H 


L 


4 


Average rank = 4.5 Port-Orford-cedar density, extent, juxtaposition 


M 


H 


5 


Density or cover of other hosts 


M 


H 


5 


Adjacent infection 


H 


H 


6 


Adjacent infection of cultivars 


H 


L 


4 


Recent dead (density and proximity) 


H 


H 


6 


Serai stage 


L 


H 


4 


Animal populations as vectors 


L 


L 


2 


Roads and road related vectors Road density 


H 


M 


5 


Average rank = 4.8 Road surface 


H 


H 


6 


Proximity to road 


H 


M 


5 


Other road design factors (usually drainage) 


M 


M 


4 


Culverts 


H 


H 


6 


Ditches 


H 


H 


6 


Traffic density 


H 


M 


5 


Traffic type 


M 


H 


5 


Right-of-way agreements 


M 


L 


3 


Off-road vehicle traffic 


H 


M 


5 


Trails (same as roads) 


M 


H 


5 


Fishing traffic 


L" 


L 


2 


Harvest /Extraction Harvest frequency 


M 


H 


5 


Average rank = 5.3 Harvest method 


H 


H 


6 


Bough harvest 


H 


H 


6 


Mining 


H 


L 


4 


Opportunities to control exposure Ownership pattern 


M 


L 


3 


Average rank = 3.0 Land allocation 


L 


M 


3 


'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 baiting 26 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 

\jf r 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.; 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 9 th 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 
















X 












Port-Orford-cedar/HuckleberryOak/ 
Beargrass 
















X 












Port-Orford-cedar/PacificRhododendron- 
Salal 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 












Port-Orford-cedar/Salal 






X 


X 




X 


X 














Port-Orford-cedar/Western Azalea 






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/California 
Hazelnut 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/Hazelnut//6-R 










X 


















Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fii/Huckleberrv 
Oak 






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir/Spicebush 






















X 


X 




Port-Orford-cedar-Douglas-fir- Alder/Vine 
Maple-Oregon-grape 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen Huckleberry/ 
Western Swordfem 


X 


























Port-Orford-cedar-Incense Cedar-Alder 








X 




X 


X 














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














X 










X 


X 


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






















X 


X 


X 


Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Bush 
Chinquapin 


























X 


Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/ 
Labrador Tea 


























X 


Port-Orford-cedar-Mountain Hemlock/Sierra 
Laurel 


























X 


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








X 






X 














Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sadler Oak- 
Thinleaf Huckleberry //R-6 
















X 












Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sitka Alder/ 
California Pitcher Plant 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir/Sitka Alder -Sadler 
Oak 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar-Red Fir-Brewer Spruce/ 
Sadler Oak-Huckleberry Oak 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar-Tanoak/Salal 










X 






X 












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
















X 

















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 
















X 












Port-Orford-cedar- Western Hemlock/ 
Swordfem 


X 


























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


























X 


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






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










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






X 


X 






X 












X 


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








X 




X 


X 














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
























X 


X 


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


























X 


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








X 




X 


X 




X 










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














X 












X 


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


























X 


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










X 


















Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir//Herb 








X 






X 




X 










Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Huckleberry Oak 








X 






X 




X 










Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sadler Oak 








X 






X 














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


























X 


Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Sitka Alder 












X 


X 














Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Vine Maple 














X 














Port-Orford-cedar-White Fir/Western Azalea 








X 




X 


X 












































o> 


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














X 










X 


X 




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








X 






X 
















Douglas-fir /Salal-Dwarf Oregon-grape 




X 
























i*» 


Douglas-fir/Salal-Pacific Rhododendron 


X 


X 






X 






X 












na 


Douglas-fir/Salmonberry/Swordfern 














X 

















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 




X 
























Jeffrey Pine/Huckleberry Oak-Pinemat 
Manzanita-Box-leaved Silk Tassel 




X 
























Jeffrey Pine-Port-Orford-cedar/Huckleberrv 
Oak 








X 






X 














Tanoak-Bigleaf maple-Canyon Live Oak/ 
Swordfern 
















X 












Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Dwarf Oregon- 
grape 
















X 












Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Evergreen 
Huckleberry 




X 






X 


















Tanoak-Douglas-fir/Salal-Pacific 
Rhododendron 




X 












X 












Tanoak-Douglas-fir-Canyon Live Oak/Dwarf 
Oregon-grape 










X 






X 












Tanoak-Douglas-fir-Canyon Live Oak/Poison 
Oak 










X 


















Tanoak-Golden Chinquapin/Salal-Sadler Oak 










X 






X 












Tanoak-Golden Chinquapin-Sugar Pine 










X 






X 












Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Dwarf Oregon- 
grape/Twinflower 






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Evergreen 
Huckleberry 






X 


X 




X 


X 






X 








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






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/HuckleberryOak 






X 


X 




X 


X 














Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Pacific 
Rhododendron 












X 


X 














Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Red Huckleberry 






X 


X 




X 


X 




X 










Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Salal 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 










Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/ Vine Maple 






X 


X 




X 


X 














Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/VineMaple//6-R 










X 


















Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar- Alder/ /Riparian 






X 


X 




X 
















Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-CaliforniaBay/ 
Evergreen Huckleberry 






X 


X 




X 


X 














Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Red Alder// 
Riparian 














X 




X 


X 








Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar-Redwood/ 
Evergreen Huckleberry 








X 




X 



















Ecoregion or Subsection 




Mid-coastal 

Sedimentar)' 

and Southern 

Oregon 

Coastal 


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 






X 


X 




X 
















Tanoak-VVestern white pine/Huckleberry 
oak/Beargrass 


X 


X 
























Tanoak- Western Hemlock/Evergreen 
Huckleberry/Swordfern 


X 


























Western Hemlock-Tanoak-California Bav 


X 


























Western Hemlock/Evergreen Huckleberry/ 
Swordfern 


X 


























Western Hemlock/Pacific Rhododendron- 
Dwarf Oregon-grape 


X 














X 












Western Hemlock/Sadler Oak-Salal-Pacific 
Rhododendron 










X 






X 












Western Hemlock/Salal-Pacific Rhododendron 


X 














X 












Western Hemlock/Swordfern 


X 


























White Fir/Beargrass 










X 


















White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-grape/Twinflower 
















X 












White Fir/Dwarf Oregon-grape/ Vanillaleaf 
















X 












White Fir/ Huckleberry Oak 










X 






X 












White Fir/Pacific Rhododendron-Sadler Oak 










X 






X 












White Fir/Pinemat Manzanita 










X 


















White Fir-Brewer Spruce/Common Prince's 
Pine-Whitevein Pyrola 










X 






X 












White Fir-Douglas-fir/Baldhip Rose 
















X 












White Fir-Douglas-fir/Poison Oak 
















X 












White Fir-Tanoak/Common Prince's Pine 
















X 













-13 
3 

a. 



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 

Ante nnaria 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 


1 


.0010 


1 


.6384 


1 


.0414 


8 


.0001 


9 


.0001 


42 


.0074 


246 


.0001 


9 


.0001 


42 


.9999 


246 


.0001 


9 


.3470 


42 


.2824 


246 


.9999 


9 


.2013 


2914 


205.46 


3 


.0001 


6 


.0001 


288 


.0001 


3 


.0001 


6 


.8447 


288 


.0001 


3 


.0639 


6 


.2274 


288 


.9999 


3 


.4800 


2961 


206.53 



1-Yr Total 


2 nd Yr Height 


Height 


Growth 


.0252 


.0005 


.4016 


.0022 


.6468 


.0006 


.0001 


.0001 


.0001 


.0001 


.0112 


.0185 


.0001 


.0001 


.1758 


.0002 


.9999 


.4500 


.0052 


.0001 


.4529 


.1291 


.3001 


.0691 


.1041 


.9999 


.0374 


.4884 


34.86 


110.42 


.0001 


.0001 


.0001 


.0001 


.0001 


.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) traits 1 



Effect 



Loc 



Trt 



Wtrshd 



Loc 


Dor 


Loc 


Hum 


Trt 


Trt 


Loc*Trt 


Dor 


LoCTrt 
Loc*Trt 


Dor 
Hum 


Loc*Trt 


Hum 


Wtrshd 




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 


BZ 


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 


BZ 






NC 




115.97 


2.03 


59.61 


2.15 


56.36 


0.81 


BZ 






NI 




102.25 


2.19 


53.69 


2.19 


48.55 


0.95 


BZ 






SC 




101.90 


2.41 


53.62 


2.25 


48.28 


1.12 


BZ 






SI 




82.96 


2.53 


46.20 


2.28 


36.76 


1.21 


SdZ(BZ) 






NC 


071 


124.38 


2.57 


63.31 


2.29 


61.08 


1.24 


SdZ(BZ) 






NC 


072 


118.15 


2,04 


60.33 


2.16 


57.82 


0.82 


SdZ(BZ) 






NC 


081 


105.36 


2.53 


55.18 


2.28 


50.18 


1.20 


SdZ(BZ) 






NI 


511 


104.07 


2.51 


54.58 


2.27 


49.49 


1.19 


SdZ(BZ) 






NI 


512 


100.42 


2.53 


52.81 


2.28 


47.61 


1.20 


SdZ(BZ) 






SC 


091 


105.59 


3.24 


55.02 


2.48 


50.57 


1.70 


SdZ(BZ) 






SC 


301 


95.42 


2.53 


51.65 


2.28 


43.75 


1.20 


SdZ(BZ) 






SC 


302 


104.70 


3.96 


54.19 


2.72 


50.51 


2.16 


SdZ(BZ) 




' 


SI 


331 


80.03 


3.60 


43.90 


2.60 


36.13 


1.93 


SdZ(BZ) 


IK' l!' 




SI 


521 


85.88 


2.49 


48.49 


2.27 


37.38 


1.17 


Loc*BZ 


Dor 




NC 




127.35 


2.77 


65.43 


3.02 


61.92 


1.09 


Loc*BZ 


Dor 




NI 




112.53 


2:94 


59.82 


3.05 


52.71 


1.26 


Loc*BZ 


Dor 




SC 




110.08 


3.16 


59.19 


3.10 


50.88 


1.46 


Loc*BZ 


Dor 




SI 




89.49 


3.29 


51.86 


3.13 


37.63 


1.57 


Loc*BZ 


Hum 




NC 




104.58 


2.77 


53.78 


3.02 


50.80 


1.09 


Loc*BZ, 


Hum 




NI 




91.96 


2.94 


47.57 


3.05 


44.39 


1.26 


Loc*BZ 


Hum 




SC 




93.72 


3.16 


48.05 


3.10 


45.68 


1.46 


Loc*BZ 


Hum 




SI 




76.42 


3,29 


40.53 


3.13 


35.88 


1.57 


Trt*BZ 




Sha 


NC 




114.46 


2.75 


61.73 


3.02 


52.73 


1.05 


Trt*BZ 


:"M ::.. , , 


Sha 


NI 


. . " 


101.32 


2.90 


55.70 


3.05 


45.62 


1.20 


Trt*BZ 




Sha 


SC 




100.18 


2.10 


55.14 


3.10 


45.04 


1.37 


Trt*BZ 




Sha 


SI 




83.69 


3.22 


48.04 


3.12 


35.64 


1.47 


Trt*BZ 




Sun 


NC 




117.47 


2.75 


57.48 


3.02 


59.98 


1.05 


Trt*BZ 




Sun 


NI 




103.17 


2.90 


51.69 


3.05 


51.48 


1.20 


Trt*BZ 




Sun 


SC 




103.62 


3.10 


52.11 


3.10 


51.52 


1.37 


Trt*BZ 




Sun 


SI 




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 

1 st Yr Ht 
HG 2 nd Yr 
2 nd 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 



l st YrHt 

HG 2 nd Yr 
2 nd 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 





V 



181 



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



182 




o 
o 

(N 

« 



«w 



■P 

,1;. 

e; 

CO 
03 0) 

is o 



D 

w 
<2 

a f- 

w 



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 ■ 

; 



I' 





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