<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">A group met this Wednesday Morning May 20 to plan a Rapid Agricultural Response fund proposal for EAB.</span>
The following is info shared at the meeting and the notes from the discussion.
Contact Vicky Bayerl for more information on who attended. Persons who were emailed a message following the meeting include.
Vera A Krischik
Gary R Johnson
Jeffrey Hahn;
Dean Herzfeld;
Renee M Pardello
Lee E Frelich
David W Ragsdale PhD
Alan R Ek
Steven J Taff
Anthony W DAmato
Mike Kilgore
Dennis R Becker
Robert Seavey;
Rebecca A Noran
Carl J Rosen
Mike Reichenbach
Jennifer E Obst
Angela M Gupta
Lori Engstrom
This email was forwarded to
George Host, UMD NRRI
Jesse Schomberg, Sea Grant
It was suggested by Jesse Schomberg that Jerry Niemi at NRRI might also be contacted.
I'm forever going to associate this whole proposal with a dog barking.
It's late on a Friday afternoon, right before many people will be enjoying a brief holiday. There have been several ideas bantered around and Mike Reichenbach was the victim of poor conference calling technology so he really has a lot of questions about this procedure. This is how I understand our relationship on this proposal.
There are three components to address as general response "modules." One: How and who will focus on transferring technology to impacted audiences. Two: What are the potential and likely short and long-term impacts on the social and economic fabric of "communities" from a catastrophic loss of Fraxinus species? Three: What management options are available and effective for emerald ash borer infestations in a) urban forests and b) rural forests?
My understanding is that Greg needs to take our ideas for proposals and weave them into a larger mission statement-type approach. What he doesn't need are twelve proposals that lack a cohesive goal/objective. Therefore, as we brainstorm and develop ideas in each of these three "modules," I believe our directive was to integrate outcomes as much as possible.
Sorry for the lengthy introduction, but I'm addressing a question that Angie had: Who all is involved with developing ideas in regards to managing the issues in rural forests? In my opinion, even though Angie, Mike, Mel and I are leading that group, we all should be involved directly or indirectly. Therefore, I think we should be sharing ideas for all three modules and making sure they integrate effectively.
Angie proposed some very pragmatic ideas regarding rural forests that are consistent with the urban forests. In particular, the necessity of a gap analysis in the rural forests. This is closely parallels a need for urban forest ash assessment by zones (public, private, urban open space). Angie's suggestion that students (grad/undergrad) perform all or part of this work is consistent with the urban inventory and assessment. Mike: do you also see this as a critical component for the community impacts? If so, this is a perfect situation for a proposal that would include both urban and rural.
I see the same tie-in with the suggested assessment of wood boilers in the state/regions of the state and their capacity. That assessment could be expanded to regional tub grinders, portable sawmills, community/county chippers. Again, this a very pragmatic proposal idea that addresses bigger picture issues of economic impacts on communities.
The following is info shared at the meeting and the notes from the discussion.
Contact Vicky Bayerl for more information on who attended. Persons who were emailed a message following the meeting include.
Vera A Krischik
Gary R Johnson
Jeffrey Hahn;
Dean Herzfeld;
Renee M Pardello
Lee E Frelich
David W Ragsdale PhD
Alan R Ek
Steven J Taff
Anthony W DAmato
Mike Kilgore
Dennis R Becker
Robert Seavey;
Rebecca A Noran
Carl J Rosen
Mike Reichenbach
Jennifer E Obst
Angela M Gupta
Lori Engstrom
This email was forwarded to
George Host, UMD NRRI
Jesse Schomberg, Sea Grant
It was suggested by Jesse Schomberg that Jerry Niemi at NRRI might also be contacted.
All,
I'm forever going to associate this whole proposal with a dog barking.
It's late on a Friday afternoon, right before many people will be enjoying a brief holiday. There have been several ideas bantered around and Mike Reichenbach was the victim of poor conference calling technology so he really has a lot of questions about this procedure. This is how I understand our relationship on this proposal.
There are three components to address as general response "modules." One: How and who will focus on transferring technology to impacted audiences. Two: What are the potential and likely short and long-term impacts on the social and economic fabric of "communities" from a catastrophic loss of Fraxinus species? Three: What management options are available and effective for emerald ash borer infestations in a) urban forests and b) rural forests?
My understanding is that Greg needs to take our ideas for proposals and weave them into a larger mission statement-type approach. What he doesn't need are twelve proposals that lack a cohesive goal/objective. Therefore, as we brainstorm and develop ideas in each of these three "modules," I believe our directive was to integrate outcomes as much as possible.
Sorry for the lengthy introduction, but I'm addressing a question that Angie had: Who all is involved with developing ideas in regards to managing the issues in rural forests? In my opinion, even though Angie, Mike, Mel and I are leading that group, we all should be involved directly or indirectly. Therefore, I think we should be sharing ideas for all three modules and making sure they integrate effectively.
Angie proposed some very pragmatic ideas regarding rural forests that are consistent with the urban forests. In particular, the necessity of a gap analysis in the rural forests. This is closely parallels a need for urban forest ash assessment by zones (public, private, urban open space). Angie's suggestion that students (grad/undergrad) perform all or part of this work is consistent with the urban inventory and assessment. Mike: do you also see this as a critical component for the community impacts? If so, this is a perfect situation for a proposal that would include both urban and rural.
I see the same tie-in with the suggested assessment of wood boilers in the state/regions of the state and their capacity. That assessment could be expanded to regional tub grinders, portable sawmills, community/county chippers. Again, this a very pragmatic proposal idea that addresses bigger picture issues of economic impacts on communities.
Gary