Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

NC1209's Annual Report is attached as a .pdf below.

North American Interdisciplinary Chronic Wasting Disease Research Consortium

United States Department of Agriculture NC1209

Summary of CWD Consortium annual meeting.

May 30, 2023

Executive summary

The NC1209 Interdisciplinary CWD Research Consortium (herein, Consortium) held its annual  meeting on May 30, 2023 in Denver, CO, USA. The annual meeting was moved from a fall timeframe to this date as it was scheduled to coincide with the 4th Annual International CWD Symposium. This was a closed meeting for NIMSS members of the Consortium, in which 37 members attended. The executive committee of the Consortium planned the meeting with the guidance of Aimme Cooper, a professional meeting facilitator with the US Geological Survey. This meeting was sponsored/funded by the Legislative Joint Initiative of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University.

Attendees

Jason Bartz (past-chair), Dan Walsh (chair), Marc Schwabenlander (vice chair), Debbie McKenzie (secretary), Stuart Lichtenberg, Miranda Huang, Tricia Hebdon, Tracy Nichols, David Schneider, Tiffany Wolf, Rachel Ruden, Tabitha Graves, Lindsay Parrie, Dan Storm, Sonja Christensen, David Walter, Eric Cassmann, Mark Ruder, Scott Wells, Robert Piel, Tyler Harms, Noelle Thompson, Michelle Gibison, Justin Greenlee, Allen Herbst, Lisa Muller, Peter Larsen, Rodrigo Morales, Joseph Ramos, Jenn Malmberg, David MacFarland, Gavin Cotterill, Jess Krohner, Steve Demarais, Dan Grove, Qingzhong Kong, Russ Mason

Detailed overview of meeting

Dr. Dan Walsh (chair) welcomed the group to the meeting and provided the meeting’s purpose - Accelerate the learning and building of teams to advance CWD research and management for the protection of our cervid resources - and objectives - 1) shared understand of where we are and where we are going as a Consortium, 2) build relationships/collaborations. Marc Schwabenlander (vice chair) facilitated the meeting.

To get conversation sparked, we next provided two discussion questions for Members to interact:

“What do you find is the most intriguing CWD research/management development in the last year?”

Responses included:

• RT-QuIC/scrape work (connect SCRAPES to prevalence)
• Environmental contamination, testing of different substrates (retention of CWD in various substrates)
• Genetic, selective breeding for host genotypes (drivers)
• Threshold for pooling samples/pooled testing so don’t have to test individually (saves states $$, allows for expanded testing) – particularly in non-endemic areas/lower prevalence areas/finding new detections
• Deer/CWD/tick interactions

“What do you hope to get out of this meeting? What do you want to contribute to this meeting?”

Responses included:

• TN collar study (documenting death and destruction), but valuable to hunters (providing evidence). Areas with quality deer (selecting for old males). This contributes directly to geographic spread…can follow epicenter. Dz transmission and movement/migration.
• Identify groups willing to collaborate GPS data across states.
• Live testing, diagnostic vs. research sensitivity side (i.e., can’t pick up early stages)
• Using all tools in toolbox (across captive industry and state agency). More tools and approaches the better (in speaking to both anti-mortem and post-mortem testing)
• EHD vs CWD co-morbidity. How EHD affects density and then CWD spread. Also the human dimensions side where hunters don’t want CWD testing/culling after EHD die-off. Do EHD die-offs create CWD hotspots in the environment (how fast do you need to remove carcasses)?
• Connect diseases ecology to deer ecology
• WI legislature took away earn-a-buck. So the collaboration angle (with different states) may help to leverage mgmt. tools

Dr. Walsh continued the meeting kick-off with a Consortium business portion.

• Passing of Consortium co-founder, Dr. Joel Pedersen, and Members Dr. Ed Hoover, Dr. Bob Dittmar, and Dr. Bill Porter
• Note on secretary role description, nominations, and voting to be completed during the meeting
  • David Walter was voted in as the new secretary
  • Executive committee roles advanced following the annual meeting
• Introduction of a Consortium member Code of Conduct
  • To ensure there are clear expectations based on our core purpose: accelerating learning about CWD by fostering productive, cross-disciplinary research collaborations
• Accomplishments since previous annual meeting in 2021
  • Completed papers on all: state of science papers: zoonotic potential of CWD, requirements for diagnostic test validation by USDA, what RT-QuIC and PMCA can/cannot do, environmental dynamics of CWD. Going to publish as a packet of papers, currently looking as peer-reviewed outlet, may put on CWD website as pre-publication.
  • ~15 manuscripts from member collaborations
    • Ask of Members - Continue to send collaborative papers and grants to the board. Will include in newsletter, website, back to USDA as products
  • ‘Several’ collaborative grants landed
  • ~20 new members
• Reminder of membership process, which has evolved since inception of the Consortium
  • Should we periodically be evaluating current members for missing pieces (e.g., human dimensions)? Instead of waiting for them to come to us, reach out to them first/recruit new members.
  • Is there a place where you can view current members and their information/specialty?
    • Public-facing webpage; member portal and listserve.
    • Also on participant list: https://www.nimss.org/projects/view/participant_list/18702
  • We may also need a holistic/entire review for members who moved on to other work. Continue to build research collabs, particularly in the face of CWD funding
• Plan to renew the project in Fall 2024 - unanimously approved by members

Prior to the meeting Objective leads were asked to provide an update of Objective activities and potential impediments.  Objective members present at the meeting gathered to review and discuss the updates and impediments. Overviews of the 5 objectives was presented.

Objective 1. Disease transmission and pathogenesis (development of tissue repository). 

Leaders: David Walter & Jason Bartz

Group Members: Mark Ruder, Gavin Cotterwill, Eric Cashman, Justin Greenlee

• Updates
  • 2020 grant from USGS (ends in August 2023) to create a database for online repository for CWD infected tissues. Have metadata and what has been done to characterize the sample. This is for wild cervids. The database can be searched for tissues with specific criteria, plus contact information for how to get access to the tissue. The database has been created, in a beta version, using contractors through USGS Fort Collins. Now that the database is constructed, the next step is now how to contribute samples and logistics and who will fund this long term. How to get samples and who decides?
  • Storage instructions - tissue specific or for different types of uses?
    • Texas Tech. Museum protocols.
  • Have there been any collaborative products/grants/projects?
    • 2020 grant from USGS (ends in August 2023) to David Walter.
  • Impediments
    • What does the team need assistance with?
      • How to get samples from NSVL?
      • USDA has a repository lab (NWRC Ft. Collins). How to integrate these groups?
      • Funding for long term management of the virtual repository.
      • Management of the repository and how to decide who to ship material to

Objective 2. Development of large-scale research facilities

Leaders: Steve Demarais

Group members: Stuart Lichtenberg, Dan Storm, Dan Grove, Miranda Huang, Allen Herbst, Scott Wells

• Updates
  • Please provide updates on the progress of the objective since our last annual meeting in July 2021.
    • Available facility list - need to update list
  • Has there been a change in the objective membership?
    • No
    • Allen Herbst taking over as lead from Steve Demarais
  • Impediments
    • If you have not met, or had limited correspondence, why?
      • Goal had been met. Didn’t look at the next steps until today.
    • Are there barriers to accomplishing the goals of the objective?
      • Long Term funding; could be USGS, USDA (is cooperative agreement funding only 1 year YES!; lobby congress to “no year funding”, and P-R funds); short funding windows; what might be feasible for funding; long view planning
      • Captive pens, research cervids - need to find existing facilities, maybe lease
        • What about USDA or CSU facilities?
      • Facility list needs updating
        • What has been done at each facility
        • What can be done at each facility
      • Have to deal with different perspectives (funders - WS and VS)
      • Long term sources of naive deer - Athens, GA is the current source (Gino D’Angelo)
        • Hand raised and/or “clean animals”
        • Testing and monitoring
      • What does the team need assistance with?
        • These projects/hopes take multiple agencies, state, federal, university
          • There needs to be a champion to manage the process and have the authority (Kurt VerCauteren has used federal funding for a fence on state property); Jennifer Malberg?

Objective 3. Improving diagnostic testing for CWD

Leaders: Krysten Schuler, Tracy Nichols

Group Members: Peter Larsen, Rodrigo Morales, Dave Schneider, Robert (Bob) Piel, Lindsay Perrie, Michelle Gibison, Jay Ramos

• Updates
  • Please provide updates on the progress of the objective since our last annual meeting in July 2021.
    • Lots of new people and ideas. Have an activation energy and network now.
    • New diagnostic techniques (ex. Gold nanoparticles) and cross-validation is needed and institutionalized (unified protocols).
    • -PMCA and RT-QuIC are not working the same on different tissue types and figure out which is better for which tissue.
    • -Metabolic disease and genomics of CWD and scrapie, host of other genes that might lead to a way out of a wildlife disease. Functional group binding. Aberrant forms of prions. Other infectious diseases for immune primers. Need to be careful on strain creation.
    • -Rabbit trails: humic acid, biochar, copper as problems
  • Have there been any collaborative products/grants/projects?
    • Multi-lab RT-QuIC validation test
  • Has there been a change in the objective membership?
    • Many more people.
  • Impediments
    • What is the goal? Species? Post-mortem/ante-mortem?
    • PMCA/RT-QuIC tissue type optimization
      • Full comparison research
        • We first need consistent/regular protocols - sample collection/processing, the assay, result reporting/stats.
        • Why are we talking about this for PMCA?
          • Some tissues PMCA works better
        • List of tissue types that are best for surv/regulatory testing
          • This may be more for environmental research
        • Consistent controls (ARS/USDA lead this)
          • Internal lab controls - consistency over time
          • Controls at the LOD
          • Genotype, strain, level of infection consistency?
            • How many do we need of each stage, type?
          • Propelling the activation energy/network
            • Regular meetings - meet every two months
              • Who leads, schedules?
              • Do we have the list of Obj members?
            • Lack of reproducibility RTQ RAMALT
              • Adequate training across labs RT-QuIC (for consistency - regulatory purposes)
                • MNPRO team offered to lead training in lab (RTQ)
                  • There is different levels of experience and nuances with the SOPs.
                • PMCA training? Who? How?
                  • Why are we talking about this for PMCA?
                • Tracy identified funding mechanism
                • Tissue/sample handling, control, consistency
                  • Optimal handling flowchart
                    • If X,Y,Z occurrued do we need to do 1,2,3?
                  • Well documented sample handling record for each sample

Objective 4. Evaluating management strategies across state boundaries

Leaders: Dave MacFarland, Daniel Walsh

Group Members: Tabitha Graves, Lisa Muller, Jenn Malmberg, Rachel Ruden, Tricia Hebdon, Noelle Thompson (many more not present or at other objective tables)

• Updates
  • Please provide updates on the progress of the objective since our last annual meeting in July 2021.
  • Minimal progress for a while, but past few months a lot of progress on the SDM process (tangible progress: problem statement draft has been completed)
  • Working group has been meeting on a bi-weekly basis
  • Focusing on management actions that control spread. Focusing on new outbreak areas, new foci/sparks and leading edges. These are the areas we are more likely to find success.
  • Issues we are addressing: Coordination between states, data-sharing, data standardization (currently at different scales). If we are able to address this, how to we collect data to maximize its value from a regional joint-action adaptive management standpoint
  • Gathering information on the current state of CWD science in each state (based on WI 2019 database from 2016 questionnaire)
  • Have there been any collaborative products/grants/projects?
    • SDM working group
  • Has there been a change in the objective membership?
    • Recently included agency folks from additional MAFWA states (Indiana, Ohio, Illinois) and State agency folks from MAFWA states currently involved (Michigan)
  • Impediments
    • Impediments have been the capacity to make progress (time) - we’re doing better!
    • Data sharing between states (potential impediment on the horizon)
      • Spatial scale of sample data (GPS locations, county level, GMU level?)
      • Data collection mechanism
      • We could request GPS locations but agree to visually display at broader level (to improve hunter cooperation)
      • Need to demonstrate actual analyses/mgmt experiment we want to do, and required resolution of data (include specifics of why resolution is needed). Think about the implications of required resolution for the states (resource and funding requirements). Include temporal scale (how long do we need to maintain this resolution?). Also provide study area/spatial boundaries if a state agency can’t collect data at the scale we need across the entire state. Also think about leadership limitations/constraints (both legislative and director).
      • Working on agency leadership level to try to get ahead of that (being proactive)
      • Bringing a resolution to MAFWA. Developing specifics and tangible items to bring to directors, i.e. state is committing to data sharing. Step 1: engagement. Step 2: moving on from information sharing to joint action (actually working together towards common goals and objectives).
        • NOTE: Can we share this collaboration data sharing/standardizing with WAFWA? Want to make sure WAFWA feels included and engaged in the conversation from the beginning. AFWA should also be involved. We will approach MAFWA first, then we can leverage that it was adopted in the midwest when bringing it to other areas.
      • If you have not met, or had limited correspondence, why?
        • Working group has been meeting the past few months but we are now at the point to bring what we have done so far to the larger group
      • Are there barriers to accomplishing the goals of the objective?
        • Variation in policies, hurdles, limitations/constraints across states
        • How turnover in state leadership affects collaboration potential (changing priorities, political angle)
      • What does the team need assistance with?
        • Modeling examples that we can adapt (migration initiative, BHS multi-state work)
        • Setting up multi-layer collaborative aspect in each state (objective 4 member assistance) to account for turnover in commission/director/governor

Objective 5. Enhancing coordination, understanding, and communication of social science  as it relates to CWD research and management.

Leaders: Tiffany Wolf

Group members: Tyler Harms, Sonja Christensen

• Updates
  • Please provide updates on the progress of the objective since our last annual meeting in July 2021.
  • Iowa has been working on CWD Ambassadors class (flipped classroom, 3 nights across 3 weeks, like a master class). Creating local champions. Interest in this for tribal communities as well. May consider creating the content to be more general for other states to use, too. Some assessment metrics included.
  • We have been meeting more regularly and have established a group of experts, although there seems to be some conflicts in attendance for this years meeting
  • Multiple publications from consortium members on this topic
  • Human dimensions with tribes in minnesota, survey efforts and engagement (reached out to ~22 tribes and had 19 interviews) and survey on cultural impacts from CWD.
• Have there been any collaborative products/grants/projects?
  • Yes, led by Bruce Lauber. We have a good group going that is actively putting forward a proposal for the current USDA RFP as a consortium group.
    • Proposal goal: Develop and/or deliver educational outreach materials (the methods, processes, or actions that provide education and facilitate learning of critical knowledge necessary to control and/or prevent CWD and it’s spread in wild cervids), including the study of human dimensions on CWD prevention and control. Behavioral messaging research may also be included as part of an outreach program.
    • Make this generalizable to states that don’t have an HD person?
  • Has there been a change in the objective membership?
    • Yes, Leslie is likely no longer available to do this, consider reaching out to Adam Landon, others.
    • Current emails on proposal lead by Cornell:
    • Bruce Lauber <tbl3@cornell.edu>; Landon, Adam (DNR) <Adam.Landon@state.mn.us>; Tiffany Wolf <wolfx305@umn.edu>; Ellen Goddard <ellen.goddard@ualberta.ca>; Richards, Bryan J <brichards@usgs.gov>; Becky McPeake <rmcpeake@uada.edu>; Cory Anderson <and05081@umn.edu>; Ufer, Danielle <uferdani@msu.edu>; Kamps, Amanda J - DNR <amanda.kamps@wisconsin.gov>; Richard Clark Stedman <rcs6@cornell.edu>; wfs1@cornell.edu; McInenly, Leslie (DNR) <leslie.mcinenly@state.mn.us>; Hebdon,Tricia <tricia.hebdon@idfg.idaho.gov>; Rubino Elena <Rubino@uamont.edu>; Kathleen Epstein <kee47@cornell.edu>; White Don <whited@uamont.edu>; dcfulton@umn.edu
  • Impediments
    • Potentially inconsistent communication on consortium products? Look into this
    • Representation of expertise
    • Lack of prioritization of HD research within an agency or organization
      • Lack of capacity and resources for research
      • Comment from Peter Larsen, perhaps the research focus may be impeding the more outreach and policy expertise
      • Connect the messages that are most impactful and how they are received and how that translates to agency work on the ground (how do we move beyond information sharing to actually change behavior).
    • Funding opportunities have been limited to short term (1 year in duration) and our work needs longer funding duration. This is critical and needs to change with current funding organizations and finding new opportunities.
    • Perhaps we can glean information from the SARS CoV2 anti-science and behavior change experiences and research?
    • What does the team need assistance with?
      • Funding and leadership
        • What type of funding would be required? Guesstimates of cost/year? Funding agency(ies)?
          • Brainstorm: NIFA? USDA APHIS? AFWA Multistate Conservation Grants? Look into multistate pittman robertson funds (or like SWIGS)
          • Boone and Crockett - CWD research funding
          • CWD Alliance funds
          • NSF program - Dynamics of integrated socioeconomics systems may be an option. Need to very explicitly connect the environment and social system. Need to layer the experimental management tactics with science communication and with rigorous RCT and end point surveys, then add on the environmental component
          • *”START WITH THE FUNDING” J. Bartz :)
        • Who would be a good person to lead this collaboration and development of a research proposal?
          • Add Dan Storm and Rachel Ruden
          • Think about incentive structures
          • Consider bolstering our current leadership to multiple people who can carry forward the objective at consortium meetings and elsewhere
          • We have been meeting more regularly (1 every other month or so) but need to continue

Next the members present at the meeting voted on which 3 objectives to dive deeper into. Objectives 3, 4, and 5 were voted to move to the next step which included:

• Creating 3 groups of members/scientists with diverse specialties.
• In each group, for each assigned objective select an impediment based on the prioritized list that you think you would like to discuss solutions that may help overcome the impediment
  • Take 20 minutes and record potential solutions your group can suggest
• We then shifted the discussion on each objective to the next group.
• The next group then built upon the original group’s ideas
  • 20 minutes to add ideas to the first group’s
• This was repeated and shifted to the final group
  • 20 minutes to build upon both group’s ideas
• Potential solutions for the 3 objectives were reported out and further discussed within the large group.
  • This information is provided in the “Impediments” section of Objective 3, 4, and 5 above.

The last section of the meeting addressed more big picture items.

First, we inquired if any objectives were ready to be sunsetted. Objective 2 was the focus of discussion as it appeared to be the most stagnant. It was clear that Objective 2 needed to continue but may need to re-focus.

• O2: establishing large scale research facilities somewhere in between captive and wild pop sized for large scale research (like Starkey in OR). What are the research objective(s) that require research facilities? What additional objectives can be accomplished with the use of research facilities?
  • Different facilities can be used to answer different research questions
  • Use these facilities to demonstrate utility in the field (the translation piece) that will convince states to adjust their policies.
  • Facilities offer known positive samples and information on Timelines.
• Leasing vs. purchasing facilities where fences are required to be maintained under state law – environmental component (not live deer)
• Want to keep O2 but transition to use in environmental piece?
• Objective 2 needs to meet and decide if will continue and be productive beyond just identifying the existence of locations.
  • O2 might need to hire a dedicated staff person to move things forward
• Put out a call for other consortium members to join the O2 group

Next, we inquired if there was a need for any new objectives. The conversation led to ideas that were fit for sub-objectives of current objectives, with the possibility of being their own objective when the Consortium is renewed.

• Integrating farmed cervid community (standardizing data, experiments, etc.)
  • Both sub-objective and possibly new objective; but really more of a mindset to integrate into current objectives
• Risk of human transmission/zoonotic potential – Qingzhong Kong volunteered to lead
  • Unified response required. What is our message going to be, given long incubation period (potential for high numbers of exposed individuals)?
  • How to identify/define strains as they relate to cross-species movement (sheep to cervid, cervid to human)
    • List of experiments to be done to link suspect case to CWD or not.
    • How is the zoonotic jump perceived by the public and what are the socio-political-economic ramifications?
    • RESPONSE PLAN! Other groups are formally starting the process of creating this.
    • Crosses into captive cervid piece as well
  • Stakeholder Communication and additional expertise
    • Using modern techniques of relaying information (Lisette Waits at U of ID! Talked about this extensively in an ID TWS – pre-2018)
    • State of science papers are currently aimed at scientists, but could be adapted more into a pop science article, used to share with public or policy makers (graphic abstracts)
    • Use RMEF, BHA, etc. marketing? Bring them into the fold.
    • How does communication align with membership criteria (move beyond just a researcher-focus), and include other types of people in the room – additional expertise.
      • Are these individuals brought on in a consultant capacity for individual objectives?
    • Environmental contamination and transmission – Stuart Lichtenberg volunteered lead
      • Crosses captive and wild interface as well
      • These ideas were shared in the original Michigan state meeting (Sonja might have access to this information and be able to revisit the notes from this discussion)

Lastly, we opened the space for conversation among the members to think about future joint research proposal ideas.

• Collaring pigs and deer in the same area at the same time via USDA grants (north Mississippi and TN- Ames area)? Miss has already collared both in area without CWD, but now want to collar in CWD area (looking at spatial interactions).
  • Ongoing work on this per Rodrigo (giving a talk on Thursday) – pigs were exposed to CWD but their proteins weren’t affected. Tested lymph and brain. Can artificially make a pig positive but they aren’t transmitting the disease.
  • How do you differentiate between environmental exposure vs. pigs consuming dead deer? You can’t without an experimental component (level of exposure and accumulation, what part of a deer do they eat and how does this affect infection).
• Environmental vs. direct transmission
  • When CWD is initially on the landscape, it will be minimal in the environment but as CWD grows, how does it grow in the environment and how does the environmental contamination piece affect transmission?
  • How do you prove environmental transmission in the wild?
  • Does environmental transmission occur and how does it relate to prevalence?
    • When does environmental transmission become the primary pathway and how does this relate to how rapid the management response to CWD needs to be (before CWD is established in the environment or before environmental transmission has a larger effect on geographic spread than direct transmission)?
    • Can you differentiate between environmental vs. direct/oral exposure from a prion perspective? Does it relate to accumulation?
  • What mitigates indirect transmission (deer density?) or limits environmental transmission (not universal across substrates, access to area, environmental prion decay rate variation)
  • How do outliers affect transmission (both “lucky” individuals and the individual that have unusually long dispersal distances)
    • Genetic differences that make an individual less receptive to CWD
      • Genes that contribute to susceptibility
    • Source of infected organ (eye, tongue, nose) and infection probability/rate/etc.
    • Risk factors

The meeting closed with the opportunity for members to provide a one-sentence takeaway from the meeting. It was an overwhelmingly positive response.