2012 Municipal Ash Management Survey

Transcription

1 2012 Municipal Ash Management Survey NEMF - May 16, 2013 Stephanie Adams, M.S. ISA Cert No. SO-5781A The Morton Arboretum sadams@mortonarb.org

2 Dan Neely Survey Model IL Natural History Survey Dutch elm disease ( s) Municipalities and Park Districts (~50) Data collected annually, published every 5 years Detroit (1971 & 1984) elm death due to DED Photos: Jack Barger/U.S. Forest Service

3 2012 MAMS Survey Mitigating Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Impacts on the Urban Forest municipal grants The Metropolitan Mayor s Caucus US Forest Service - Urban and Community Forestry Forest Health Cooperative Programs US EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) January 2013

4 Need for the survey Assess Management plans Treatments Labor (contractor v. mun.) Assist management Track rate of dieback Replanting Funding sources

5 Factors considered Year of infestation Tree populations Ash population Removals Cost DBH Contractors Removals Chemicals Chemical treatments Tree size Products Ordinances Public and private Hazardous tree mgmt. Reforestation Funding sources Grant, Residential, Municipal

6 Compiling data For municipal foresters and arborists All participants will receive compiled data Anonymous participants Do not distribute raw information or use for commercial gains 2011 & 2012 MAMS article in IAA newsletter Information for public

7 Participants 2012 Municipalities 82 Park Districts 11 Forest Preserves 1 Year No. Cities infested Not confirmed 2 Questions focused on municipal issues, problems, and management Some questions were not applicable to different institutions no city forester, no tree inventory, bookkeeping

8 Ash removals EAB infestation Ash reduction Storm damage Other reasons Some trees were removed for multiple reasons, respondents were asked to chose one option Most (84%) ash were removed due to EAB infestation

9 Total percent of ash trees lost by year of infestation (2011) Municipalities were asked for total tree and ash populations for their year of confirmation Ask for the number of removals for every year after Year infested Ave. loss of No. of original ash ppn Municipalities* 5 y % 2 4 y % 3 3 y % 3 2 y % 8 1 y % 15 0 y % 16 Total number of municipalities 47 * Number of cities that had ash population numbers

10

11 Removal approach Only when symptoms are evident-52/93 Only when tree becomes a hazard-23/93 Aggressively seek out and remove ash-12/93 Not yet removing-6/93

12 Property damage Damages caused by EAB-infested ash No: 95% (88 of 93) Yes: 5% (5 of 93) Private property $200, 300, 2500, Public property (1)

13 Total number of public trees removed Public tree removal (2012) EAB confirmed or symptoms: 84% Ash reduction: 8% Storm damage: 2% Other: <1% Total number of ash removed by year confirmed with EAB (2012)

14 Percent of ash lost Average of ash removed by cities grouped by year of confirmed infestation (2011) City groups (# cities) 2006 (2) 2007 (3) 2008 (3) 2009 (8) 2010 (15) 2011 (16) Infested group Year * 47 total municipalities

15 Cumulative ash loss Cities infested in 2006 and 2007 have the highest cumulative ash removed Ash were still being planted in 2006 IDA proposed a ban on ash planting in 2006 Why were ash still being planted? Contract, suburban tree consortium, etc. Extension publication of EAB Insecticides was published in 2009

16 Private tree removal (2012) Approximately 4,000 ash trees removed 2012 Removal numbers estimated by number of tree removal permits Ordinances needed to be enforced-hazards

17 Reason for contractors Personal & equipment availability Knowledge of chemicals and equipment Cost effectiveness Time constraints Pesticide licensing Allows for removals to be done in-house

18 Variables of removal costs Removals done in-house vs. by contractor Removal time frame-public and private Most try for no more than 30 days Many days Inches

19 Percent of removals done by municipality vs. by Contractor Removal of ash trees by DBH (2012) Municipal removal Contract removal Diameter at breast height (inches)

20 Percent of removals done by municipality (in house) vs. by Contractor Removal cost and labor based on ash tree DBH (2011) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Ave percent contract Ave percent mun 30% 20% 10% 0% $303 $370 $448 $942 5 to to to to 25 Average cost of removal plus stump grinding/ Diameter at breast height (inches)

21 Chemical treatments Chemical treatments Yes: 28 No: 61 Yes, only experimentally: 4 Who applied chemicals Contractor large trees, stem injections Municipal employee small trees, soil injection or drench

22 Pesticide treatments Experiments The Care of Trees, Valent, Legacy, Rainbow Treecare, Tru Green, Treecare Rx trees each

23 Municipal involvement in residents treatment of public trees Not involved 54% Gives information 25% Issue permits 20% Approved contractor 6% Keeps records 4% 50/50 treatment program, discounts through mun. contractor, residents not encouraged to treat

24 Responses to injections Average number of treated trees: Too soon after treatment to see difference No difference seen between treated and untreated trees 29% Some difference seen 71% Night and day difference seen Some trees are improving

25 Products used Imidacloprid Xytect, Merit, Imicide, Pointer Emamectin benzoate Tree-äge Dinotefuran Safari Azadirachtin TreeAzin (extract of neem seeds) Products from hardware stores **Usually combinations were used

26 Tree size and products Large trees ~12-15 DBH Few trees <8 treated Same product used for sm and lg (43%) Tree-äge used more for large trees Imidacloprid used more for small trees Dinotefuran used evenly

27 Costs of treatments Contract (n=16) Tree-äge: $5.59/in Soil injection & drench: $1.23/in General: $6.35/in In-house (n=12) Tree-äge: $6.50/in Soil injection & drench: $2.00/in General: $3.53/in

28 Number of cities with replacement programs Tree replacement program 64 of the 82 municipalities have a tree replacement program Yes No Percent of removed ash trees that have been replaced

29 Percent of funding coming from funding source Percent of removed ash that were replaced based on funding source % 26-50% 51-75% % Municipal Grant Resident Percent of removed ash that were replaced in 2011

30 Summary Tree death rates correlate with national numbers Introduction of chemical options may change curve Chemical treatments may be a viable way to space removals and preserve trees Most municipalities are not planning on treating for long periods Highest replacement rate when municipalities fund Lowest replacement when residents fund Cities that have tree ordinances have more replacements Contract chemical treatments appear to be most cost effective than in-house

31