HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-20 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Monday, November 20, 2017
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
Agenda Item 4.a.
MINUTES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Staff Present
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. NEW BUSINESS
a.New Member Orientation:
6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a.Comp Plan 2040
Natural ResourcesChapter:
Resilience Chapter:
7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
8.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a.Fall CleanUp Campaign – Four Weeks in October
b.Update on the City-Wide Trash and Recycling Contract
c.Maplewood Nature Center Programs
10.ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
Introduction
Discussion
1
Recommendation
Attachment
2
Attachment 1
Washington County
Ramsey County
Agenda Item 5.b.
MEMORANDUM
Introduction
Background
Discussion
Recommendation
Attachments
Attachment 1
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
November 15, 2017
I.Purpose
The purpose of this management plan is to address and plan for the spread of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
in Maplewood’s urban forest. It is anticipated that all ash trees that are not treated will die. The goal
of this plan is to manage the emerald ash borer invasion through education, inspection, and strategic
management. By defining and beginning management now we hope to lessen disruption to our urban
forest, stretch the management costs associated with EAB over a longer period of time, and create an
atmosphere of EAB awareness and readiness.
II.Applicability
This plan is applicable to all public land in Maplewood and all private properties where EAB may
negatively impact public areas or generally threaten the overall health of Maplewood’s urban forest.
III.Administration
Maplewood’s Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments are responsible for implementing
this program. The City Forester and the Natural Resources Coordinator provide direction and
coordination.
IV.EAB Background
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a non-native beetle that causes widespread decline and death of ash trees.
The larval stage of EAB feeds on the tissue between the bark and the sapwood, disrupting the
transport of nutrients and water in the trees. If infestation is high enough in an individual tree, the
damage will be severe enough to kill the tree. EAB has destroyed millions of ash trees in other states.
V.EAB Status in Minnesota
In 2009, EAB was found in southern Minnesota and in St. Paul. Since then it has spread throughout the
Twin Cities. The population is slow to build in the first few years but after year seven or eight it
dramatically increases. This scenario seems to being playing out in St. Paul. In May 2017,
Maplewood’s first case of emerald ash borer was identified at Carver Elementary School.
VI.EAB Management Strategies
When EAB was first found in Minnesota, state agencies advocated an approach that focuses on
slowing ash tree mortality -- SLAM (Slow Ash Mortality). It involved a combination of monitoring for
EAB, preemptive removal of ash trees, insecticide treatment, and biological control. These strategies
are still used but due to the wide-spread nature of the infestation removal of ash trees before they are
infested is now done mostly to spread out costs of removal, not to slow the spread.
VII.Tree Inventory
Maplewood completed a City tree inventory in 2011. This included boulevard trees and trees in
manicured areas of City parks. The inventory is a snapshot in time and the data has not been updated.
In 2017, the City transferred the inventory to its Cartegraph asset management software. This will
enable the City to better track tree trimming, removals, and planting.
1
Of the 9261 city trees in the 2011 inventory, 2037 or 21% are ash. It is difficult to estimate the number
of ash in our natural areas or on private land. Each tree in the inventory received a condition code.
This can be helpful in determining which ash to remove.
VI – 2 EAB Management: Inspection, Detection, and Monitoring
The goal of detection is to find infestations as early as possible. Once an infestation center is found,
we need to determine outer boundaries of the infestation. The following people may be involved in
detection.
1.City Forester. Maplewood contracts a part-time forester to inspect properties for oak wilt. The
forester’s contract should be expanded to include EAB detection and inspection. In addition, the
City Forester should be the person responsible for delineating the infestation boundaries.
2.City Staff. City staff need to be key players in detecting EAB. It is recommended that Maplewood
Nature Center staff and Parks and Public Works crew members undergo EAB training so they can
help monitor the ash trees in the areas where they work. In addition, it is recommended that EAB
training be provided for all employees interested in learning about the insect and its threat.
3.Residents. Residents will often be first to detect EAB on private lands. If they have a tree with
suspected EAB, they are encouraged to review EAB information online and report it to the Public
Works Department. The City responds to all calls and will do a site check if the tree sounds like it
has EAB signs or symptoms.
4.Arrest-The-Pest-Hotline. The state maintains an Arrest-the-pest-hotline. Citizens can call the
hotline to report a suspected incidence of EAB.
5.Minnesota Forest Pest First Detector Network. The first detector network is the state’s early
warning system for invasive tree pests. First detectors can help verify the presence of EAB.
6.Minnesota Tree Care Advisors. The tree care advisor program is a network of trained, community-
based volunteers who promote urban and community forestry to all residents of Minnesota. This
program is run by the University of Minnesota’s Department of Forestry.
7.Citizen-monitoring program. Some Maplewood residents have expressed interest in learning
more about Emerald Ash Borer and its potential impact to the City and the landscapes around
their homes. The City should encourage interested residents to participate in the Forest Pest First
Detector program or the Minnesota Tree Care Advisor program so they can help the City watch for
EAB. The City should consider paying the tuition for residents in these programs if they commit to
volunteering hours for inspecting sites in the City for EAB.
VI – 3 EAB Management -- Tree Removal
When ash trees die or decline they become hazards near boulevards, buildings, and play areas. Most
dead trees and hazard trees will need to be removed. But strategic removal of trees before they die,
whether they are infested or not, should also be a part of the City’s EAB management strategy.
Strategic removal helps spread out removal and replanting costs and may help slow the spread of EAB.
The City should use four removal strategies:
1.Remove trees that die. Some trees may not be detected early in the infestation process so they
will be removed when they die. On boulevards and in landscaped area of parks, all dead ash trees
should be removed. In natural areas, it will not be feasible to remove all dead ash trees and
deadfall should be addressed on a site-by-site basis. On private sites, owners should remove dead
trees that are hazardous to people or structures.
2.Remove trees that are infested. A good detection program must be in place to use this removal
strategy. Typically infestation centers are not detected for 3-5 years after insects arrive due to
subtleties of initial signs in the tree. When an infested tree is identified, surrounding trees will
2
need to be surveyed to determine the extent of infestation and the number of trees that will need
to be removed.
3.Remove trees preemptively based on health or poor location. Selective removal of public ash
trees based on health condition should be a part of the City’s EAB strategy. The City is beginning
removals in December 2017 based on trees that were listed in poor condition in the 2011 survey.
In addition, ash trees interfering with utilities or that are poorly located should be considered a
priority for removal.
If several trees will be removed preemptively from a park or a neighborhood, the full site impacts
should be considered prior to removal.
4.Remove trees preemptively in an area. Preemptive removal by neighborhood may be necessary
to spread our removal costs. Priorities would be areas:
a.Near an existing infestation.
b.In conjunction with a public works project if the health of ash trees on a street would be
negatively impacted by the project and make them more susceptible to EAB.
c.In conjunction with adjacent cities or regional strategies to manage EAB.
VI – 4 EAB Management: Pesticide Treatment
Insecticides are available for managing EAB. When timed appropriately, these treatments can create a
toxic environment for the Emerald Ash Borer, killing dispersing adults as well as eggs and larvae. High
value ash trees can be preserved from EAB with consistent treatments over time. There are two
primary methods of pesticide application for EAB: soil drenching and trunk injection. In soil drenching,
the insecticide is applied to the soil under the tree canopy and the tree roots take it in. In trunk
injection, a hole is drilled into the tree trunk and the chemical is injected into the tissues under the
bark. With either method, the chemical is dispersed throughout the tree. Emerald ash borers (and
other insects) feeding on the tree ingest the chemical and are killed.
********
TEXT OPTION 1 – no use of insecticide
The City has determined that it will not permit the use of pesticides to control Emerald Ash Borer on
City land, including the right-of-way, due to negative environmental and health impacts. Appendix A
contains a 2011 memo and documentation from Maplewood’s Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission regarding the impacts of EAB insecticides.
OR
********
TEXT OPTION 2 – limited use of insecticide
The City shall not treat boulevard ash trees. However, if a resident would like to treat a boulevard ash
tree in front of their home or business, they may seek permission from the City to do so. Only the
trunk injection method, by a licensed tree company, would be permitted.
The City shall not typically treat park ash trees. However, if there is an especially significant tree or
group of trees, the City may consider treating trees for a limited number of years. The purpose of this
would be to ensure continuity of canopy – planting new trees and give them 10-15 years to grow
before the ash are removed.
********
3
The City shall encourage property owners to carefully evaluate environmental impacts before using
pesticides to treat EAB on private property. Owners that decide to use EAB pesticides are urged to use
trunk injection rather than soil drenching, which will help reduce pesticide drift and reduce impacts to
groundwater and surface water.
VI-5 EAB Management: Biological Control
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) considers biological control the best option for cost-
effective, management of EAB on the forest landscape level. Beginning in 2010, the MDA released
wasps that kill EAB eggs or larvae into selected forested sites with EAB. These releases are being
monitored to determine their efficacy. If biological control for EAB proves effective, the City should
coordinate with the MDA for release of these biocontrol agents in Maplewood forests.
VI – 6 EAB Management: Wood Disposal and Utilization
EAB can spread through transportation of ash wood—in logs, tree waste, chips or fire wood.
Restricting the movement of ash wood can help slow the spread of EAB. The Twin Cities area is under
a quarantine which prohibits movement of ash trees and firewood from deciduous trees out of the
metro. Businesses that need to move the restricted items across the quarantine lines may apply for
Compliance Agreement from the state that indicates how they will treat the regulated articles to
mitigate the spread of EAB.
If large numbers of ash die, it is essential to look for ways to dispose of or utilize ash wood.
Information continues to be published on potential markets for urban wood utilization. Possible uses
for ash wood include fuel (biomass energy chips), mulch, pulpwood, and sawlogs. The City should
identify local options for disposal and wood utilization. In addition, the City should seek partnerships
with nearby cities for disposal and utilization.
VI – 7 EAB Management: Replanting
The loss of ash in our urban forest will have a visual and ecological impact. It is recommended that at
least one tree be planted for every tree removed or lost to EAB. Increased diversity should be a key
element in our replanting program. There are different models for boulevard tree diversity. For
example, Dave Hanson from the University of Minnesota promotes the 10-20-30 rule: plant no more
than 10% of any species, 20% of any genus, and 30% of any family. Prior to moving forward with
replanting, the City should develop a Tree Master Plan that sets goals for our urban forest, ensures
diversity of tree species within neighborhoods, identifies appropriate tree species, and addresses
planting and care guidelines.
Maplewood’s Tree Rebate program provides a cost-share match for residents to plant trees on private
land. It is recommended that the City continue funding this program and, if needed, adjust the
program so it supports residents in replanting after ash removal.
VII Education and Outreach
Education and outreach are essential components of the EAB Management Plan. The City shall
provide an EAB education and outreach program that:
1.Educates residents so they understand the threats of EAB, know what to look for, know what to do
when they find EAB or a declining ash tree, understand replanting and care of trees, and can make
informed decisions for ash trees on their property.
2.Educates parks and public works staff so they can recognize signs and symptoms of EAB
infestation.
4
3.Uses diverse forums for education including: public programs, website, articles in City
publications, handouts, public service announcements, etc.
4.Provides advance notification to a neighborhood or homeowner of ash tree management that will
occur in their area.
5.Provides educational and other support to residents that wish to form neighborhood groups to
detect and manage EAB in their neighborhood.
6.Develops partnership with groups such as Tree Care Advisors.
VIII Ordinance and Policy
The City ordinance regarding trees was updated in 2016. It does not single out EAB, but it provides for
the City to condemn trees with any epidemic shade tree pests, which includes EAB.
IX Licensing/permitting
As part of EAB management, the City should review requirements for tree contractors licensed in the
City and determine whether revisions are necessary.
X Funding
Funding will be needed to implement the EAB management plan. Estimates for tree removal and
replanting vary greatly from $500/tree to $900/tree. For the 2037 ash trees in the inventory, this
would require $1,018,500 – $1,833,300. Primary costs include increased hours for detection,
inspection, outreach and funds for removal, stump grinding, and replanting. Potential funding sources
include:
1.Grants. Currently there is no grant funding dedicated to assisting communities in Minnesota to
manage EAB.
2.General levy or CIP. The City will need to allocate general operating funds and/or Capital
Improvement Project funds for EAB management.
3.City’s tree fund. The City’s tree fund could be used to update the tree inventory and for some tree
planting. But this funding will not go far, and its purpose is not to control tree disease and pests.
4.Tree donations. The funding package should also consider a tree donation program. Currently
Friends of the Parks and Trails (St. Paul and Ramsey County) has tree donation and Tribute Tree
programs that serve cities in Ramsey County, including Maplewood. Publicizing these programs, or
creating our own donation program, will help provide plant material and funds for planting trees
at parks.
XI Summary of Actions Needed
1.Develop details for removal and replanting each year.
2.Develop strategies for disposal or utilization of ash.
3.Provide education and outreach for residents each year.
4.Educate staff in parks and public works to recognize EAB.
5.Implement program for volunteers to help detect EAB in Maplewood.
6.Develop a Tree Master Plan that includes goals for street and park trees, guidelines for species
diversity, lists of appropriate species, guidelines for planting and care.
7.Secure funding for EAB management.
Appendices:
A.2011 Memo from ENRC Regarding Chemical Treatment
5
Appendix A
4/18/11 Memo from Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
To: Maplewood City Council
From: Maplewood Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Date: April 18, 2011
Re: Concerns regarding use of chemical treatment to address potential Emerald Ash Borer infestations.
At its March 2011 meeting, the Maplewood Environmental and Natural Resources Commission passed a
resolution strongly urging the City Council not to allow the use of chemical treatments on ash trees
owned by the city as part of its Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) strategy. This decision was based on several
lines of reasoning:
1.Such treatments, once begun, must continue for the life of the tree, at potentially considerable
expense to the city.
2.Damage to the trees as a result of injecting the chemicals (the environmentally “preferred”
approach) is likely to reduce the life of the trees anyway.
3.Financial resources used for treatment would be better spent in mitigation strategies, such as
thinning of ash trees on city property and boulevards to reduce the overall coverage of this
species (thereby making the larger forest “less attractive” for EAB) and pre-emptive
replacement with other tree species.
4.Chemical treatments may postpone, but ultimately likely will not prevent the loss of many ash
trees; but chemical treatments come with potentially high environmental costs.
It is these environmental costs that we have outlined in greater detail for you below (and describe in
even greater detail with supporting documentation in the attached document). The two most likely
chemicals to be used against EAB are imidacloprid (IM) and emamectin benzoate (EB). Both of these
chemicals are highly toxic to various beneficial insects and have known and potential environmental
consequences that, in our opinion, make them undesirable for use in our city:
Imidacloprid (IM)
1.IM is extremely toxic to honeybees and high concentrations of IM are found by researchers in
sap, pollen, and nectar of treated plants. Short-term exposure to as little as 5 nanograms (one-
billionth of a gram) results in 50% mortality among honeybees.
2.While pollination by bees is not important for ash trees, in the upper Midwest the pollen from
ash trees constitute nearly 40% of bees’ pollen source in April, when other sources are not yet
available.
3.Studies linking IM to collapse of honeybee populations in Europe has led Italy, France and
Germany to ban it and the EU to schedule it’s phasing out.
4.IM is also very toxic to beneficial predator insects such as ladybird beetles and lacewings, to
aquatic insects such as mayflies and caddisflies, and to earthworms.
5.Studies suggest IM’s use in trees may actually promote infestations by unwanted insects, such
as spider mites. These studies indicate such infestations are due not only to the elimination of
beneficial insects that prey on the mites, but also as a result of the chemicals causing greater
egg production by the mites themselves.
6.Leaves from systemically treated ash and maple trees were found to inhibit feeding of
decomposer organisms, such as earthworms and aquatic invertebrates.
7.IM is highly soluble so it is found in runoff from agricultural fields, in streams, and groundwater
throughout North America.
8.At concentrations found in the environment, aquatic insect communities show reduced
populations and biodiversity.
9.Once applied to a tree, either by soil drench or injection, IM is quickly detectable in leaves, sap,
and pollen, where non-target species may be exposed to significant concentrations.
10.The breakdown products, or metabolites of IM, are often more toxic than IM itself.
Emamectin benzoate (EB)
1.EB is extremely toxic to butterflies and moths and does not distinguish between “good” and
“bad” species. Studies have shown it is 20- to 64,000-times more toxic to butterfly and moth
catepillars than other pesticides used on the same crops as EB.
2.EB is used in agriculture as a topical (spray) treatment on a variety of crops because it has been
found to be relatively less toxic to non-target insects than other pesticides (other than moths
and butterflies). However, when sprayed onto plants, EB degrades rapidly in sunlight limiting
exposure of non-target species. No studies were found evaluating EBs toxicity as a systemic
pesticide, so it is not known what kind of exposures or affects would be experienced by non-
target species when EB is used in this manner.
3.EB is also used to kill parasitic sea lice in fish farms. Studies indicate it may act as an endocrine
disruptor, causing early induction of molting in lobsters and other crustaceans. Would the same
be true in crawfish? There is no information.
4.EB appears to be moderately toxic to freshwater fish such as bluegill, trout and fathead minnow.
5.EB is very toxic to marine copepods, but there is no information regarding how it would affect
freshwater invertebrates.
6.EB tends to bind to soil or sediment particles, making it less likely to leach to groundwater, but
also making it very persistent in soil. Also, runoff carrying soil particles could carry EB to surface
waters.
7.The biggest concern is the lack of information about EB as a systemic pesticide and its potential
impacts in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
Pesticides such as IM and EB have gained favor because of their apparent low toxicity to mammals,
including humans. We believe this is short-sighted. Our health and quality of life depends upon the
integrity of the ecosystems in which we live. From our perspective the loss of certain insect species may
seem inconsequential; from the perspective of the larger system it can be devastating. Upsetting the
delicate balance between predator and prey, plants and pollinators, detritus and decomposers is often
considered by us to be a regrettable, but remote effect on the “lowest orders” of the animal world. In
fact, it is akin to chipping away at the foundation of our home.
Given the potential impacts of these chemicals on our environment (and in the case of EB the gaping
holes in our knowledge regarding its potential impacts), we urge the city council to not allow the use of
them on trees in our city. While chemical treatments may provide a short-term fix to the EAB problem,
we believe the city would be better served by taking a holistic view of our environment that considers
the indirect consequences of these toxic chemicals and adopt a long-term, preventative approach
through strategic management of our forests.
Environmental Fate and Ecological Toxicity of Chemicals Proposed for
Emerald Ash Borer Treatments
Prepared for the Maplewood Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
by commission member, Ginny Yingling. April 17, 2011.
Imidacloprid
Imidacloprid (IM) is a nicotine mimic that produces toxicity by binding to and over-stimulating certain
neuron receptors, disrupting the nervous system. It binds much more readily to these receptors in
invertebrates than vertebrates, giving it a higher margin of safety for humans. In insects, the disruption
of the nervous system results in modified feeding behavior, paralysis and subsequent death (Mullins,
1993). IM is used against a wide variety of insect pests, including Asian longhorn beetles (maple trees),
potato beetle, cockroaches, fleas on domestic pets (Advantage®), termites, turf insects, etc. While it
only moderately toxic to mammals and fish, it is extremely toxic to non-target beneficial organisms, such
as honeybees and earthworms (Zang, et al., 2000; Luo, 1999), and important predator insects, including
ladybird beetles and lacewings (Kaakeh, et al., 1996; Mizell and Sconyers, 1992). Some studies have also
shown that treatment with IM may result in infestations by other, unwanted insects, such as spider
mites (James and Price, 2002; Raupp, et al., 2004; Sclar, et al, 1998). These infestations are promoted
not only by the reduction or elimination of beneficial predator insects, but also by increased spider mite
egg production resulting from their exposure to IM (James and Price, 2002).
IM is highly water soluble and does not bind readily to soil particles (Fossen, 2006), so it may readily
leach into groundwater. It is quite persistent in the environment, degrading quite slowly in water (half-
1
= 31-46 days; Kidd and James, 1991; Tomlin, 1997) and soil (half-life = 69 – 997 days; Sarkar, et. al.,
life
1999; Gupta, et al., 2002; Roberts and Hutson, 1999). However, when exposed to sunlight IM has a
short (3 hour) half-life in surface water (Moza, et al, 1998; Wamhoff, et al., 1999), so it is less likely to be
found in surface waters than groundwater. Yet, despite its rapid degradation in sunlight, investigators
report detecting concentrations of
0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 parts per billion (ppb) in streams in New York, New Brunswick and Florida, respectively.
Concentrations as high as 11.9 ppb have been detected in runoff from agricultural fields in Canada
(CCME,
2007). IM has been detected in the groundwater in New York at concentrations up to 6.69 ppb (US EPA,
2003).
Several IM breakdown products have been shown to be of equal or greater toxicity than the parent
compound (Nauen et al, 1998).
1
A half-life is the time it takes for half of the mass of a contaminant to degrade.
Despite its environmental persistence and presence in waters, very little is known about IM’s long-term
chronic and short-term “pulse” effects on non-target aquatic organisms. However, in studies by
Kreutzweiser, et al. (2007 and 2008), leaves from ash and maple trees treated with IM at typical field
rates contained 0.8 – 1.3 and 3-11 parts per million (ppm) IM, respectively. The leaves were then added
to aquatic and forest microcosms to evaluate the effect on leaf-shredding insects. While there
appeared to be no effect on the invertebrates’ survival rates, the 1.3 ppm and higher concentrations
caused significant feeding inhibition among aquatic insects and earthworms, as well as measurable
weight loss in the earthworms. IM applied directly to the water of the aquatic microcosms, to simulate
leaching from soils, was at least 10-times more toxic to aquatic insects than the IM in the leaves, with
high mortality at 0.13 ppm and significant feeding inhibition at 0.012 ppm. Pestana, et al. (2009) found
that both the abundance and biodiversity of aquatic bottom-feeding invertebrates was reduced by
exposure to IM at concentrations of 2 and 20 ppb. They also note that IM is toxic to other aquatic
insects, such as caddisflies and mayflies. Mayflies are particularly sensitive with 50% of the mayflies
dying within 24- and 96-hrs of being exposed to 2.1 and 0.65 ppb IM, respectively. Premature
maturation and emergence of mayflies, and impaired reproductive fitness, occurred when they were
exposed to pulses of IM at concentrations of as little as 0.1 ppb (Alexander, et al., 2007 and 2008).
IM rapidly moves through plant tissues after applications and can be present in detectable
concentrations in the leaves, vascular fluids (sap) and pollen. Studies have shown plants grown from
seeds treated with IM can have significant concentrations (up to 15 ppm in leaves of young seedlings, up
to 13 ppb in pollen) of IM in their sap, pollen, flowers, and leaves (Laurent and Rathahao, 2003;
Rouchaud, et al, 1994; Bonmatin, et al., 2005; Westwood, et al, 1998). As a result, many non-target
insects, such as honey bees, parasitic wasps, and predaceous ground beetles sensitive to IM may be
exposed as they forage for sap, pollen and nectar or feed on other insects that have been exposed.
Bees are particularly sensitive to IM. Pollen constitutes the only protein source for a beehive, and its
contamination can induce both contact- and oral-intoxication. Fifty percent of bees will die if they
2
(ng) of IM over a short period of time (acute exposure), or just 0.01 – 1 ng over
ingest just 5 nanograms
a longer period of time (chronic exposure). These values are often referred to as the LD-50, or the
amount of a toxin that is a “lethal dose” (LD) to 50% of the exposed organism (Suchail, et al, 1999).
When bees forage for nectar, they often become coated with pollen. The LD-50 for simply coming into
contact with IM contaminated pollen is 24 ng of IM (Suchail, et al, 1999). Even if the use of IM is of
short duration (spring applications), the exposure for bees in chronic, as both bees and their larvae feed
on the stocked contaminated pollen and nectar, especially in the winter and early spring (Bonmatin, et
al., 2005). Low doses of IM and IM-metabolites also negatively affect honeybee foraging and learning
behavior (Decourtye et al, 2003 and 2004).
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the toxicity of systemic IM on honeybees is an online video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Nsn4KvjwM . In this video, researchers compare the effects on
2
A nanogram is one billionth of a gram
honeybees of feeding them sap expressed from the blade tip of corn seedlings grown from IM-treated
and untreated seeds. The bees fed the sap from the treated seedlings died within 2 to 5 minutes.
As use of IM as a seed-dressing formulation for various crops has increased, researchers have noted a
coincidental sudden and drastic decline in honeybee populations and honey production in Europe
(Colin, et al., 2004). While a conclusive link has not been made, it is suspected that IM has played a
major role in these declines (Bonmatin, et al, 2005) and has led several individual nations (Italy, France,
Germany) and the EU to ban or phase-out the use of IM.
It is often noted that ash trees largely pollinate by airborne dispersion of their pollen, and therefore do
not rely heavily on bees for their pollination, suggesting that bee exposure to ash pollen (and any IM it
may contain) may be minimal. However, ash trees are one of the earliest flowering trees in the upper
Midwest and bees rely heavily on them as a source of food when they first begin foraging in the spring.
In fact, in a PhD thesis from Wisconsin, Severson (1978) reports that ash pollen may constitute as much
as 39% of the bee’s pollen source in mid-April.
Emamectin Benzoate
Emamectin benzoate (EB) belongs to a class of pesticides called avermectins, which disrupt the
transmission of nerve impulses, resulting in paralysis and death of the target organisms. Recent studies
also suggest that EB has the ability to induce premature molting in insects, suggesting it is also an
endocrine disruptor (Bright, et al., 2005). Avermectins are broad spectrum toxicants for nematodes and
insects. EB was developed as a lepidoptericide, so it is extremely toxic to moths and butterflies. A
Canadian study found EB is also toxic to green algae at relatively low concentrations (3.9 ppb; OPP,
2000). It also appears to be moderately toxic to freshwater fish, such as bluegill, trout, and fathead
3
values of 180, 174, and 194 ppb in water, respectively (OPP, 2000). Irreversible,
minnow, with LC-50
toxic effects on marine copepods were observed at water concentrations as low as 0.12 ppb and
significant reduction in egg production was observed at 0.158 ppb
(Willis and Ling, 2003). EB appears to be relatively non-toxic for birds and mammals (Bright, et al, 2005).
In the environment, EB tends to bind to soil or sediment particles (SPAH, 2002), making it less likely than
IM to leach into the groundwater, but more likely to be washed into surface water with runoff carrying
sediment. Studies have shown it to have a half-life in soil of 174 – 427 days (the lower the oxygen levels
in the soil, the longer EB persists). EB is very stable in water, although if exposed to sunlight it has a
half-life of 1.4 – 22 days (Bright, et al, 2005).
EB has been used as a topical (spray) treatment in a wide variety of agricultural crops such as cotton,
tobacco, cabbage, potatoes, etc. where it is used primarily to kill “chewing and sucking pests”, such as
aphids, leafhoppers, tobacco budworms, southern armyworm, potato beetle, and whiteflies. Its
agricultural uses have increased in recent years because it is relatively less harmful to beneficial insect
3
LC-50, the 50% lethal concentration, is similar to LD-50, but refers to the concentration (rather than dose) of a
toxin in water, soil, or food, at which 50% of exposed organisms will die.
species than other avermectins when applied as a spray (Sechser, et al., 2003; Lasota and Dybas, 1991).
However, no studies were found evaluating the effects of EB when used as a systemic pesticide.
In recent years, EB has been used to kill parasitic sea lice which infect salmon in fish farms. Studies have
indicated that the high doses found in fish feed and feces beneath the fish pens may have adverse
effects on the molting cycle and reproductive success of lobsters (Waddy, et al., 2010). This may have
implications for the development and subsequent reproduction of other crustaceans (such as
freshwater crawfish), beneficial insects, and other invertebrates, but no studies have been done to
evaluate this. EB has also been detected in blue mussels up to 100 m from the fish pens, but it does not
appear to persist in them once the source has been removed (Telfer, et al., 2006). No studies were
found to have been conducted on freshwater bivalves to determine whether they would be similarly
affected if exposed to EB.
The main concern surrounding EB is the lack of information regarding how it will behave when used as a
systemic pesticide in trees (or other plants) and the general absence of information regarding its effects
on freshwater organisms.
References cited:
Alexander, AC., Culp, MN, Liber, K. and Cessna, AJ (2007) Effects of insecticide exposure on feeding
inhibition in mayflies and oligochaetes. Env. Toxicol. & Chem., 26:1726-1732.
Alexander, AC., Heard, KS, and Culp JM (2008) Emergent body size of mayfly survivors. Freshwater Biol.,
53:171-180.
Bonmatin, JM, et al. (2005) Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops. Jour. Agric. Food
Chem., 53:5336-5341.
Bright, DA and Dionne, S. (2005) Use of Emamectin Benzoate in the Canadian Finfish Aquaculture
Industry: A
Review of Environmental Fate and Effects. Prepared for Environment Canada. March 2005.
Burridge, L.E., et al. (2004) Acute toxicity of emamectin benzoate (SLICE) in fish feed to American
lobster, Homarus americanus. Aquacult. Res., 35:713-722.
CCME (2007) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines: Imidacloprid. Scientific Supporting Document.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
Conlin, M.E., et al. (2004) Qunatitative analysis of the foraging activity of honeybees: relevance to the
sublethal effects induced by systemic insectides. Archive Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 47:387-395.
Decourtye, A., Lacassie, E. and Pham-Delegue, MH (2003) Learning performances of honeybees (Apis
mellifera
L.) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. Pest Management Sci., 59:269-
278. Decourtye, A., Devillers, J., Cluzeau, S., Charreton, M. and Pham-Delegue, MH (2004) Effects of
imidacloprid and deltamethrin on associative learning in honeybees under semi-field and laboratory
conditions. Exotoxicol. Environ. Safety, 57:410-419.
Fossen, M (2006) Environmental Fate of Imidacloprid. Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento,
CA. April 2006.
Gupta, S., et al (2002) Leaching behavior of imidacloprid formulations on soil. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol., 68:502-508.
James, DG and Price, TS (2002) Imidacloprid Boosts TSSM Egg Production. Agrichem. & Env. News, Issue
189. Washington State Univ. Extension Service.
Kaakeh, N., Kaakeh, W, and Bennet, G (1996) Topical toxicity of imidacloprid, fipronil, and seven
conventional insecticides to the adult convergent lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Jour. Of
Entomol. Sci, 31(3): 315322.
Kidd H. and James DR (1991) The Agrochemicals Handbook, Third Ed. The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Unwin Brothers Ltd., Old Woking, Surrey, UK.
Kreutzweiser, D., Good, K., Chartrand, D., Scarr, T., and Thompson, D. (2007) Non-target effects on
aquatic decomposer organisms of imidacloprid as a systemic insecticide to control emerald ash borer in
riparian trees. Ecotoxicol. Env. Safety, 68:315-325.
Kreutzweiser, DP, Good, KP, Chartrand, DT, Scarr, TA, and Thomspon, DG (2008a) Are leaves that fall
from imidicloprid-treated maple trees to control Asian longhorned beetles toxic to non-target
decomposer organisms? Jour. Env. Quality, 37:639-646.
Kreutzweiser, DP, Thomspon, DG, and Scarr, TA (2008b) Imidicloprid in leaves from systemically treated
trees may inhibit litter breakdown by non-target invertebrates. Ecotoxicol. & Env. Safety, 72:1053-1057.
Kreutzweiser, et al. (2008c) Toxicity of the Systemic Insecticide, Imidacloprid, to Forest Stream Insects
and
Microbial Communities. Bulletin of Environmental Contaminant Toxicology, 80:211-214.
Lasota, JA and Dybas, RA (1991) Avermectins, a novel class of compounds: Implications for use in
arthropod pest control. Ann. Rev. of Entomol., 36:91-117.
14
Laurent, FM and Rathahao, E. (2003) Distribution of C imidacloprid in sunflowers (Helianthus annuus
L.) following seed treatment. Jour. Agric. Food Chem., 51:8005-8010.
Luo, Y. (1999) Toxicological study two novel pesticides on earthworm, Eisenia foetida. Chemosphere,
39:23472356.
Mizell, RF and Sconyers, MC (1992) Toxicity of imidacloprid to selected arthropod predators in the
laboratory. Florida Entomol., 83:1806-1812.
Moza, PN, Hustert, K., Fesicht, E. and Kettrup A. (1998) Photolysis of imidacloprid in aqueous solution.
Chemosphere. 36(3):497-502.
Mullins, JW (1993) Imidacloprid: A new nitroguanidine insecticide. Am. Chem. Soc. Symposium Series
5240097-6156.
Nauen, RK, Tietjen, K., Wagner, K. and Elbert, A. (1998) Efficacy of plant metabolites of imidacloprid
against
Myzus persicae and Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pestic. Sci., 52:53-57.
OPP, 2000 Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (Formerly: Environmental Effects Database (EEDB). Data
retrieved from USEPA Ecotox database. Office of Pesticides Program.
Pestana, J., et al. (2009) Structural and functional responses of benthic invertebrates to imidacloprid in
outdoor stream mesocosms. Env. Pollution (2009).
Raupp, MJ, Webb, RE, Szczepaniec, A., Booth, D., and Ahern, R. (2004) Incidence, Abuncance and
Severity of
Mites on Hemlocks Following Applications of Imidacloprid. Jour. of Arboriculture, 30(2):108-113.
Roberts, TR and Hutson, DH (eds) (1999) Chlorpyrifos. In: Metabolic Pathways of Agrochemicals, Part 2.
The Royal Soc. of Chem., Cambridge, UK, pp 234-242.
Sarkar, MA, et al (1999) Effect of pH and type of formulation on the persistence of imidacloprid in water.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 63:604-609.
Rouchaud, J., Gustin F., and Wauters, A. (1994) Soil biodegradation and leaf transfer of insecticide
imidacloprid applied in seed dressing in sugar beet crops. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 53(3): 344-
350.
Sclar, D.C., Gerace, D., and Cranshaw, W. S. (1998) Observations of Population increases and injury by
spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Ornamental Plants Treated with Imidacloprid. Jour. Econ.
Entomol., 91(1):250-
255.
Sechser, B., Ayoub, S., and Monuir, N. (2003) Selectivity of emamectin benzoate to predators of sucking
pests on cotton. Jour. of Plant Disease and Protection, 110(2):184-194.
Severson, DW (1978) Pollen Gathering by Honey Bees in LaCrosse County, Wisconsin. Thesis submitted
to the faculty of the University of Wisconsin. September 1978.
SPAH, 2002 Potential environmental impacts of emamectin benzoate, formulated as Slice™, for
salmonids. Technical Report. 36 pp. Schering-Plough Animal Health.
Suchail, A, Guez, D., and Belzunces, LP (1999) Discrepancy between acute and chronic toxicity induced
by imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 20(11): 2482-2486.
Telfer, T.C., et al. (2006) Environmental effects of the anti-sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) therapeutant
emamectin benzoate under commercial use conditions in the marine environment. Aquaculture, 260:
163180.
th
ed. British Crop
Tomlin, C (1997) The pesticide manual: Incorporating the agrochemicals handbook, 10
Protection Council, Farnham, Surrey, UK.
U.S. EPA (2003) Imidacloprid; Pesticide Toerances. Fed. Regist. 68:35303-35315 \[Online\]. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/June/Day-13/p14880.htm (as cited in Fossen, 2006;
verified 111-06). US EPA, Washington, DC.
Waddy. SL, Merritt, VA, Hamilton-Gibson, MN, and Aiken, DE (2010) Effect of emamectin benzoate on
the molt cycle of ovigerous American lobsters Homarus americanus is influenced by the dosing regimen.
Aquatic Biol., 11:47-52.
Wamhoff, H. and Schneider, V. (1999) Photodegradation of imidacloprid. Jour. Agric. Food Chem.,
47(4):1730-
1734.
Westwood, F., Bean, K., Dewar, A., Bromilow, R., and Chamberlain, K. (1998) Movement and persistence
of
14
\[C\] imidacloprid in sugar-beet plants following application to pelleted sugar-beet seed. Pesti. Sci.,
52(2):97103.
Willis, KJ and Ling, N. (2003) The toxicity of emamectin benzoate, an aquaculture pesticide, to planktonic
marine copepods. Aquaculture, 221:289-297.
Zang, Y., et al. (2000) Genotoxicity of two novel pesticides for the earthworm, Eisenia foetida. Environ.
Pollut., 108:271-278.
Attachment 2
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
May 3, 2011
November 15, 2017
I.Purpose
The purpose of this management plan is to address and plan for the eventual invasionspread of
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) into Maplewoodin Maplewood’s urban forests.forest. It is anticipated that all
ash trees that are not treated will die. The goal of this plan is to slowmanage the spread of the
infestationemerald ash borer invasion through education, inspection, and strategic management. By
defining and beginning management now we hope to lessen disruption to our urban forest, stretch the
management costs associated with EAB over a longer period of time, and create an atmosphere of EAB
awareness to detect an infestation as early as possibleand readiness.
II.Applicability
This plan is applicable to all public land in Maplewood and all private properties where EAB may
negatively impact public areas or generally threaten the overall health of Maplewood’s urban forest.
III.Administration
Maplewood’s Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments are responsible for implementing
this program. The City Forester and the Natural Resources Coordinator will be responsible for
implementing this program, with support from Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works
Departmentprovide direction and coordination.
IV.EAB Background
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a non-native beetle that causes widespread decline and death of ash trees.
The larval stage of EAB feeds on the tissue between the bark and the sapwood, disrupting the
transport of nutrients and water in the trees. If infestation is high enough in an individual tree, the
damage will be severe enough to kill the tree. EAB has destroyed millions of ash trees in other states.
(See Appendices A, B, and C for more information.)
V.EAB Status in Minnesota
In 2009, EAB was found in southern Minnesota and in St. Paul. The infestation in St. Paul was in the St.
Anthony area and on the University of Minnesota St. Paul Campus. Subsequently EAB was found in
Minneapolis, in the Tower Hill and Prospect Park areas. The metro infestations are about 1 mile apart.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
University of Minnesota have helped coordinate the response to the infestation and education. In St.
Paul this included ash tree removal in the infested areas as well as preemptive removal of ash in
selected neighborhoods. In 2010, the MDA released biological control agents (three species of wasps)
at the site of the southern MN infestation. The MDA plans to do a release in the metro area in 2011.
In 2009, EAB was found in southern Minnesota and in St. Paul. Since then it has spread throughout the
Twin Cities. The population is slow to build in the first few years but after year seven or eight it
dramatically increases. This scenario seems to being playing out in St. Paul. In May 2017,
Maplewood’s first case of emerald ash borer was identified at Carver Elementary School.
VI.EAB Management Strategies
1
When EAB was first found in Minnesota, it was believed that we would eventually lose all ash trees in
Minnesota. But EAB may spread differently in Minnesota than it has in other states, since it appears
that we have found it relatively early in the infestation. SLAM (Slow Ash Mortality) isstate agencies
advocated an approach to EAB that focuses on slowing ash tree mortality through integrated
management strategies.-- SLAM (Slow Ash Mortality). It may involveinvolved a combination of
monitoring for EAB, preemptive removal of ash trees, insecticide treatment, and biological control.
Slowing the spread of EAB and slowing ash tree mortality enables us to spread management costs over
a longer time period. In addition, with biological control now a possibility, the outlook for ash in
Minnesota could be different than initially predictedThese strategies are still used but due to the wide-
spread nature of the infestation removal of ash trees before they are infested is now done mostly to
spread out costs of removal, not to slow the spread.
VII.VI – 1 EAB Management: Tree Inventory
A tree inventory is the foundation of an EAB plan and provides the baseline data for a city’s urban
forestry program. The data can also be used to track management of individual trees, similar to the
way a city tracks infrastructure maintenance (ex: storm sewer structures).
In 2010, Maplewood hired S&S Tree Specialists to conduct a complete inventory for park (not
preserve) trees including location, species, diameter, and health. Only manicured areas of parks were
inventoried. Maplewood parks have 2507 trees, 484 of which are ash (19.3%). In 2010, staff
inventoried a sampling of boulevard trees. The protocol being used requires we inventory a minimum
of 2000 boulevard trees in order to estimate how many trees we have on boulevards. This sampling
will be completed in 2011.
The boulevard sampling and the complete park tree inventory provide data that enables us to
understand the potential financial, aesthetic, and ecological impacts of EAB in Maplewood. But a
complete boulevard tree inventory, with information on the health of each tree, is required for the city
to strategically target individual trees for treatment or removal, and to make planting decisions that
ensure tree diversity.
It is strongly recommended that the city hire a contractor to do a complete inventory of boulevard
trees. In addition, it is recommended that staff conduct informal inventories on a few natural areas in
the city to obtain some basic information about the ash population in forested areas.
Maplewood completed a City tree inventory in 2011. This included boulevard trees and trees in
manicured areas of City parks. The inventory is a snapshot in time and the data has not been updated.
In 2017, the City transferred the inventory to its Cartegraph asset management software. This will
enable the City to better track tree trimming, removals, and planting.
Of the 9261 city trees in the 2011 inventory, 2037 or 21% are ash. It is difficult to estimate the number
of ash in our natural areas or on private land. Each tree in the inventory received a condition code.
This can be helpful in determining which ash to remove.
VI – 2 EAB Management: Inspection, Detection, and Monitoring
The goal of detection is to find infestations as early as possible. Once an infestation center is found,
we need to determine the duration and outer boundaries of the infestation. ManyThe following
people shouldmay be involved in detection.
2
1.City Forester. Maplewood contracts a part-time forester to inspect properties for oak wilt and
Dutch Elm Disease.. The forester’s contract should be expanded to include EAB detection and
inspection. In addition, the City Forester should be the person responsible for delineating the
infestation boundaries.
2.City Staff. City staff need to be key players in detecting EAB. It is recommended that Maplewood
Nature Center staff at the nature center and parksParks and public worksPublic Works crew
members undergo EAB training so they can help monitor the ash trees in the areas where they
work. In addition, it is recommended that EAB training be provided for all employees interested in
learning about the insect and its threat.
3.Residents and the Maplewood Tree Hotline.. Residents will often be first to detect EAB on private
lands. If they have a tree with suspected EAB, they are encouraged to review EAB information
online and/or call report it to the Maplewood Tree Hotline.Public Works Department. The city
foresterCity responds to all calls and doeswill do a site check if he can’t rule outthe tree sounds like
it has EAB during the phone conversation. signs or symptoms.
4.Arrest-The-Pest-Hotline. The state maintains an Arrest-the-pest-hotline. Citizens can call the
hotline to report a suspected incidence of EAB.
5.Minnesota Forest Pest First Detector Network. The first detector network is the state’s early
warning system for invasive tree pests. First detectors can help verify the presence of EAB.
6.Minnesota Tree Care Advisors. The tree care advisor program is a network of trained, community-
based volunteers who promote urban and community forestry to all residents of Minnesota. This
program is run by the University of Minnesota’s Department of Forestry.
7.Citizen-monitoring program. Some Maplewood residents have expressed interest in learning
more about Emerald Ash Borer and its potential impact to the cityCity and the landscapes around
their homes. The cityCity should encourage interested residents to participate in the Forest Pest
First Detector program or the Minnesota Tree Care Advisor program so they can help the cityCity
watch for EAB. The cityCity should consider paying the tuition for residents in these programs if
they commit to volunteering hours for inspecting sites in the cityCity for EAB.
8.Purple Traps. In 2010, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture set purple traps throughout the
state, including in Maplewood. The purpose of the traps is to help the MDA better determine the
extent of the EAB infestation. The city should continue working with the MDA to have these traps
set in Maplewood.
VI – 3 EAB Management -- Tree Removal
When ash trees die or decline they become hazards near boulevards, buildings, and play areas. Most
dead trees and hazard trees will need to be removed. But strategic removal of trees before they die,
whether they are infested or not, should also be a part of the city’sCity’s EAB management strategy.
Strategic removal helps spread out removal and replanting costs and may help slow the spread of EAB.
The cityCity should use four removal strategies:
1.Remove trees that die. Some trees may not be detected early in the infestation process so they
will be removed when they die. On boulevards and in landscaped area of parks, all dead ash trees
should be removed. In natural areas, it will not be feasible to remove all dead ash trees and
deadfall should be addressed on a site-by-site basis. On private sites, owners should remove dead
trees that are hazardous to people or structures.
2.Remove trees that are infested. A good detection program must be in place to use this removal
strategy. Typically infestation centers are not detected for 3-5 years after insects arrive due to
subtleties of initial signs in the tree. When an infested tree is identified, surrounding trees will
need to be surveyed to determine the extent of infestation and the number of trees that will need
to be removed. The city should consult with the MDA when infestations are initially identified.
3
3.Remove trees preemptively based on health. or poor location. Selective removal of public ash
trees based on health condition should be a part of the city’sCity’s EAB strategy. In order to use
this strategy the city will have to complete a boulevard tree inventory, including health
information for each tree. The city has this data for park trees. The ash trees City is beginning
removals in December 2017 based on trees that would be considered for removal include:
a.Unhealthy trees—inventoried trees that have awere listed in poor condition rating of four
or less (out of ten).
b.Trees that are unsafe due to poor health or structure and are located where they are likely
to damage people and/or property (hazard trees).
c.Trees that are in conflictin the 2011 survey. In addition, ash trees interfering with utilities.
d.3.Trees or that are poorly located and/or require excessive maintenanceshould be considered a
priority for removal.
If several trees will be removed preemptively from a park or a neighborhood, the full site impacts
should be considered prior to removal.
4.Remove trees preemptively in an area. Preemptive removal by area may be appropriate in
situations such asneighborhoodmay benecessary to spread our removal costs. Priorities would
be areas:
a.When a large population of ash trees is nearNear an existing infestation and there are a
significant number of trees in poor condition.
b.In conjunction with a public works project if the health of ash trees on a street would be
negatively impacted by the project and make them more susceptible to EAB.
c.In conjunction with adjacent cities or regional strategies to manage EAB.
A priority removal list should be developed and revised regularly. In targeting trees for removal, the
following should also be considered:
1.Proximity of ash tree removals to current infestation centers and their anticipated spread.
2.The number of trees in poor condition that are located near each other.
3.Spreading out removal costs over several years.
VI – 4 EAB Management: Pesticide Treatment
Insecticides are available for managing EAB. When timed appropriately, these treatments can create a
toxic environment for the Emerald Ash Borer, killing dispersing adults as well as eggs and larvae. High
value ash trees can be preserved from EAB with consistent treatments over time. There are two
primary methods of pesticide application for EAB: soil drenching and trunk injection. In soil drenching,
the insecticide is applied to the soil under the tree canopy and the tree roots take it in. In trunk
injection, a hole is drilled into the tree trunk and the chemical is injected into the tissues under the
bark. With either method, the chemical is dispersed throughout the tree. Emerald ash borers (and
other insects) feeding on the tree ingest the chemical and are killed.
********
TEXT OPTION 1 – no use of insecticide
The cityCity has determined that it will not permit the use of pesticides to control Emerald Ash Borer
on cityCity land, including the right-of-way, due to negative environmental and health impacts.
Appendix C includes references on EAB insecticides. Appendix DA contains a 2011 memo and
documentation from Maplewood’s Environmental and Natural Resources Commission regarding the
impacts of EAB insecticides.
The cityOR
4
********
TEXT OPTION 2 – limited use of insecticide
The City shall not treat boulevard ash trees. However, if a resident would like to treat a boulevard ash
tree in front of their home or business, they may seek permission from the City to do so. Only the
trunk injection method, by a licensed tree company, would be permitted.
The City shall not typically treat park ash trees. However, if there is an especially significant tree or
group of trees, the City may consider treating trees for a limited number of years. The purpose of this
would be to ensure continuity of canopy – planting new trees and give them 10-15 years to grow
before the ash are removed.
********
The City shall encourage property owners to carefully evaluate environmental impacts before using
pesticides to treat EAB on private property. Owners that decide to use EAB pesticides are urged to use
trunk injection rather than soil drenching, which will help reduce pesticide drift and reduce impacts to
groundwater and surface water.
VI-5 EAB Management: Biological Control
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) considers biological control the best option offor
cost-effective, long-term management of EAB. In on the forest landscape level. Beginning in 2010, the
MDA released wasps that kill EAB eggs or larvae in Houston County, in southeast Minnesota. This
release will beinto selected forested sites with EAB. These releases are being monitored to determine
itstheir efficacy. The MDA plans to do a release in spring 2011 near the infestation in Minneapolis and
St. Paul. Appendix E contains information on biological control for EAB. If biological control for EAB
proves effective, the cityCity should coordinate with the MDA for release of these biocontrol agents in
Maplewood forests.
VI – 6 EAB Management: Wood Disposal and Utilization
EAB can spread through transportation of ash wood—in logs, tree waste, chips or fire wood.
Restricting the movement of ash wood can help slow the spread of EAB. Ramsey County and selected
counties in Minnesota areThe Twin Cities area is under an asha quarantine which prohibits movement
of ash out of the county. The quarantine restricts movement of trees and firewood of allfrom
deciduous species.trees out of the metro. Businesses that need to move the restricted items across
county the quarantine lines may apply for Compliance Agreement from the state that indicates how
they will treat the regulated articles to mitigate the spread of EAB.
If large numbers of ash die, it is essential to look for ways to dispose of or utilize ash wood.
Information continues to be published on potential markets for urban wood utilization. Possible uses
for ash wood include fuel (biomass energy chips), mulch, pulpwood, and sawlogs. The cityCity should
identify local options for disposal and wood utilization. In addition, the cityCityshould seek
partnerships with nearby cities for disposal and utilization.
VI – 7 EAB Management: Replanting
The loss of ash in our urban forest will have a visual and ecological impact. It is recommended that at
least one tree be planted for every tree removed or lost to EAB. Increased diversity should be a key
element in our replanting program. There are different models for boulevard tree diversity. For
example, Dave Hanson from the University of Minnesota promotes the 10-20-30 rule: plant no more
5
than 10% of any species, 20% of any genus, and 30% of any family. Prior to moving forward with
replanting, the cityCity should develop a Tree Master Plan that sets goals for our urban forest, ensures
diversity of tree species within neighborhoods, identifies appropriate tree species, and addresses
planting and care guidelines.
Maplewood’s Tree Rebate program provides a cost-share match for residents to plant trees on private
land. It is recommended that the cityCity continue funding this program and, if needed, adjust the
program so it supports residents in replanting after ash removal.
VII Education and Outreach
Education and outreach are essential components of the EAB Management Plan. The cityCity shall
developprovide an EAB education and outreach program that:
1.Educates residents so they understand the threats of EAB, know what to look for, know what to do
when they find EAB or a declining ash tree, understand replanting and care of trees, and can make
informed decisions for ash trees on their property.
2.Educates parks and public works staff so they can recognize signs and symptoms of EAB
infestation.
3.Uses diverse forums for educationincluding: public programs, website, articles in cityCity
publications, handouts, public service announcements, etc.
4.Provides advance notification to a neighborhood or homeowner of ash tree management that will
occur in their area.
5.Provides educational and other support to residents that wish to form neighborhood groups to
detect and manage EAB in their neighborhood.
6.Develops partnership with groups such as Tree Care Advisors.
VIII Ordinance and Policy
The City code should be reviewed and revised to account for EAB. Two sections of code in particular
may need revision:
1.Section 38, Article I. This section prohibits planting in the public right-of-way. If we have major
losses of boulevard trees our ordinance should allow for and encourage replacement. Staff and
Community Design Review Board should review this policy and make recommendations to council.
2.Section 38, Article II. This section covers the city’s tree disease inspection program. regarding
trees was updated in 2016. It allows the city to control and eliminate Dutch elm disease fungus and
elm bark beetles and “otherdoes not single out EAB, but it provides for the City to condemn trees with
any epidemic diseases of shade trees.” It states that the city may enter properties to inspect for
epidemic tree diseases. Property owners are required to abate trees that are declared a nuisance.
This ordinance shall be revised to include emerald ash borer as a tree pest. In addition, guidelines shall
be developed to identify appropriate abatement actions. For example, in the early stages oftree pests,
which includes EAB infestation in Maplewood, the city may need to require that homeowners remove
infested ash to help slow the spread. But, once EAB is widespread in the city, it may become
impractical to require removal of all infested trees.
In addition, the city should develop a Street Tree Master Plan and policy that addresses:
1.Goals for street trees;
2.Guidelines and design templates for species diversity;
3.List of appropriate species;
4.Guidelines for planting and care.
6
IX LicencingLicensing/permitting
As part of EAB management, the cityCity should review requirements for tree contractors licensed in
the cityCity and determine whether revisions are necessary.
X Funding
Funding will be needed to implement the EAB management plan. Primary costsEstimates for tree
removal and replanting vary greatly from $500/tree to $900/tree. For the 2037 ash trees in the
inventory, this would require $1,018,500 – $1,833,300. Primary costs include increased hours for
detection, inspection, outreach and funds for removal, stump grinding, and replanting. Potential
funding sources include:
1.Boulevard tree inventory (estimate: $25,000-$32,000);
2.City forester – increased hours for detection and inspection. Maplewood’s city forester is
contracted for 150-170 hours per year, primarily to inspect public and private properties for oak
wilt and Dutch Elm disease. We will need a significant increase in forester hours once EAB is found
in Maplewood.
3.Tree removal (staff or contractors);
4.Pesticide treatment of selected trees, if approved as part of the EAB plan (staff or contractors);
5.Education and public outreach (staff and city forester);
6.Replanting (staff, contractors, volunteers).
Estimated cost for removal and replanting ash trees at Maplewood parks is $193,600 to $290,400.
This is based on 484 ash trees, with removal costs of $200-$250 per tree and replanting costs of $200
to $350 per tree. While smaller trees establish well and catch up in size to larger trees in a few years,
it is thought that planting larger trees on boulevards and in public places helps reduce vandalism and
accidental injury of trees. When the sampling inventory of boulevard trees is completed in 2011, we
will be able estimate removal and replanting costs for boulevard trees.
Maplewood will need to secure funding for EAB management.
1.Grants. Currently there is no long-term grant funding dedicated to assisting communities in
Minnesota to manage EAB. An initial round of grants was available for EAB planning and
management. Maplewood will need to stay informed on grant opportunities. To be competitive,
it will be helpful to strengthen the city’s urban forestry program. Having an EAB plan, a tree
inventory, and a street tree policy will all be looked at in a positive light.
2.General levy or feesCIP. The cityCity will likely need to use someallocate general operating funds
for EAB management and may need to consider additional fees. St. Paul proposed a 2% surcharge
on right-of-way rates dedicated to EAB management. and/or Capital Improvement Project funds
for EAB management.
3.City’s tree fund. The city’sCity’s tree fund could be used to completeupdate the boulevard tree
inventory and for some tree planting. But this funding will not go far, and its purpose is not to
control tree disease and pests.
4.Tree donations. The funding package should also consider a tree donation program. Currently
Friends of the Parks and Trails (St. Paul and Ramsey County) has tree donation and Tribute Tree
programs that serve cities in Ramsey County, including Maplewood. Publicizing these programs, or
creating our own donation program, will help provide plant material and funds for planting trees
at parks.
XI Summary of Actions Needed
1.Conduct inventory of boulevard trees.
7
2.1.Develop details for strategic removal and re-evaluate the plan frequentlyreplanting each year.
3.2.Develop strategies for disposal or utilization of ash.
4.3.Develop and provide educationalProvide education and outreach materials for residents each
year.
5.4.Educate staff in parks and public works to recognize EAB.
6.5.Implement program for volunteers to help detect EAB in Maplewood.
7.Review and revise tree disease ordinance to include EAB as a forest pest that should be
controlled on private land.
8.6.Develop a Tree Master Plan that includes goals for street and park trees, guidelines for species
diversity, lists of appropriate species, guidelines for planting and care.
9.7.Secure funding for EAB management.
Appendices:
A.Pest Alert – Emerald Ash Borer
B.Do I Have EAB?
C.EAB References
D.Pesticide Impacts
E.Biological Control for EAB
F.What are other metro communities doing to manage EAB?
A.2011 Memo from ENRC Regarding Chemical Treatment
8
Agenda Item 5.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Introduction
Discussion
Recommendation
Attachment
Attachment 1
ENR
2017 Actions and Activities
The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission (ENR)
Commission is an important piece of the City’s environmental
planning efforts. The ENR’s mission includes developing and
promoting sustainable practices for City policies and procedures.
Contained within these two pages are the environmental issues
and events the ENR were involved with in 2017.
Each year the ENR appoints a Chair
and Vice Chair to run Commission
MEETS 3RD
The ENR participates in the annual Waterfest event every year. Shown here
meetings. On February 23, 2017, the
is Commissioner Mollie Miller and her helper teaching participants the
ENR appointed Commissioner Palzer
MONDAY OF
importance of storm water management.
to be the Chair and Commissioner
EVERY MONTH
Looking Ahead to 2018
Ries to be the Vice Chair. Previously
7P.M.
(2016) the Chair was Commissioner
Miller and the Vice Chair was In 2018, the ENR will continue to carry out its mission as follows:
Commissioner Sinn.
•Establish environmental priorities for the City.
•Make recommendations on policies, procedures and
In March, Mary Henderson resigned from the ENR and Candace
ordinances that control, protect, preserve, and enhance the
Okeson was appointed by the City Council on September 11,
City’s environmental assets.
•Participate in the mission and goal of the Maplewood Nature
were reappointed to the ENR in September 2017 with terms
Center and Neighborhood Preserves.
expiring September 30, 2020.
•Promote greater use and appreciation of the City’s
environmental assets.
In October 2017, Maplewood received the Silver SolSmart
•Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace,
designation recognizing efforts the City has undertaken to create
or restore neglected or deteriorating environmental assets of
a solar friendly community. SolSmart advisors recommended
the City.
Maplewood revise some areas of the City’s renewable energy
•Develop educational programs that foster the mission of the
ordinance to remove barriers to solar energy. The ENR will
Commission.
begin this review in 2018, with the goal of having the ordinance
•Develop and promote sustainable practices for City policies
reviewed and approved by the City Council by mid-year 2018.
and procedures.
Environmental Issues Reviewed in 2017
• Local Government Energy Planning• 2224 Woodlynn Avenue Wetland Buffer Variance
• Urban Agriculture Zoning Review•
• 2017 Goal Setting and Implementation Planning• NPDES Phase II and MS4 Permit, 20-16 SWPPP Report
• 2016 ENR Commission Annual Report• Climate Mayors’ Commitment to Adopt, Honor, and
• Tennis Sanitation Recycling Collection Annual ReviewUphold the Paris Agreement
• Republic Services Collection Annual Review• 2040 Comprehensive Plan
• Oak Leaf Community Solar Garden Agreement•
• Climate Change Vulnerabilities Review
6
Attachment 1
ENR Membership
The ENR promotes sustainable practices by
participating in the following events:
•
• Alliance for Sustainability Resilient Cities Workshops
• Green Team – Coordinated Environmental Education
• Spring Clean Up – April
• Waterfest - June
• GreenStep Cities Workshops
• National Night Out - August
Maplewood Environmental Goals
In January of this year, the ENR adopted the following environmental
2017 ENR - Ryan Ries (left to right), Ted Redmond, Ann Palzer,
goals to work towards achieving in Maplewood:
Mollie Miller, Candace Okeson, Keith Buttleman and Tom Sinn.
Planning:
The ENR consists of seven members
•Urban Agriculture: Continue with the urban agriculture zoning review.
appointed by the city council. Membership
The goal is to have the Commission’s full recommendations reviewed
terms are for three years, with extensions for
and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council by the
additional terms approved by the city council.
end of the year.
The current membership is as follows:
•Resilience Planning: This will continue throughout 2018.
Ann Palzer — Chairperson
Member since 9/22/14; Term Expires 9/30/20
Environmental Education:
Ryan Ries — Vice-chairperson
•Events: Plan environmental education focus for key events including Member since 9/22/14; Term Expires 9/30/20
Waterfest and National Night Out.
Keith Buttleman — Member
Member since 1/25/16; Term Expires 9/30/18
•Outreach: Focus on more environmental education outreach, such
Mollie Miller — Member
as partnering with the City’s Communication Department and Green
Member since 7/25/11 Term Expires 9/30/19
Team to create public service messages and use social media
Candace Okeson — Member
throughout the year.
Member since 9/11/17; Term Expires 9/30/19
Ted Redmond — Member
Member since 11/14/16; Term Expires 9/30/19
Urban Agriculture Zoning
Tom Sinn — Member
Review. The purpose of
Member since 11/14/16; Term Expires 9/30/18
the review is to remove
barriers and promote
urban agriculture, while
Kathleen Juenemann — City Council Liaison
ensuring no negative
Shann Finwall — Staff Liaison
impacts to surrounding
properties.
7