minnesota environmental quality board 100 rev. dr. … · 9/17/2014 · the emerald ash borer...
TRANSCRIPT
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Meeting Location: State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Room 200 St. Paul, MN 55155 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m
AGENDA
I. *Adoption of Consent Agenda Proposed Agenda for September 17, 2014 Board Meeting August Meeting Minutes II. Introductions III. Chair’s Report IV. Executive Director’s Report
V. Agency Roles and Coordination in Terrestrial Invasive Species Management
VI. Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program VII. State Agency Silica Sand Rulemaking Update VIII. Adjourn
Note: Items on the agenda are preliminary until the agenda is approved by the board. This agenda and schedule may be made available in other formats, such as Braille, large type or audiotape, upon request. People with disabilities should contact Elizabeth Tegdesch, Board Administrator, as soon as possible to request an accommodation (e.g., sign language interpreter) to participate in these meetings.
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Meeting Location: State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Room 200 St. Paul, MN 55155
1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
>> note location of this meeting <<
ANNOTATED AGENDA General This month’s meeting will take place in Room 200 of the State Office Building in St. Paul. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. Parking is available at street meters or in lots nearby. http://mn.gov/admin/images/sob-1.pdf I. *Adoption of Consent Agenda Proposed Agenda for, September 17, 2014 Board Meeting August Meeting Minutes II. Introductions
III. Chair’s Report IV. Executive Director’s Report
V. Agency Roles and Coordination in Terrestrial Invasive Species Management
Presenter: Susan Burks, DNR Forestry, 651-259-5251 Mark Abrahamson, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 651-201-6505 Materials enclosed: State and Federal Responsibilities in Regard to Invasive Species Issue before the Board: The Minnesota Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources have a long history of working together on forest pest management, including invasive plants and plant pests. This presentation will describe agency roles relative to invasive forest pests, with special attention to the emerald ash borer (EAB). Background: The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has a legislative mandate to monitor, regulate and protect state resources from invading forest and agricultural pests capable of causing significant environmental, economic or social harm. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a legislative mandate to monitor and protect state forest resources, which includes ensuring the long-term sustainability of both rural and urban forests in the face of native forest pests and those invasive forest pests that have become permanently established within the state. In those roles, both agencies have at times managed grant programs to assist communities in forest health protection.
* Items requiring discussion may be removed from the Consent Agenda **Denotes a Decision Item
Discussion: Invasion by a new pest involves multiple stages of infestation: introduction, establishment, spread and naturalization. Invasive pest management involves multiple stages of control: detection, eradication, regulation, population suppression and habitat management or restoration. Each of these stages involve different public and private entities and different sources of funding, all of which depend on the pest in question and the resource the pest threatens to damage. With regard to the emerald ash borer, Minnesota has the largest number of ash trees in the country, all of which are susceptible to the emerald ash borer. But Minnesota also has a few things in its favor in combating EAB. We found it early in the introduction/establishment phase. Infested cities have been very aggressive at removing and destroying infested trees, keeping EAB populations relatively low. And as a zone 4 pest, EAB is susceptible to periodic temperature extremes, like those we saw this last winter. Minnesota also enjoys strong working relationships between state and federal partners within the state. As a result of the combination of these factors, Minnesota has so far managed to keep EAB populations from exploding like they have elsewhere in the Midwest.
VI. Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
Presenter: Jeffrey M. Hafner, Director, Municipal Consulting, Rainbow Treecare, 612-290-4779
J. Michael Orange, Principal, ORANGE Environmental, LLC, 952-905-1448
Materials enclosed: Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program Issue before the Board: The proposal being presented is a statewide approach for managing the emerald ash borer (EAB) infestation designed to help preserve high-quality public ash trees in our urban forests via partial reimbursement of local governmental costs, provided those costs are part of an integrated pest management method. Background: The presenters have met with relevant agency staff and leadership to discuss these issues and requested to make this presentation to the EQB.
Discussion: The presentation will focus on the projected benefits of an integrated pest management strategy for the state of MN. The presenters provided the text below as background for the presentation they will make to the Board. 1. Integrated pest management is the appropriate strategy: Without treatment, the EAB infestation will kill all of the ash trees in the State. EAB is the most destructive and economically costly forest insect ever to invade the country. An analysis by U.S. Forest Service scientists concluded that the spread of EAB across 15 states was associated with an additional 15,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease and an additional 6,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease. In the years soon after EAB was discovered in North America in 2002, most communities attempted to control it primarily by cutting down all ash trees to eliminate the beetle’s food supply. Experts concluded the strategy was counterproductive. The beetles simply flew further to find host trees, which spread the infestation. The key is reducing pest populations, and new integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that include the pesticide emamectin benzoate (EB) do that very well. 2. Integrated pest management is cost effective: To estimate effectiveness, we prepared a 20-year analysis of the public ash trees in the Twin Cities. This analysis compared two scenarios: a Base Case that assumed the removal of all ash trees and the replacement of high-quality trees, and our Ash Tree Preservation (ATP) Plan, which assumed that high-quality trees would be inoculated and preserved. The Base Case cost 40% more than the ATP Plan yet resulted in a tree canopy that would be less than half as large in Year 20 as our plan. For every dollar of cost, the ATP Plan preserved twice as much of the economic and environmental benefits from trees as the Base Case.
3. The State should help local governments manage the infestation: A recent study concluded that a regional management and funding strategy would more effectively control the infestation than an inconsistent, city-by-city response. The best approach is to fight it like a human health epidemic. 4. A statewide strategy is cost effective: We developed the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program (ATP Program) as a prototype for eventual statewide implementation. If first implemented in the Twin Cities as a pilot project, ATP Program funds of approximately $2 million per year will match an approximately equal amount of local government funds to help preserve 190,000 high-quality public trees. These trees will provide benefits worth $40 million each year. Over the 20-year study period, every dollar of ATP Program funds will preserve trees that generate $20 in overall economic value. On average each year, preserved trees in the region would increase property values by $9 million, intercept 546 million gallons of stormwater, and reduce enough energy consumption and CO2 emissions to offset 5,400 and 6,500 Minnesota households respectively. The air pollution reduction benefit provided by trees preserved by the Program would reduce health care costs by approximately $2.4 million each year. When implemented statewide, these regional figures would increase by approximately 60%. 5. Environmental justice: Recent studies have documented that low-income people and racial minorities disproportionately live in neighborhoods that have less tree cover than higher-income neighborhoods and thus are at greater health risk during heat waves. Residents in these high-density neighborhoods are more reliant on the environmental, economic, and human health benefits provided by public street trees than residents of high-income neighborhoods. 6. Integrated pest management reduces risk: Thousands of dead, standing ash trees throughout the region will pose numerous liability threats to municipalities. Ash trees killed by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to fall apart. Incorporating treatments to protect trees from attack maintains a greater level of public safety by keeping trees in good condition. While there are understandable concerns that pesticides used on ash trees could harm pollinators, especially bees, studies and experts conclude that using treatments as part of a comprehensive strategy provides more benefit than risk. For example, Marla Spivak, an internationally recognized expert on bees, has said that the benefits of trunk-injected EB for ash trees outweigh potential harm to bees. Deborah McCullough, a professor of entomology and forestry at Michigan State University, concluded, “There is no reason for a landscape ash tree to die from emerald ash borer anymore.”
VII. State Agency Silica Sand Rulemaking Update
Presenters: Catherine Neuschler – MPCA, 651-757-2607 Heather Arends – DNR/EQB, 651-259-5376 Erik Dahl – EQB, 651-757-2364
Materials enclosed: None Issue before the Board: Update on MPCA, DNR and EQB Silica Sand Rulemaking.
Background: Update on the status of silica sand rulemaking, the silica sand technical assistance team, and ordinance library that was required by the 2013 Legislature (Ch. 114, Art. 4. Sec. 105.). MPCA, DNR and EQB have been meeting and discussing silica sand rulemaking with the Silica Sand Rule Advisory Panel since January 2014. EQB and DNR staff traveled throughout the state meeting with LGUs to discuss and promote the silica sand technical assistance team and solicit feedback on rule development. Each agency will provide an update and a conceptual framework for each rulemaking.
VIII. Adjourn
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Duluth City Council Chambers 411 W 1st Street, 3rd Floor
Duluth, MN 55802 EQB Members Present: Dave Frederickson, Sandy Rummel, Julie Goehring, John Saxhaug, Brian Napstad, Tom Landwehr, John Linc Stine, Kate Knuth, Dr. Ehlinger, Erik Tomlinson, Kristin Eide-Tollefson, and Bill Grant sitting in for Mike Rothman. Also present was Lt. Governor Yvonne Prettner-Solon EQB Members Absent: Katie Clark-Sieben, Spencer Cronk, Charlie Zelle Staff Present: Will Seuffert, Kate Frantz, Megan Eischen, Caroline Magnuson, and Anna Henderson (EQB staff) Chair Dave Frederickson called the meeting to order. I. Adoption of Consent Agenda and Minutes
A motion to adopt the Consent Agenda and approve the July 16, 2014 minutes, the meeting minutes were amended and seconded. One minor change to the minutes: Kate Knuth was added as present at the July meeting.
II. Introductions
III. Chair’s Report Chair Frederickson thanked the Board members for traveling to Duluth, thanked the city of Duluth for hosting the EQB Board meeting, and also thanked the steam plant facility for conducting the tour this morning. It was a very informative tour; learning about the operation and the opportunity to use different process fuels.
IV. Executive Director’s Report
Thanked the Mayor’s office and the City for hosting the meeting. He mentioned his past work with the Lt. Governor in the Senate on energy issues and said that climate change is a big priority for the EQB this year. Announced that Kate Frantz is leaving the EQB and recognized her for her work. The new re-designed EQB website is now available; please offer comments or suggestions. Climate change is a big priority for the Board this year and we are trying to engage Minnesotans in this conversation, state wide. We are here today to roll out the climate change report; the purpose is to start a conversation with Minnesotans about how climate change impacts the way we work, live, and play in Minnesota. This is an effort that has been underway for months and built on the hard work of experts in the respective agencies. Thanked the agencies and staff for their contributions to this report. It looks at climate change from a range of perspectives from all the agencies represented on the Board. In addition to this report, the Board is working across agencies to evaluate policies. This project is referred to as Climate Solution and Economic Opportunities (CSEO) which builds off of the 2008 Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group work and should be completed by the end of this year/early 2015.
The next Silica Sand Rulemaking advisory panel is scheduled for Thursday, August 28th. We will be discussing this rule at our September Board meeting and will invite public comment. The governor’s Clean Energy and Economic Development summit occurred on July 17th with
Page 2
tremendous success and broad participation. Thank you to the agency leaders at Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of Employment and Economic Development and all partners who participated. The final collaborative economics report will also be presented at the September meeting.
V. Clean Energy and the Next Generation Act Presenter: Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner-Solon Welcome and introductions.
VI. After the storm: Recovery efforts and rebuilding a resilient Duluth
Presenter: Mayor Don Ness, City of Duluth Mayor Ness shared his firsthand experience of the Flood of 2012. He briefly touched on the St. Louis Corridor vision.
VII. How climate change is impacting Lake Superior Presenter: Professor Steve Colman, Large Lake Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth Professor Colman shared a power point on the range of climate and other research being done on Lake Superior by the Large Lakes Observatory.
VIII. The St. Louis River Area of Concern Presenter: Nelson T. French, Lake Superior Unit Supervisor, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
An informational item describing an extensive effort underway to restore the St. Louis River Area of Concern - A Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Priority Project for Minnesota
IX. Climate change in Minnesota: maple, spruce, or savanna? Presenter: Dr. Lee E. Frelich, Director, University of Minnesota Center for Forest Ecology
Dr. Frelich gave a presentation on climate change in Minnesota especially the impact on Minnesota’s forests.
X. Public comment period
· Bill Mittlefehldt, NE CERTS Coordinator, state of Minnesota, gave overall comments on Climate Change in Minnesota/Duluth.
XI. Board discussion and comments XII. Adjourn
If you would like to hear the audio recording of the August 20, 2014, EQB Board Meeting, go to the following link: ftp://files.pca.state.mn.us/pub/EQB_Board/
State and Federal Responsibilities in Regard to Invasive Species This matrix is meant to describe lead authorities and traditional partnerships, not everything each agency does. In reality, all four agencies work closely together in all aspects of invasive species management as does the University of Minnesota. Area Aphis MDA USFS DNR State agency that regulates noxious weeds and invasive forest pests* X
State agency that regulates aquatic invasive species and invasive wild animals X
State lead in cooperative efforts to manage pests not yet permanently established in all or part of MN (like GM & EAB)
X
State lead in cooperative efforts to manage invasive pests permanently established in all or part of MN (like oak wilt & Dutch elm disease) and native pests (like forest tent caterpillar & jack pine budworm)
X
Primary federal advisor to state agriculture agency X Primary federal advisor to state natural resource agency X
Monitors noxious weeds and regulated forest pests X X Monitors non-regulated forest pests and forest damage X X
Agencies with authority to eradicate isolated infestations of regulated pests when found** X X
Agencies with authority to treat expanding populations of gypsy moths (Slow-the-Spread)** X X
Agencies with authority to treat populations of non-regulated forest pests permanently established in the state***
X X
Manage & protect state administered lands X Outreach & educate the public, industry and local units of government X X X X
* Forest pests = insects and pathogens of trees ** As public funding allows, residents are not able to opt out *** As public funding allows, residents are able to opt out Agencies include: APHIS - USDA Animal and Plant Inspection Service MDA - Minnesota Department of Agriculture USFS - USDA Forest Service DNR - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Proposal to Create the
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation
Program
Jeffrey M. Hafner and J. Michael Orange September 2014
Proposal to Create the
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program Jeffrey M. Hafner and J. Michael Orange
1
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the following individuals for their thoughtful comments on draft versions of this
proposal. Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not convey any
organizational endorsement of the content of this proposal.
Forest Boe, Director, Division of Forestry, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Susan Burks, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Rebecca Flood, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Robert G. Haight, Ph.D., Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service
Ken Holman, Community Forestry Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Phil Muessig, Sustainable Communities Coordinator and Sustainable Community Development
Specialist at Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Eric North, Research Fellow, University of Minnesota, Certified Arborist
Sarah Rudolf, Project Coordinator, Health Impact Assessment, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Scott Schirmer, Plant & Pesticide Specialist Supervisor, Emerald Ash Borer Program Manager,
Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Environmental Programs
Karen Zumach, Community Forest Manager, Tree Trust
1 Jeffrey M. Hafner is the Director of Municipal Consulting for Rainbow Treecare. He is a member of the American Society of
Consulting Arborists, a Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture, and has been working in the
horticulture industry for over twenty years. After a thirty-year career as a city planner for the City of Minneapolis, J. Michael
Orange founded ORANGE Environmental, LLC, an environmental consulting company.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Terms ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Problem—Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 3
2. Solution—a Landscape-Based Approach ........................................................................................ 5
3. Experience of Other Cities and Related Efforts .............................................................................. 7
4. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis ..................................................................................... 8
5. Proposal—Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program .............................................. 10
5.1. Conceptual Design of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program ............................ 10
5.2. Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 11
5.3. Program Results ................................................................................................................ 13
6. Pesticide Safety ............................................................................................................................ 14
7. The Time to Act is Now ................................................................................................................ 15
Figures:
1. Net Present Value of Surviving Ash Trees for Three Different Strategies ..................................... 6
2. Comparison of Tree Cover with Household Income ..................................................................... 12
3. The Relationship between the EAB “Death Curve” and Management Options ........................... 15
Attachments:
1. Conceptual Design of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
2. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis: Charts for the Twin Cities
3. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis: Table for the Twin Cities
4. Cost and Benefit Estimates for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program, Years 1-20
5. Brief Summaries of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis and the Minnesota Ash Tree
Preservation Program
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
1
Executive Summary
The following summarizes the key points in this proposal:
1. Integrated pest management is the appropriate strategy: Without treatment, the EAB
infestation will kill all of the ash trees in the State. EAB is the most destructive and economically
costly forest insect ever to invade the country. An analysis by U.S. Forest Service scientists
concluded that the spread of EAB across 15 states was associated with an additional 15,000 deaths
from cardiovascular disease and an additional 6,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease. In the
years soon after EAB was discovered in North America in 2002, most communities attempted to
control it primarily by cutting down all ash trees to eliminate the beetle’s food supply. Experts
concluded the strategy was counterproductive. The beetles simply flew further to find host trees,
which spread the infestation. The key is reducing pest populations, and new integrated pest
management (IPM) strategies that include the pesticide emamectin benzoate (EB) do that very
well.
2. Integrated pest management is cost effective: To estimate effectiveness, we prepared a 20-year
analysis of the public ash trees in the Twin Cities. This analysis compared two scenarios: a Base
Case that assumed the removal of all ash trees and the replacement of high-quality trees, and our
Ash Tree Preservation (ATP) Plan, which assumed that high-quality trees would be inoculated and
preserved. The Base Case cost 40% more than the ATP Plan yet resulted in a tree canopy that
would be less than half as large in Year 20 as our plan. For every dollar of cost, the ATP Plan
preserved twice as much of the economic and environmental benefits from trees as the Base Case.
3. The State should help local governments manage the infestation: A recent study concluded that
a regional management and funding strategy would more effectively control the infestation than an
inconsistent, city-by-city response. The best approach is to fight it like a human health epidemic.
4. A statewide strategy is cost effective: We developed the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation
Program (ATP Program) as a prototype for eventual statewide implementation. If first
implemented in the Twin Cities as a pilot project, ATP Program funds of approximately $2
million per year will match an approximately equal amount of local government funds to help
preserve 190,000 high-quality public trees. These trees will provide benefits worth $40 million
each year. Over the 20-year study period, every dollar of ATP Program funds will preserve trees
that generate $20 in overall economic value. On average each year, preserved trees in the region
would increase property values by $9 million, intercept 546 million gallons of stormwater, and
reduce enough energy consumption and CO2 emissions to offset 5,400 and 6,500 Minnesota
households respectively. The air pollution reduction benefit provided by trees preserved by the
Program would reduce health care costs by approximately $2.4 million each year. When
implemented statewide, these regional figures would increase by approximately 60%.
5. Environmental justice: Recent studies have documented that low-income people and racial
minorities disproportionately live in neighborhoods that have less tree cover than higher-income
neighborhoods and thus are at greater health risk during heat waves. Residents in these high-
density neighborhoods are more reliant on the environmental, economic, and human health
benefits provided by public street trees than residents of high-income neighborhoods.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
2
6. Integrated pest management reduces risk: Thousands of dead, standing ash trees throughout the
region will pose numerous liability threats to municipalities. Ash trees killed by EAB become
brittle very quickly and will begin to fall apart. Incorporating treatments to protect trees from
attack maintains a greater level of public safety by keeping trees in good condition. While there are
understandable concerns that pesticides used on ash trees could harm pollinators, especially bees,
studies and experts conclude that using treatments as part of a comprehensive strategy provides
more benefit than risk. For example, Marla Spivak, an internationally recognized expert on bees,
has said that the benefits of trunk-injected EB for ash trees outweigh potential harm to bees.
Deborah McCullough, a professor of entomology and forestry at Michigan State University,
concluded, “There is no reason for a landscape ash tree to die from emerald ash borer anymore.”
Terms
This proposal refers to several analyses and reports that are closely related, inter-dependent, and have
similar names. To minimize confusion, the following lists their titles and the shortened versions of their
names used herein (all titles are italicized and all reports are available upon request):
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis (Minnesota ATP Analysis) and the Ash Tree
Preservation Plan (ATP Plan): We analyzed the theoretical costs and the environmental and
economic benefits assuming the entire seven-county Twin Cities region participated in a landscape-
based emerald ash borer (EAB) management approach. The analysis compared two scenarios—a
Base Case and an integrated pest management approach we called the Ash Tree Preservation Plan
(ATP Plan). We then used the results to predict the costs and the benefits (environmental,
economic, and human health) that would result from the implementation of the Minnesota Ash Tree
Preservation Program, both at the regional level and statewide.
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program (Minnesota ATP Program or simply Program): The
Minnesota ATP Program is the subject of this proposal. We are encouraging the State to create
such a Program in order to more effectively manage the EAB infestation.
Minnesota Model Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan (Model EAB Management Plan): We
developed the Model EAB Management Plan to gather the best practices for tree inventories and
the most cost-effective, integrated pest management approach. We encourage its use in the
Minnesota ATP Program as a basis for the implementing State agency to make reimbursement
decisions.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
3
1. Problem—Invasive Species
Conservative estimates indicate that one in five of the private and public urban trees in the Twin
Cities metro area are ash, totaling approximately 1.7 million trees.2 Without treatment, virtually all
of these trees will die within ten-to-fifteen years due to the non-native invasive pest, the emerald
ash borer (EAB). According to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Minnesota has approximately one billion
susceptible ash trees statewide. EAB is the most destructive and
economically costly forest insect ever to invade the U.S.
Between 2002 and 2010, EAB was responsible for the death of
more than 100 million trees in 15 states.3 By 2011, it was
approximately four times as destructive nationally as the next
two most costly insect pests, the Gypsy moth and the Hemlock adelgid.4
EAB is an invasive beetle from Asia that was discovered in the United States in 2002 near Detroit,
Michigan. During the beetle’s immature stage, larvae feed on the inner bark of native ash trees
(genus Fraxinus) and disrupt the trees’ ability to transport water and nutrients. Low densities of
EAB have little effect on the health of a tree and it may take several years for EAB to build
populations large enough to infest an entire tree; however, once an ash tree is infested, it has almost
zero chance of survival.5 Many Minnesota cities have an abundance of ash trees on both private
and public property, including boulevards. The complete loss of these trees due to EAB will have a
devastating effect on the economy, home values, quality of life, human health, and the
environment.
While the aesthetic value of trees is easily grasped, scientific studies have also quantified their
environmental and economic value, as well as their value in reducing air pollution and health care
costs. For example, an average mature ash will provide approximately $170 in benefits annually.6
The evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of ten room-size air conditioners
operating twenty hours a day.7 One acre of urban forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and
emits four tons of oxygen annually.8 Tree roots have a profound effect on the soil environment.
They will direct 40-73% of assimilated carbon below ground.9 An average ash tree will intercept
about 1,800 gallons of stormwater annually.10
Stormwater interception by trees reduces the
peak-flow and flooding during intense storms, thereby reducing the amounts of pollutants that
2 Estimate from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
3 “Exploring Connections Between Trees and Human Health,” Science Findings, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S.
Forest Service, Jan./Feb. 2014, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi158.pdf 4 Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K, Chivers C, Britton KO, et al. (2011), “Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the
Continental United States,” PLoS ONE, 6(9): e24587. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024587,
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024587 5 For more information, refer to Herms, Daniel A., McCullough, Deborah G., “Emerald Ash Borer Invasion of North America:
History, Biology, Ecology, Impacts, and Management,” Annual Review of Entomology, 2014. 59:13–30 6 National Tree Benefits Calculator, http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/
7 “Trees of Strength,” North Carolina State University, n.d., http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/benefits.htm
8 “Benefits of Trees,” Arborday Foundation, n.d., http://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm.
9 Source: http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_26131781/silent-environmental-devastation
10 National Tree Benefit Calculator results for an ash tree with a 17-inch diameter at breast height,
http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator
Without treatment, EAB will kill the 255,000 high-quality ash trees in the Twin Cities and the 1 billion ash trees statewide.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
4
are washed into our rivers and lakes. Street trees even help extend the life of expensive asphalt by
40-60% by reducing daily heating and cooling of roads.11
As regards human health, a recent analysis by the World Health Organization confirmed that air
pollution is now the world’s single largest environmental health risk.12
In one study, stands of trees
reduced particulates by 9-13%, and the amount of dust reaching the ground was 27-42% less under
a stand of trees than in an open area. Another recent analysis, this one prepared by U.S. Forest
Service scientists and collaborators, provides the first broad-scale estimate of how trees reduce air
pollution, protect our health, and reduce health care costs. The article describing the analysis
quoted Michael T. Rains, Director of the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station and the Forest
Products Laboratory: “With more than 80 percent of Americans living in urban area, this research
underscores how truly essential urban forests are to people across the nation.” 13
The study
estimated that in 2010, trees in the urban areas of Minnesota removed 4,600 tons of pollutants from
the air and that this resulted in $26.7 million in reduced health care costs.14
The above paragraph covers studies that quantify how trees benefit
human health. Another study demonstrates how tree deaths from
the infestation are associated with human deaths. The analysis by
U.S. Forest Service scientists concluded that, “Poor air quality and
stress are risk factors for [lower respiratory disease and
cardiovascular disease], and trees can improve air quality and
reduce stress. Results showed that the spread of EAB across 15
states was associated with an additional 15,000 deaths from
cardiovascular disease and an additional 6,000 deaths from lower
respiratory disease.”15
EAB will not only kill trees, it will severely affect the budgets of local governments; budgets that
are already stressed by local economic bases that are still slowly recovering from the Great
Recession. The negative impacts of EAB will extend beyond budget stress to include local
governmental staff currently overwhelmed by constantly having to “do more with less.” The future
holds even more peril considering that, over the course of this infestation, climate change effects
and the costs to adapt to them will dwarf any previous challenges cities have faced. The future
ability of Minnesota cities to effectively address the needs of their citizens while managing damage
to infrastructure from invasive pests, an explosive increase in the number of hazard trees, and
increased severe weather events is uncertain. The urban forest is one of the most valuable parts of
the infrastructure of many Minnesota cities. For example, Minneapolis’ urban forest has an
11
Source: “City to Consider Special Funding for Trees,” City of Madison Wisconsin, 7/31/14,
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/city-to-consider-special-funding-for-trees 12
“7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution,” World Health Organization press release, 3/25/14,
www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en 13
“Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States,” Nowak, David, et al., Environmental Pollution,
7/25/14, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46102 14
The health impacts and their monetary values are based on the changes in NO2, O3, PM2.5 and SO2 concentrations using
information from the U.S. EPA Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program model
(http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/). 15
“Exploring Connections Between Trees and Human Health,” Science Findings, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S.
Forest Service, Jan./Feb. 2014, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi158.pdf
“...the spread of EAB across 15 states was associated with an additional 15,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease and an additional 6,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease.” —U.S. Forest Service
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
5
estimated value of $756 million.16
Most local governments that manage urban forests are woefully
unprepared.
2. Solution—a Landscape-Based Approach
Implementation of the proposed Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program (summarized below
and detailed in Attachment 1) will help to drastically
reduce public costs and minimize tree losses, which will
help keep strong one of Minnesota’s most valuable assets,
our urban forests.
The best approach to an EAB infestation is to fight it like a
human health epidemic. Just as epidemiologists cannot fight a flu epidemic city by city, EAB
cannot be efficiently fought city by city.
The good news is that recent scientific research and advances in pest control technology point the
way towards an integrated approach that can preserve our ash resources and reduce the economic
burden. This new integrated approach relies on regional management. A crucial finding from a
recent scientific analysis, known as the Kovacs Study, predicted that a regional or landscape-based
management and funding strategy would more effectively control the infestation than an
inconsistent, city-by-city response, or no response.17
The peer-reviewed Kovacs Study was based on the then-
current EAB management plans and budgets for the ash
trees located within a ten-kilometer radius of where EAB
was first detected in the Twin Cities, which included St.
Paul, Minneapolis, and 15 nearby cities. It projected and
analyzed tree loss data and the costs for tree removals,
replacement trees, and pesticide treatments. The
researchers also calculated how trees increase property
values, which is just one of the many benefits trees provide (e.g. stormwater interception, energy
conservation, reduction of carbon emissions, and improved human health). The analysis included
multiple scenarios, three of which are critical here:
The base case scenario assumed none of the cities involved developed EAB management
plans nor committed funds to manage the infestation. The EAB population was assumed to
spread unmitigated.
The second scenario assumed each of the 17 cities managed the infestation independently
with the known city budgets and plans at the time of the study.18
The cities were assumed to
16
Source: http://www.americanforests.org/our-Programs/urbanforests/10-best-cities-for-urban-forests/10-best-cities-for-urban-
forests-minneapolis/ 17
Kovacs, Kent. F.; Haight, Robert G.; Mercader, Rodrigo J.; McCullough, Deborah G.; “A bioeconomic analysis of an emerald
ash borer invasion of an urban forest with multiple jurisdictions.” Resource Energy Econ. (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.04.008 18
Since the publication of the study, the subject cities have invested different amounts to manage EAB. However, these changes
do not invalidate the study findings.
Epidemiologists cannot fight a flu epidemic city by city, just as EAB cannot be adequately fought city by city.
Aggregating budgets increases the percentage of healthy trees remaining in the final period by 18%, and doubles the total net tree benefits to property values. —Kovacs Study
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
6
employ treatments, preemptive removals, removals of infested trees, and replacement trees
for removed trees.
The third scenario matched the second scenario with one major exception: It assumed the
17 cities pooled their resources to manage the infestation in an optimal manner on a
regional scale.
The study compared the costs of removal, replacement, and treatment with the increased property
value benefits created by the surviving ash trees. In the base case scenario, the removal and
replacement costs far exceeded the amount the remaining trees improved property values. The
model returned a similar result in the second scenario where the cities acted independently.
However, when the cities pooled their resources in the third strategy, the increased property value
benefits of the surviving trees far exceeded the costs of treatments, removals, and replacement trees
(refer to Figure 1).
The comparison of the second and third strategies makes this study unique. Even though both
strategies assumed the same amount was spent on management, the results are quite different. The
report states that, “enabling municipalities to aggregate their budgets greatly improves total net
benefits.... In addition, aggregate budgets increase the percentage of healthy trees remaining in the
final period by 18%, and the total net [property value] benefits by more than double.”
This study led us to examine the potential of a regional and eventually a statewide approach to
managing the infestation by using State funds to guide strategy and match the funds local
governments invested to manage their individual ash forests.19
Figure 1: Net Present Value of Surviving Ash Trees for Three Different Strategies
Source: Kovacs, K.F., et al., “A bioeconomic analysis of an emerald ash borer invasion of an urban forest with multiple
jurisdictions,” Resource and Energy Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.04.008.
19
The proposed Program described herein does not call for local governments to pool their resources as was examined in the
Kovacs Study.
$(400,000)
$(300,000)
$(200,000)
$(100,000)
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
Base Case
Constrained by local
budgets
Aggregated budget
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
7
3. Experience of Other Cities and Related Efforts
We can learn from the experiences of other cities and states that have already been devastated by
EAB. In the years soon after it was discovered in North America, most communities attempted to
control EAB primarily by cutting down all ash trees to eliminate the beetle’s food supply. Experts
concluded the strategy was counterproductive. The beetles simply flew further to find host trees,
which spread the infestation. The key to successful management is reducing pest populations, and
new integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that include the pesticide emamectin benzoate
(EB) do that very well.
Westland, Michigan, one of the first communities hit
by EAB, provides a specific example of the effects
of the infestation. The removal of the 3,000
municipal ash trees killed by EAB “led to 33%
increase in outdoor water consumption, which
subsequently caused the regional water authority to
levy a 10% surcharge on the city.”20
With EAB still sweeping through Illinois, Scott Schirmer, who is the Plant and Pesticide Specialist
Supervisor and Emerald Ash Borer Program Manager at the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s
Bureau of Environmental Programs, reflected about the state’s early experience: “We promoted
local partnerships (cooperative efforts) for a long time as a way to deflect overall cost and
hopefully spread benefits, but it never really panned
out here. One of our major issues was the
individuality of each municipality and arborist, as
some were anti-pesticide and some were jumping on
board. However, looking back, I truly believe that’s
because the pesticides were still in their infancy and
not ‘tried and true’ on a large scale at the
time. Those communities that ‘had faith’ in the
treatments are having great success today, whereas
those that did not have lost large amounts of
canopy. Communities on the leading edge have
bought in a bit more, and are also benefitting from
early, proactive treatment.”
Chicago is an example of an Illinois city that “had
faith” in treatments. According to a press release
from Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago is using
emamectin benzoate to inoculate its high-quality ash
trees. “The City of Chicago is committed to the health of the more than 500,000 parkway trees that
not only beautify our neighborhoods, but offer countless environmental benefits.”21
20
Source: McCullough, Deborah G.; Mercader, Rodrigo J.; “Evaluation of potential strategies to SLow Ash Mortality (SLAM)
caused by emerald ash borer (Agrilus Planipennis): SLAM in an urban forest,” International Journal of Pest Management, Vol.
58, No. 1, January–March 2012, 9–23.
The tree canopy in Westland Michigan was so devastated by the infestation that the city had to pay water surcharges because of the 33% increase in water consumption.
“Those communities that ‘had faith’ in the treatments are having great success today, whereas those that did not have lost large amounts of canopy.” —Scott Shirmer, Emerald Ash Borer Program Manager at the Illinois Department of Agriculture “The City of Chicago is committed to the health of the more than 500,000 parkway trees that not only beautify our neighborhoods, but offer countless environmental benefits.” —Mayor Rahm Emanuel The City of Milwaukee is treating 33,000 ash trees.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
8
The City of Milwaukee began treating 33,000 of its larger ash trees in 2009 with emamectin
benzoate as part of a plan to stage ash trees for their eventual removal while they transitioned to
alternative species. However, residents have been so supportive of ash tree preservation that the
city is considering altering the Program to long-term preservation and to begin protecting smaller
ash trees as well.22
The experience of the City of Madison Wisconsin is
telling as regards effects on the city budget, as
reported in the Wisconsin State Journal. The
newspaper quoted Mark Clear, a City Alderman, as
stating, “One of the things really looming is the cost
of the emerald ash borer. It’s one of the fastest
growing areas of the budget, and it’s almost completely out of our control. I don’t think anyone
wants to see the urban forest decimated.” The article went on to report that the city was removing
approximately 8,500 ash trees and treating about 12,500 more. “The overall forestry budget is
jumping from $3.6 million in 2013 to a projected $5.9 million in 2015.” To fund the increased
costs, the city is considering levying a fee on property owners based on street frontage (which is
even more regressive than property taxes).23
We are not alone in suggesting State support for statewide efforts that preserve our urban forests.
The draft 2016-17 budget of the Minnesota Urban and Community Forestry Workgroup of Clean
Air Minnesota calls for $13 million in State funds per year for five years to support a “multi-
pronged approach” that accomplishes numerous goals including creating a program for cities to
utilize citizen volunteers to conduct tree inventories and develop management plans.24
In addition,
eight organizations, including three State agencies, are seeking State funds for a program that will
“develop a sustainable, scalable format that all Minnesota cities can use to mobilize citizens to care
for trees.”25
4. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis
We analyzed the theoretical costs and benefits assuming the entire seven-county Twin Cities region
participated in a landscape-based EAB management approach. Our Minnesota Ash Tree
Preservation Analysis includes 100% of the approximately 450,500 public ash trees that are in the
21
Chicago Office of Mayor Press Release, “City of Chicago begins second year of emerald ash borer inoculations: City to Treat
35,000 Ash Trees in 2014,” Source:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2014/May/5.19.14AshBorer.pd
f 22
Source: “Managing EAB Risk with Ash Injections,” Milwaukee Forestry, Randy Krouse, Urban Forestry District Manager,
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, http://milwaukeetrees.milwaukee.gov/pdf/Milwaukee_ManagEAB.pdf 23
Source: “Madison council members recommend special fee to pay for city’s forestry program,” Wisconsin State Journal,
7/31/14, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-council-members-recommend-special-fee-to-pay-
for-city/article_a66b8eb6-e485-5dd3-9b86-05743186d8a8.html 24
Source: http://www.environmental-initiative.org/projects/clean-air-minnesota 25
Source: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=21184
“The overall forestry budget is jumping from $3.6 million in 2013 to a projected $5.9 million in 2015.” —Mark Clear, Madison Alderman
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
9
region’s urbanized areas.26
The analysis compared two scenarios—a Base Case that assumed the
removal of 100% of the ash trees and replacement of the 255,000 high-quality trees, and an
integrated pest management approach called the Ash Tree Preservation Plan (ATP Plan). The ATP
Plan scenario included pesticide treatments for the high-quality trees using trunk-injected
emamectin benzoate (refer to Section 6 for a summary of the potential impacts of the use of this
pesticide). High-quality trees are public trees in good condition that are visible from active public
areas (streets, front yards, and active areas of parks).27
The 13 charts in Attachment 2 and the table in Attachment 3 summarize the startling results.28
Over
the 20-year period of the infestation, the ATP Plan approach can preserve the high-quality trees at a
total cumulative cost ($145 million) that is over 40%
lower than the Base Case cost ($254 million) while
preserving more than twice the tree canopy.29
For every
dollar of cost, the ATP Plan preserves approximately
twice as much of the economic and environmental
benefits from trees as the Base Case.
Most of the charts in Attachment 2 have boxes that
include “Takeaway” statements that highlight the
primary lesson from the chart. Chart 1 shows the
breakout of the three categories of ash trees in the
region used for the study. Chart 2 compares the costs
over the 20-year study period and Chart 3 shows the
remaining tree cover. Chart 4 combines the cost and
DBH (diameter at breast height) data by showing how
the two scenarios compare by Year 10 and Year 20 in
terms of how invested dollars result in preserved canopy cover. Chart 5 is a similar comparison,
this time showing how invested dollars preserve tree benefits. Chart 8 shows the cumulative tree
benefits associated with both scenarios over 20 years. Charts 6 to 12 provide the comparisons for
each of the tree benefits (increase in property value, intercepted stormwater, electricity and natural
gas conservation, carbon reduction, and reduction in health care costs). Finally, Chart 13 includes a
return on investment analysis that assumed 2% annual inflation and a 5% discount factor.
Using data from this analysis and from 17 Twin Cities suburbs, a typical city in the region is facing
approximately $1.5 million in EAB management costs over the next 10 years if it relies solely on a
26
Excluded were trees in non-urban areas and in woodlands, and private trees. 27
Both scenarios assumed removal without replacement of approximately 195,500 low-priority trees. Low-priority trees are
those in poor condition and those in areas that are not visible from publically accessible areas. 28
The calculations for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis take into account annual tree growth for existing and
replacement trees, infestation mortality rates, costs for removal of trees and stumps based on tree size in the year of removal,
costs for purchase and installation of replacement trees, relatively higher maintenance and mortality rates for replacement trees,
treatment costs based on annual tree size (labor, materials, and overhead), peak-period cost escalators, tree benefits based on
annual trees size (overall economic value, increase in property values, stormwater interception, energy conservation (electricity
and natural gas), and carbon sequestration and avoidance), estimates of how surviving trees offset the energy consumption and
carbon emissions of average Minnesota households, and reduction in health care costs. All data sources are available upon
request. 29
The analysis uses trunk size as a surrogate for tree canopy measurements. Trunk size is measured as diameter at breast height
(DBH).
The Base Case costs twice as much as the Ash Tree Preservation Plan in Year 10 ($800,000 more for a typical Twin Cities suburb), and 40% more than the ATP Plan in Year 20, yet results in a tree canopy that is less than half as large in Year 20. Investing in the ATP Plan provides a very strong return on investment for more than 20 years. For every dollar of cost, the ATP Plan preserves approximately twice as much of the economic and environmental benefits from trees as the Base Case.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
10
strategy of removal and replacement of city trees (the Base Case), or an $800,000 savings if it
employs the integrated pest management strategies described herein.
5. Proposal—Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
We recommend that Minnesota, in keeping with its long-established reputation for good
government, be the first state to battle EAB using a landscape-based strategy. Minnesota should
create what we call, the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program (Minnesota ATP Program or
Program). The Minnesota ATP Program could serve as an informational clearinghouse of best
practices to manage the infestation and offer State-funded grants to help local governments develop
and implement EAB management plans that are consistent with the integrated pest management
approach described herein. Public funds would be available to subsidize expenditures by public
entities to manage their urban forests. As conceived, the Program would be implemented on a pilot
basis first within the Twin Cities region and later statewide.30
The following subsections describe
the conceptual design of the Program (Subsection 5.1 and Attachment 1), the environmental justice
issue (Subsection 5.2), and the estimated costs and benefits of the Program including rough
estimates for eventual statewide implementation (Subsection 5.3).
5.1. Conceptual Design of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
The following provides a summary of the conceptual design of the proposed Minnesota Ash
Tree Preservation Program, to be implemented within the Twin Cities first as a pilot, then
statewide. The goal of the Program is to develop a science-based strategy to help local
governments manage the EAB infestation in the most cost-effective manner by providing
guidance and matching funds targeted to preserving high-quality public ash trees. Although
the Program is oriented to urbanized areas, experts conclude that the most effective way to
slow and control the spread of the infestation is by reducing pest pressure (i.e. reducing the
number of beetles). Controlling pest pressure in urbanized areas ultimately helps to slow its
spread to non-urban forests where it could have a devastating effect on riparian areas such
as trout streams that depend upon black ash, and on the fishing industry and habitat.
Attachment 1 provides a more detailed description of the components of the Program as
conceived to date. It describes eligible Program participants and activities; lists possible
tree inventory methods; recommends a specific treatment protocol; and includes estimates
of the costs and the economic, environmental, and human health benefits of preserved trees.
Many matters will need to be resolved by the implementing State agency. The attachment
touches on several of them including the grant approval process, the need by cities that are
already under attack by the infestation to obtain quick approval for participation in the
Program, the need to minimize administrative costs for cities with small inventories of
high-quality ash trees, liability considerations, and reporting requirements.
30
The lessons learned in the pilot Program in the Twin Cities should be readily applicable for other urban areas in the state (e.g.
Winona, Rochester, St. Cloud, Mankato, and Duluth) and for stand-alone cities and towns. The concept of a landscape-based
strategy is not limited to contiguous areas or to the budgets of local governments. The concept as described herein involves the
pooling of public resources from both local and State government, and implementing a coordinated and integrated pest
management strategy first region-wide then statewide.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
11
As currently proposed, the Program is expected to reimburse 67% of local governmental
costs to develop EAB management plans and tree inventories, and 50% of the costs for
treatments of high-quality public ash trees. The State may also wish to target Program
funds for removals of low-quality trees.
The proposed Program calls for the
implementing agency to adopt what we call the
Minnesota Model Emerald Ash Borer
Management Plan. This plan will define the
standards for tree inventories and detail the
most cost-effective, integrated pest
management approach. The implementing
State agency should use this plan to make reimbursement decisions. The authors have
already developed a prototype of this model plan (available upon request). It summarizes
what is known about the infestation and the habits of the beetle, sets seven goals, and
describes 22 best practices. It has been vetted by scientists and scores of representatives
from cities and public agencies throughout the region.
5.2. Environmental Justice
There are important environmental justice aspects to the Program. Without State help,
cities and counties will probably rely on property taxes and special fees and assessments to
fight the infestation, which are among the most regressive of taxes. In contrast, State funds
for this Program will primarily come from the State’s most progressive tax, the state
income tax.
Compared to the younger suburbs, the central cities and first-ring suburbs are more likely to
have a higher density of homes that are typically closer to the street and highway corridors,
which results in greater exposure to vehicle emissions. They have greater proportions of
communities of color, vulnerable populations (over age 65 and under 5), lower income
residents, and people who suffer from higher rates of asthma and other health issues.
These higher-density urban areas have relatively
fewer public and private trees to mitigate these
conditions. The relationships among household
income, race, and tree canopy cover have been
quantified by several recent studies. An analysis
by the Washington Post examined these
relationships in Washington D.C. and found that
lower-income neighborhoods had substantially
less tree canopy cover compared to high-income
neighborhoods.31
An article in The Atlantic
31
“Environmentalists face challenges trying to plant in less-green neighborhoods,” Annie Gowen and Ted Mellnik,
Washington Post, 4/26/13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/environmentalists-face-challenges-trying-to-plant-in-less-
green-neighborhoods/2013/04/25/21294968-ad27-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_story.html
The Minnesota Model Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan has been vetted by scientists and scores of representatives from cities and public agencies throughout the region.
Recent studies have documented that low-income people and racial minorities disproportionately live in neighborhoods that have less tree cover than higher-income neighborhoods and thus are at greater health risk during heat waves.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
12
characterized the study’s conclusion by saying: “Tree density in Washington, in short,
provides a kind of proxy for wealth (and if you’ve spent time in Washington, you also
know that wealth is a proxy for race).”32
Figure 2 illustrates these relationships by
showing tree canopy for three sample neighborhoods of differing average household
incomes.
Another study that analyzed 63,436 census block groups from across the country
covering 304 metropolitan areas and more than 81 million people showed that these
correlations among income, race, and tree cover are national in scope. Researchers
identified those blocks most at risk in extreme heat waves due to the lack of tree cover or
the presence of too much asphalt and other impervious surfaces, and suggested that
people who live in these neighborhoods may be at the highest heat risk levels as
temperatures warm with climate change. They found that African Americans were 52%
more likely than whites to live in such neighborhoods, Asians were 32% more likely, and
Hispanics were 21% more likely.33
Figure 2: Comparison of Tree Cover with Household Income
Sources: University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Casey Trees, Sandia National Laboratories;
Montgomery, Prince George’s and Fairfax counties; satellite imagery via Google Earth Pro. Ted Mellnik and Annie Gowen/The
Washington Post. Published on April 25, 2013, 10:39 p.m.
32
“The Inequality of Urban Tree Cover: Minorities are significantly more likely to live in heat-prone neighborhoods that will be
particularly at risk with climate change,” Mily Badger, The Atlantic, 5/15/13.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/05/inequality-urban-tree-cover/5604/ 33
“The Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Heat Risk-Related Land Cover in Relation to Residential Segregation,” Bill M. Jesdale,
Rachel Morello-Frosch and Lara Cushing, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 5/14/13,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205919
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
13
Since these low-income neighborhoods also include a higher percentage of renters and
absentee landlords, residents will have less control and financial ability to bear the costs for
public and private tree management. Residents in high-density urban areas are more reliant
on the environmental, economic, and human health benefits provided by public street trees.
5.3. Program Results
We used the data generated for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis to predict
costs and benefits associated with implementing the Program. Two critical assumptions in
this analysis are the participation rate and minimum city size. We assumed that participation
in the Program would be restricted to the 108 cities in the region and the 100 cities in
Greater Minnesota with populations of 3,000 or higher. We assumed that the 75%
participation rate would “capture” both 75% of these cities and thus, 75% of all of the
public ash trees in the region and the State.
For the regional pilot project, local funds from eligible participants (approximately $38
million total, average of $2 million per year) would be matched by total Program funds
(approximately $41 million total, average of $2 million per year) for a grand total of $79
million (average of $4 million per year) to preserve 190,000 high-quality public trees in the
region (this equals 75% of the estimated 255,000 total high-quality trees in the region). It
costs approximately $220 in Program funds per preserved tree. On average, these high-
quality ash trees will provide annual benefits with an overall economic value of $39 million
each year. Over the 20-year study
period, every dollar of Program
funds will result in $19 in cumulative
economic value. On average each
year, the preservation of these trees
will increase property values by $9
million, intercept 546 million gallons
of stormwater, conserve enough
energy to offset the average annual
consumption of 5,400 Minnesota
households, and reduce CO2
emissions by 110,000 tons (which
equals the annual average
consumption of 6,500 Minnesota
households). As regards human
health, the air pollution reduction benefit provided by trees preserved by the Program
would reduce health care costs by approximately $565,000 million each year.
To estimate the results from a statewide implementation of the Program, low, medium, and
high estimates were derived from the key regional cost factors. Attachment 4 shows the
results for the averages of these estimates, which are approximately 60% higher than the
regional figures. For the 20-year study period, local funds from eligible participants
(approximately $60 million total, average of $3 million per year) would be matched by total
Program funds (approximately $66 million total, average of $3.3 million per year) for a
Program Cost-Benefit Comparison:
Total Program dollars per tree: ............. $220
Average annual tree benefits per Program dollar: o Overall economic value: ................... $19 o Property value increase: .................... $4 o Stormwater interception: ...........260 gal o Electricity conservation: ............. 27 kWh o Natural gas conservation: ........ 4 therms o CO2 reduction: ............................. 110 lbs o Health care savings due to
reduced air pollution: ................... $0.44
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
14
grand total of $125 million (average of $6.2 million per year) to preserve the estimated
306,000 high-quality public trees in the participating communities. The air pollution
reduction benefit provided by trees preserved by the Program would reduce health care
costs by approximately $900,000 each year.
6. Pesticide Safety
We recognize the increasing and well-warranted concerns
regarding the overreliance on pesticides. Neonicotinoids
and their effects on pollinators, such as bees, and soil-
applied products that have the potential to reach
stormwater or ground water have all been highly
publicized.
The pesticide recommended herein, emamectin benzoate
(EB), is not a neonicotinoid and is injected into the trunks
of the trees. Ash trees are wind pollinated, they are not a
substantial nectar source for bees, and they flower early
in the growing season and only for a limited number of
days. “It is highly unlikely that bees would be exposed to
systemic insecticides applied to ash.”34
EB has a low
toxicity rating for mammals, a low bioaccumulation
potential within ecosystems, and is immobile in soil. This means that the insecticide will not build
up levels within an ecosystem and will be minimally harmful to people and animals that might
encounter tree debris.35
While there are valid concerns regarding the overuse of
pesticides in our environment, those concerns should be
aimed at reducing pesticide use where fewer benefits
result. The environmental consequences of losing
millions of ash trees are vastly greater than the minimal
risk associated with inoculating high-quality ash trees to
protect them from certain death. Marla Spivak, the
Distinguished McKnight Professor in Entomology at the University of Minnesota, and an
internationally recognized expert on bees, has said that the benefits of trunk-injected EB for ash
34
“Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Potential Side Effects of Systemic Insecticides Used To Control Emerald Ash
Borer,” http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/eab/PDF/potentialSideEffectsofEABInsecticidesFAQ.pdf 35
“Emamectin benzoate is derived from a naturally occurring soil bacterium and has been registered for more than 10 years as a
foliar spray to control pests in vegetable and cotton fields and parasitic sea lice in salmon aquaculture. Similar products are used
in veterinary medicine as wormers for dogs, horses, and other animals.” “Insecticide concentrations that have been measured in
treated trees are far below the levels known to be toxic to birds.... In Michigan and Ohio, where EAB has been established for
several years, many ash trees have been treated with systemic insecticides. There have been no reported cases of woodpecker
poisoning caused by insecticides applied for control of EAB.” (Hahn, Herms, McCullough, 2011)
Emamectin benzoate is not a neonicotinoid and its use should result in minimal exposure to pollinators.
The benefits of trunk-injected EB for ash trees outweigh the minimal potential harm to bees. —Dr. Marla Spivak, Distinguished McKnight Professor in Entomology at the University of Minnesota
Treatments for a typical tree preserve all of the tree's benefits for less than half of the costs, using less than 13 ounces of pesticide over each 10-year period.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
15
trees outweigh the minimal potential harm to bees.36
Dr. Deborah McCullough, a professor of
entomology and forestry at Michigan State University, has stated, “There is no reason for a
landscape ash tree to die from emerald ash borer anymore.”37
7. The Time to Act is Now
Acting individually, local governments can choose to
manage the infestation or wait and let the beetles attack
their already strained budgets. As the Minnesota ATP
Program shows, the third and best choice is a holistic,
landscape-based response that is centrally managed and
that will minimize costs and maximize the value of the
remaining urban forest. The Minnesota ATP Program
will not only save money, it will reduce liabilities. The
local government that delays action or relies on a removals-only approach will be overwhelmed
with public hazard trees and probably the lawsuits that will follow.
The time to act is now—before the infestation (that has been here since before 2009 already)
exponentially increases in population, and tree deaths escalate as seen in other cities. As the pest
population increases and a greater number of trees die, the number of management options goes
down (refer to Figure 3).
Figure 3: The Relationship between the EAB “Death Curve” and Management Options
Source: Davey Tree Company
36
At the Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course held in Arden Hills, Minnesota, March 18 and 19, Dr. Marla Spivak, the
Distinguished McKnight Professor in Entomology at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognized expert on
bees, said that the benefits of trunk-injected emamectin benzoate outweigh potential harm to bees. 37
“Emerald ash borer treatments costing less, working better,” Minneapolis StarTribune, 8/8/13:
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/218936301.html
The local government that delays action or relies on a removals-only approach will be overwhelmed with public hazard trees, and the lawsuits that will follow. The time to act is now.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
16
Attachments
1. Conceptual Design of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
2. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis: Charts for the Twin Cities
3. Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis: Table for the Twin Cities
4. Cost and Benefit Estimates for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program, Years 1-20
5. Brief Summaries of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis and the Minnesota Ash Tree
Preservation Program
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
17
ATTACHMENT 1
Conceptual Design of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
The following describes the parameters for the proposed Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
(Minnesota ATP Program or Program). It is intended as a step in the process whereby one or more State
agencies decide to create the Program and obtain State funding for implementation.
The goal of the Program is to develop a science-based strategy to help local governments manage the
EAB infestation in the most cost-effective manner by providing guidance and matching funds targeted to
preserving high-quality public ash trees.
Minnesota Model Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan: The proposed Program calls for the
implementing agency to adopt what we call the Minnesota Model Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan.
This plan will define the standards for tree inventories and detail the most cost-effective, integrated pest
management approach. The implementing State agency should use this plan to make reimbursement
decisions. The authors have already developed a prototype of this model plan (available upon request). It
summarizes what is known about the infestation and the habits of the beetle, sets seven goals, and
describes 22 best practices. It has been vetted by scientists and scores of representatives from cities and
public agencies throughout the region. This plan can serve as a starting point for the development of a
model plan for the State to adopt as part of the Program.
Eligible Program participants: Since the purpose of the Minnesota ATP Program is to preserve high-
quality public ash trees, public bodies that have been created or chartered by the State that have some
control (ownership or otherwise) over public ash trees should be eligible for participation in the Program.
This would include local governments (cities and counties), public institutions that control large numbers
of trees on campuses (e.g. educational and medical facilities, school districts, prisons, and public
cemeteries), and public agencies such as watershed districts. Public bodies that have some control over
trees but not ownership (such as watershed districts) could collaborate with the owners of public trees or
neighborhood organizations to seek Program matching funds. For simplicity, we refer herein to eligible
Program participants and their funds as local governments and local funds.
Eligible trees and the tree condition rating system: The State should adopt a tree rating system by
which public ash trees are classified as low quality or high quality. One possible system was developed by
the Community Engagement and Preparedness Program at the University of Minnesota, Department of
Forest Resources. Only expenses incurred to preserve high-quality public trees should be eligible for
Program matching funds.38
Eligible activities and matching fund levels: The Program should include the following activities as
eligible for Program matching funds for a significant portion of the costs. Local funds can cover the rest of
project costs. Both private funds and non-State-public funds spent on eligible activities can be counted as
part of the project match. Our analysis assumed that Program funds would reimburse local governmental
costs for 67% of planning expenses and 50% of treatment expenses. It also assumed a 75% participation
38
It is possible that some cities will not have complete records to determine ownership of boulevard trees. However, it will be in
the interest of these cities to resolve any ambiguity in order to include trees in the Program.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
18
rate over the 20-year study period, i.e. 75% of the cities in the region and in the state would participate
and, for simplicity, the Program would “capture” 75% of the high-quality public trees.
Tree inventory and EAB management plans: Eligible participants may seek Program matching
funds for the development of EAB management plans. The State should certify an applicant’s draft
EAB plan as being consistent with the Minnesota Model EAB Management Plan to qualify for
reimbursement funds. The local EAB plan must include an inventory of all of the public trees
(including the ash trees) and an acceptable categorization of at least the ash trees according to the
tree condition rating system to be adopted by the implementing State agency. The inventory can be
prepared either by a certified arborist or someone trained by a program acceptable to the State.39, 40
Treatment of high-quality trees: Eligible participants that have a certified inventory of all of the
public ash trees and an acceptable categorization of the trees according to the State’s adopted tree
condition rating system may seek Program matching funds for the costs related to treating high-
quality public trees. Eligible treatments shall conform to those defined in the Minnesota Model
EAB Management Plan. Generally, they include trunk-injected emamectin benzoate administered
every three years during the aggressive treatment period (defined as the first 12 years after the
project has begun), every five years through Year 20, and on an as-needed basis thereafter.
Participants may use non-Program funds if they choose to rely on a more aggressive treatment
protocol.
Additional strategies to reduce pest pressure: Other strategies to reduce pest pressure, such as
tree girdling and the use and removal of trap trees, are eligible for matching funds provided the
strategies are consistent with the Minnesota Model ATP Plan. For simplicity, costs for these
strategies are not included in this report at this time.
Conceptual budget: The second and third tables in Attachment 3 provide rough estimates of the total
costs of the Program, average annual costs, local government costs, expected Program benefits
(economic, environmental, and human health), and cost-benefit comparisons. Cost estimates are based on
the assumptions described herein and on the results of the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis.41
The tables address both the proposed pilot project in the Twin Cities region as well as very rough
approximations for the statewide implementation of the Program. The statewide figures represent the
midrange of high-to-low-range estimates of likely Program costs (refer also to Attachment 5).42
39
Possible training programs include Tree Inspectors and Tree Care Advisors. Certified arborists in some areas of the State are
harder to find and more expensive. 40
Developing and maintaining a tree inventory is a necessary first step in managing not only EAB but also future pests and
diseases that threaten specific species. 41
The calculations for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis takes into account annual tree growth for existing and
replacement trees, infestation mortality rates, costs for removal of trees and stumps based on tree size in the year of removal,
costs for purchase and installation of replacement trees, relatively higher maintenance and mortality rates for replacement trees,
treatment costs based on annual tree size (labor, materials, and overhead), peak-period cost escalators, tree benefits based on
annual trees size (overall economic value, increase in property values, stormwater interception, energy conservation (electricity
and natural gas), and carbon sequestration and avoidance), estimates of how surviving trees offset the energy consumption and
carbon emissions of average Minnesota households, and reduced health care costs. All data sources are available upon request. 42
All assumptions are subject to change and the bases for them are available upon request.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
19
Private trees: The proposed Program limits State support to public ash trees. A reasonable question is
“what about private trees?” The reasoning behind limiting Program reimbursements to public tree costs is
that State subsidies for private property would likely necessitate additional layers of complexities and
require significantly higher implementation costs. Secondly, State subsidies for public trees can free up
local governmental resources for private ash trees should they choose to do so.
Matters that will require further definition: Several issue areas are beyond the scope of this proposal.
The implementing State agency will need to further define them.
Education and public outreach: The implementing State agency will need to develop a separate
education and public outreach program to help publicize the Program, or piggyback on current
efforts that focus on the EAB infestation. The costs for this aspect of the Program will be higher in
the early years and minimal after Year 10. They are assumed to be incorporated in the indirect cost
percentage.
Minimal tree inventory threshold: Since administrative costs generally vary inversely with the
cost of a project, the State may want to set a minimum threshold level for eligibility; for example, a
minimum number of high-quality public trees. This proposal assumed only local governments with
populations of 3,000 people or larger would be eligible for participation; however, the
implementing agency may, of course, choose a different threshold or no minimum size. The
implementing agency might consider the creation of a small fund for eligible participants with
worthy projects that meet all but the minimum tree inventory threshold. If approved, the State
could create separate criteria for obtaining these small matching grants. The administrative
requirements (grant approval, EAB plan approval, reporting requirements, etc.) may be relaxed to
reduce the administrative burden on all parties. At this time, the cost-benefit analysis does not
incorporate this kind of special project fund.
Incentives for early action by cities currently under attack: The earliest the Program could be
approved and funded will be late spring 2015, and it may take several additional months for the
Program to become operational. This probably means that the infestation will be able to spread and
intensify for another season before Program implementation. For cities that have yet to be infested,
this timing should not be problematic. However, it seems unfair if the Program can’t reimburse a
city that will have invested in eligible activities before the Program becomes operational.
Furthermore, if the Program had some way to reimburse these past eligible investments, it would
incent local governments with current or close infestations to both support the creation of the
Program, and begin or amend their EAB management efforts to be consistent with the Minnesota
Model EAB Management Plan.
Grant approval process: The State will need to develop a grant application form and process, and
approve matching grants based on the relative quality of the applications; the potential for project
success; prior State support for EAB management; and the potential impacts of the project on the
environment, the economy, human health, and on environmental justice issues. Funding for the
Program will be set through the State’s normal Executive and Legislative processes.
Proposal to Create the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program
20
Reporting: Matching fund recipients will have to file annual reports with the implementing State
agency and these reports will have to meet the agency’s normal standards for accounting for the
use of public funds.
Liability: Eligible participants shall hold the State harmless for all activities that use Program
funds.
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation AnalysisUpdated: 9/3/14
Charts for Public, Low- and High-Quality Trees in the Twin Cities (does not include trees in woodlands and non-urban areas)
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Chart 2 Cumulative Costs
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Base Case
Base Case Without Replacement Trees
Base Case: Area below dotted red line represents removal costs; above it are tree replacement costs.
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan's costs are 58% lower than the Base Case costs.
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Chart 3 Net DBH
Theoretical DBH (no EAB)
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Base Case
Base Case Without Replacement Trees
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 7 Cumulative Intercepted
Stormwater (billions of gallons)
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan preserves 67% more of the stormwater benefit compared to the Base Case: 2.8 billion more gallons.
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 6 Ave. Annual Increase
in Property Values
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: On average, the ATP Plan preserves 43% more of the average annual property value benefit compared to the Base Case: $2 million more.
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 4 Costs Per DBH
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Takeaway: By Year 10, every dollar invested in the ATP Plan preserves 11 times as much DBH compared to having to pay for the Base Case: 4 million more inches of trunk diameter.
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 5 Total Cumulative Tree
Value Per Dollar of Cost
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Takeaway: By Year 10, every dollar invested in the ATP Plan preserves 4 times as much tree value compared to having to pay for the Base Case: $210 million more.
High-QualityTrees in High-Priority Areas,
255,000 , 29%
Trees in Low-Priority Areas, 195,500 , 22%
Trees in Woodlands and Non-urban
Areas (excluded), 429,250 , 49%
Chart 1 Public Ash Trees in
the 7-County Twin Cities Region
Total: 880,000 trees
Minnesota ATP Analysis 090214, Charts for report
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation AnalysisUpdated: 9/3/14
Charts for Public, Low- and High-Quality Trees in the Twin Cities (does not include trees in woodlands and non-urban areas)
$250 Chart 4 Chart 1
$-
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,600,000,000
$1,800,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Chart 8 Cumulative Tree Value
Theoretical Tree Value (no EAB)
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Base Case
Takeaway: Using only 24 ounces of pesticide over a 20-year period, the price of replacing one tree could preserve 2 mature trees that would provide 4 times the tree benefit value.
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 9 Cumulative Electricity
Conservation (MWh)
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan preserves 56% more of the electricity conservation benefit compared to the Base Case: 280,000 more megawatt hours. Annually offsets the consumption of 3,500 MN households.
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 11 Cumulative CO2 Reduction
(tons of CO2)
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan preserves 58% more of the CO2 reduction benefit compared to the Base Case: 555,000 more tons. Annually offsets the emissions of 8,700 MN households.
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 10 Cumulative Natural Gas
Conservation (therms)
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan preserves 60% more of the natural gas conservation benefit compared to the Base Case: 40 million more therms. Annually offsets the consumption of 8,800 MN households.
-100% -70%
-8%
41%
134%
247%
300% 306% 286%
257%
174%
136%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20
Years
Chart 13 Return on Investment for
Ash Tree Preservation Plan vs. Base Case Scenario
Takeaway: Assuming 2% annual inflation and 5% discount factor, the Ash Tree Preservation Plan approach provides a positive return (i.e. additional dollars on top of the original investment) of $0.41 in Year 4 for every dollar invested, and a return as high as $3.06 in Year 8 for
every dollar invested. Returns remain highly positive in Year 15 and Year 20.
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Year 10 Year 20
Chart 12 Cumulative Health Care
Cost Reduction
Base Case
Ash Tree Preservation Plan
Theoretical Case (no EAB)
Takeaway: By Year 10, the ATP Plan preserves 53% more of the health care cost reduction benefit compared to the Base Case: $2.6 million more.
Minnesota ATP Analysis 090214, Charts for report
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis
Base Case ATP Plan
Remove all trees,
replace high-
quality trees
Remove low-quality
trees, treat high-
quality trees
Total cumulative costs 254,218,692$ 145,014,165$ (109,204,527)$ -43%
Public ash trees lost 450,500 195,500 (255,000)
Preserved public ash trees - 255,000
DBH of ash and replacement trees in Year 20 2,586,125 6,450,271 3,864,146 149%
Cumulative tree value for ash and replacement trees 590,414,857$ 1,165,100,335$ 574,685,479$ 97%
Cumulative interception of stormwater (billions of gal.) 5.5 14.6 9.1 165%
Cumulative electricity conservation (MWh) 765,498 1,498,747 733,249 96%
Cumulative natural gas conservation (therms) 99,218,742 208,887,083 109,668,341 111%
CO2 reduction (tons CO2) 1,375,330 2,950,796 1,575,466 115%
Cumulative health care savings due to preserved trees 2 7,395,874$ 15,070,802$ 7,674,928$ 104%
Notes:
1
2
Comparison of costs and resulting tree canopies (includes 255,000 high-quality trees and 195,500 low-quality
trees; a total of 450,500 ash trees):
Tree benefits (based on the National Tree Benefits Calculator except for the health care cost savings):
Comparison of Scenarios for Twin Cities, Years 1-20 1
ATP Plan
Minus Base
Case
Percent
Difference Includes all public ash trees in the urbanized areas of the Twin Cities; does not include woodland trees
A recent study estimated that in 2010, trees in the urban areas of Minnesota removed 4,600 tons of pollutants from the air and that this resulted in $26.7 million in reduced health care
costs. Figures assume that 60% of the urban trees in the state are in the Twin Cities and that 20% of urban trees are ash. Source: “Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in
the United States,” Nowak, David, et al., Environmental Pollution , 7/25/14, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46102
The calculations for the Ash Tree Preservation Analysis for the Twin Cities takes into account annual tree growth for existing and replacement trees, infestation mortality rates, costs for
removal of trees and stumps based on tree size in the year of removal, costs for purchase and installation of replacement trees, relatively higher maintenance and mortality rates for
replacement trees, treatment costs based on annual tree size (labor, materials, and overhead), peak-period cost escalators, tree benefits based on annual trees size (overall economic value,
increase in property values, stormwater interception, energy conservation (electricity and natural gas), and carbon sequestration and avoidance), and estimates of how surviving trees offset
the energy consumption and carbon emissions of average Minnesota households. All data sources are available upon request.
Minnesota ATP Analysis 090214; Tables for Report
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Analysis
Program FundsLocal Government
Funds
Total Public
FundsProgram Funds
Local
Government
Funds
Total Public
Funds
Estimated average annual costs (incorporates the assumed 75% city participation rate):
Tree inventories and EAB management plans (assumes a 67% Program match) 208,104$ 102,499$ 310,603$ 182,091$ 89,687$ 271,778$
Treatments for high-quality trees (assumes a 50% Program match) 2,785,671$ 2,785,671$ 5,571,342$ 1,741,044$ 1,741,044$ 3,482,089$
Program administration, public education and publicity, and indirect costs 2 233,326$ 115,527$ 348,852$ 145,959$ 73,229$ 219,188$
Average annual total 3,299,837$ 3,003,697$ 6,230,797$ 2,069,094$ 1,903,960$ 3,973,054$
Total estimated costs, Years 1-20 65,996,738$ 60,073,936$ 124,615,947$ 41,381,878$ 38,079,205$ 79,461,083$
Statewide
Program
Regional Pilot
Program
Cost-Benefit
Comparison
306,000 191,250 216$
Overall economic value / Benefit per Program dollar 62,828,442$ 39,267,776$ 19$
Increase in property values / Benefit per Program dollar (amount in last column) 14,505,844$ 9,066,152$ 4$
Increased stormwater interception (gal.) / Benefit per Program dollar 873,245,512 545,778,445 264
Average number of average Minnesota households for which energy consumption is offset by preserved trees
every year8,699 5,437
Increased CO2 reduction (tons CO2) / Benefit per Program dollar (figure in last column in lbs. CO2) 177,048 110,655 107
Average number of Minnesota households for which CO2 emissions are offset by preserved trees every year 10,438 6,524
Reduced health care costs due to the removal of air pollutants per year 3 / Benefit per Program dollar 904,248$ 565,155$ 0.44$
Notes:
1
2
3
A recent study estimated that in 2010, trees in the urban areas of Minnesota removed 4,600 tons of pollutants from the air and that this resulted in $26.7 million in reduced health care costs. Figures assume that 60% of the urban
trees in the state are in the Twin Cities and that 20% of urban trees are ash. Figures are reduced per the assumed participation rate. Source: “Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States,” Nowak,
David, et al., Environmental Pollution, 7/25/14, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46102
Surviving ash trees by Year 20. / Program dollars per surviving tree (amount in last column).
Average annual tree benefits from preserved ash trees. /Benefits per Program dollar invested (amount in last
column):
Cost Estimates for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program, Years 1-20
Statewide Program Regional Pilot Program
Cost and Benefit Estimates for the Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program, Years 1-20
The calculations for the Ash Tree Preservation Analysis for the Twin Cities takes into account annual tree growth for existing and replacement trees, infestation mortality rates, costs for removal of trees and stumps based on tree
size in the year of removal, costs for purchase and installation of replacement trees, relatively higher maintenance and mortality rates for replacement trees, treatment costs based on annual tree size (labor, materials, and overhead),
peak-period cost escalators, tree benefits based on annual trees size (overall economic value, increase in property values, stormwater interception, energy conservation (electricity and natural gas), and carbon sequestration and
avoidance), and estimates of how surviving trees offset the energy consumption and carbon emissions of average Minnesota households. All data sources are available upon request.
A year-by-year estimate of the hours required to administer the Program yielded the following results: The first year will require the commitment of about 0.7 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees; the next 6 years about 0.5
FTEs, and only 0.2 FTEs per year from Year 8 to 20. To be conservative, the budget assumes 5% for indirect costs and 0.5 FTE for all 20 years at $100,000 per FTE. This totals to 7% overall.
Minnesota ATP Analysis 090214; Tables for Report
Ash Tree Preservation Analysis for the Twin Cities(Includes all public ash trees in region except woodland trees; 450,500 ash trees)
•Scenarios:• Base Case: Removal (all 450,500 trees) and replacement (255,000
high-quality trees)•Ash Tree Preservation Plan: Removal (195,500 low-quality trees)
and treatments (255,500 high-quality trees)•Comparisons:
•Years 1-20, ATP Plan costs 40% less than Base Case ($145 million vs. $254 million)
•Years 1-10: Every dollar invested in the ATP Plan preserves 11 times as much trunk diameter (DBH) compared to having to pay for the Base Case: 4 million more inches of trunk diameter.
•Years 1-10: Every dollar invested in the ATP Plan preserves nearly 4 times as much cumulative tree value compared to having to pay for the Base Case: $210 million more.
Minnesota Ash Tree Preservation Program, Years 1-20(Twin Cities Region Pilot Program)
Assumptions:•Participation rate: ………………………. 75%•Program match:
•Planning: ……………………………….. 67%•Treatments: ……………………………. 50%
Costs:•Total: ………………………..………….. $41M•Average annual: …………………… $2.1M
Average Annual Benefits:•Preserved trees: …………………. 190,000•Overall economic value: …………. $39M•Increased property value: ……… $9M•Stormwater interception: …. 546M gal•Household offsets of
energy consumption: …………….. 5,400•CO2 reduction: ……….…… 110,000 tons
•Household offsets: ……………... 6,500
Cost-Benefit Comparison:•Total Program dollars per tree: … $220•Average annual tree benefits per
Program dollar:•Overall economic value: ………… $19•Property value: ………………………… $4•Stormwater interception: … 260 gal•Electricity conserv.: ………….. 27 kWh•Natural gas conserv.: ……… 4 therms•CO2 reduction: ………………….. 110 lbs•Health care savings due to
reduced air pollution: ….….……$0.44