[CANUFNET] CANUFNET Digest, Vol 120, Issue 20

Thu Feb 26 14:07:45 EST 2015

Hi Kevin,
You raise very pertinent points about how little experience, both in the pubic and private sectors, we have had with injection programs in Ontario, 5 to 10 years duration.  With little clear scientific evidence for appropriate tree selection criteria due to the nature of the insect and no way of determining easily if there are 2 or 200 larvae in a 60cm DBH  tree.
We further seem to be lacking any recent resources or research benefitting landowners in regulated areas of Ontario and beyond,  allocated to this EAB nightmare, by the Regulatory Authority  who is responsible to manage this imported pest. 
Further, as there is no Province wide coordinating body to address this creeping environmental disaster, the landowners, may not even be aware of the presence of the insect until it is too late, and they need a "silver bullet" to save their trees.  

The challenge as I see it is, based on the 2  EAB awareness and request for the sending of a EAB proclamation, John McNeil started a few years ago, by the  Ontario Urban Forest Council, OUFC did to the Clerks of 440 municipalities in Ontario. Most that were not dealing with it did not feel it was important to act, as they did not respond to the correspondence at the time, or if they did forwarded to Councillor for review.
I sense as this is a topic that does not garner any positive attention to anyone in the municipal world as this would be initially added to current staff responsibilities or they do not have the dedicated expertise on staff to deal with it. This leaves the residents with nothing to work with, except what the local Arborists provide for the clients.
Most of the smaller ones do not know if they have Ash trees or where as the rural roads have so many hedgerows or woodlots adjacent to them and staff may not have the expertise to identify and act.
Further the property standards bylaws sections in most municipalities will be strained by the increase in dead tree calls from neighbours. 

The Province has tabled the Invasive Species Act again; 

 http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2946

As the Federal Agency,  based on the size of the regulated area, seems to be treating EAB as an insect that is here to stay and therefore it is not clear what positive action will result on the EAB front for taxpayers based on the Map below.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-protection/insects/emerald-ash-borer/areas-regulated/eng/1347625322705/1367860339942

It is my understanding the campaign to "slow the movement"  of EAB and the allowing the movement of wood throughout the regulated area, seem to seek a common goal to limit the speed of the spread of the EAB by using enforcement means. 

I will where able,  continue to try to raise the awareness of this environmental nightmare.
Regards,
Peter Wynnyczuk

> From: kevinmengers at advancedtreecare.ca
> To: canufnet at list.web.net
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:23:32 +0000
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] CANUFNET Digest, Vol 120, Issue 20
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> Would them private sector members have any comment on 'suitability for Ash treatment' and/or experience?
> 
> Our small contribution to Ash tree preservation in the GTA via treatment has not entirely been a Rose Garden.
> 
> If/when public sector treatment programs fail, public outcry might not be positive but ultimate accountability will have limited repercussions (i.e. workers won't lose their jobs). However failure of treatment programs administered in the Private sector are much more sensitive, as tree owners have a great expectation of performance. In 2014 we had a number of confirmed failures (mortality) which resulted in very negative customer relationship experiences this past season. Leading one to question the viability of the service offering and effectiveness of the product(s) available.
> 
> We are currently compiling a report (.xls) of all our private specimen treatments and known failures and comparing the data against a number of key evaluation criteria. 
> - month of injection
> - product injected
> - year of initiation treatment program vs year of failure
> - municipality/location
> - year in which EAB presence confirmed within municipality
> - DBH & height of specimen treated (we have observed a correlation with height and mortality)
> 
> Accountability for treatment program failure in the Private sector results in job (client) loss.
> 
> 
> Kevin 
> 
> Advanced Tree Care Inc.
> www.advancedtreecare.ca
> c. 905.252.3168
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of canufnet-request at list.web.net
> Sent: February-26-15 12:00 PM
> To: canufnet at list.web.net
> Subject: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 120, Issue 20
> 
> Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to
> 	canufnet at list.web.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	canufnet-request at list.web.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	canufnet-owner at list.web.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CANUFNET digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Suitability Criteria for Treatment of Ash Trees
>       (Meagan Hanna, Miss)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:00:25 +0000
> From: "Meagan Hanna, Miss" <meagan.hanna at mail.mcgill.ca>
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Suitability Criteria for Treatment of Ash
> 	Trees
> Message-ID:
> 	<4F0FFA18489B184F9D8DD6061B75D68510888BC4 at EXMBX2010-5.campus.MCGILL.CA>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Good morning group!
> 
> I've been thinking a lot about EAB lately. It's great to see the discussion come up among urban forestry professionals throughout the country. I can add a few elements on this one.
> 
> The City of Montreal did announce a pretty substantial operating budget this year for urban forestry initiatives, notably emerald ash borer control and massive tree planting as part of the City's canopy plan. You can read a bit about the media coverage of this announcement here :
> 
> http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/emerald-ash-borer-offensive-unveiled
> 
> http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-more-than-triples-money-destined-to-plant-protect-trees-1.2247869
> 
> The investment is predominantly going to treat trees with TreeAzin, coordinate extensive bark sampling on specimens throughout the island and replanting new trees. This year, the greater part of removals continue to be done by in-house crews.  
> 
> As for special rules, a pruning and removal moratorium has been in effect for City trees between March 15th and October 1 for the last couple of years. The idea is to limit tree work on ash trees to emergencies and limit the spread of the insect during its high risk dispersal period. The City has been trying to extend this practice to private trees as well. A by-law is forthcoming (possibly for this spring/summer) but nothing has come into effect just yet.  Other de-merged municipalities on the island of Montreal have adopted specific EAB by-laws, namely the cities of Beaconsfield and Pointe-Claire, sources here :
> 
> http://www.beaconsfield.ca/images/stories/urban-fields/720-101%20ASH%20BORER%20EN_final.pdf
> http://www.ville.pointe-claire.qc.ca/en/page-mib/by-laws-mib.html
> 
> To answer Shelley's original question on suitability criteria for the treatment of ash trees, every municipality/borough around here does things just a tad differently but the principle is pretty standard,
> 
> 1-) Get the most accurate portrait of your inventory as possible (this can be by consulting a digital tree database, compiling lists, doing drive-by assessments).
> 2-) Break down the list into specific sectors. Some municipalities focus on getting into those infestation sites and systematically treating everything that can still be retained in the site either in conservation or in SLAM. Others may opt for systematically treating everything around the city or treating specifically interesting trees. It really depends on what the available budgets, amount of viable trees and political/management priorities are. 
> 3-) Once you've got an idea of how many trees you have, where they are and what you can do with them, the next best step is to evaluate and WALK! I've worked with a few municipalities and have done a couple of inspection blitzes. The best bet is to develop a simple points system, print up a rating grid and evaluate each tree in the field.
> 4-) I've seen point systems anywhere from 3 to 10 points. The higher point rating, the more criteria is met and the more viable a tree may appear as a suitable candidate for treatment. We tend to look at variables from the ground up, 360 degrees around the tree. The criteria I've looked at are ;
>       
>                          - Condition of the trunk flare, absence of significant wounds or defects. Absence of significant problems such as excessive fill, drastic root pruning/excavation, major drainage issues. Likelihood that trunk injections will be able to be done efficiently and over as much of the circumference of the flare as possible.
>                          - Structure of the trunk and branches. Absence of major cavities, cracks, inclusions etc. Anything major may be enough to disqualify the tree, minor things can be discounted if the other criteria checks out.
>                           - Condition of the canopy. Overall vigor of the tree, abundance of buds, foliage. Likelihood that the product will be able to be taken up and distributed within the tree. We may look at trees under electrical wires a little differently, it really depends. Absence of major biotic/abiotic issures (cankers, diseases, significant crown dieback etc.)
> 
> I find the more simple the point system is, the easier it is to go out in the field, rate each tree, check off the list and conduct follow ups year after year. I hope that helps.
> 
> If anyone has read this far, I've got a question for municipalities that have dealt with EAB for the last few years or so :
> 
> * Knowing what you know now about the effect of the insect on your trees, what would you have done differently if you could manage the infestation all over again from day 1? 
> 
> I'm really eager to get some feedback on this. Thanks!
> 
> Good luck : )
> 
> 
> Meagan Hanna
> Arboriculture Inspector
> City of Montreal
> meagan.hanna at mail.mcgill.ca
> meagan.hanna at ville.montreal.qc.ca
> ________________________________________
> From: CANUFNET [canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] on behalf of Ethier Elaine [elaine.ethier at umontreal.ca]
> Sent: February 24, 2015 10:13 PM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Suitability Criteria for Treatment of Ash Trees
> 
> Hello,
> City of Montreal announced on air today new information from the parks and recreation department that new rules are in effect and will be detailed shortly involving private land, residential area and/or industrial -commercial zones. New measures will be implemented including systemic application / silviculture and removal to deal with the green ash borer infestation. not much news on city trees and Parc trees such as the protected patrimony all mount-royal area but also given announced a $13 million investment throughout 2015 this was just recently
> 
> iPhone, E. E.
> 
> Le 2015-02-24 ? 3:30 PM, "peter.wynnyczuk at sympatico.ca<mailto:peter.wynnyczuk at sympatico.ca>" <peter.wynnyczuk at sympatico.ca<mailto:peter.wynnyczuk at sympatico.ca>> a ?crit :
> 
> http://www.richmondhill.ca/subpage.asp?pageid=emerald_ash_borer
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: SVescio at thunderbay.ca<mailto:SVescio at thunderbay.ca>
> To: canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:16:24 +0000
> Subject: [CANUFNET] Suitability Criteria for Treatment of Ash Trees
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am interested in finding out what criteria cities are using to determine the suitability of their ash trees for treatment.   Any assistance would be appreciated.  Thanks.
> 
> Shelley
> 
> 
> 
> Shelley Vescio RPF
> 
> City Forester
> 
> Thunder Bay Parks Division
> 
> work (807) 625-2473
> 
> fax (807) 625-3258
> 
> www.thunderbay.ca/urbanforestry<http://www.thunderbay.ca/urbanforestry>
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
> 
> 
> End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 120, Issue 20
> *****************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20150226/df378a9f/attachment.html>