Participants were all city, county, or contracted community foresters. Each topic was discussed at individual tables for 15 minutes with 3-5 participants and a table facilitator. Within that timeframe, each group prioritized their key discussion points, later sharing those with other participants. What follows is a summary of those discussion points.

Topic 1: Utilization, Disposal, Shared Resources

How do you plan to utilize ash wood? Example: Mulch, sawmills, firewood

The largest number of responses related to using the wood for mulch, followed by local firewood and biomass or District Energy (which has no limit for quantity of material). Having more mulch than demand for it could be an issue.

Additional responses included selling mulch to nurseries for potting medium, and the need for private industry to step up and find ways to utilize. Foresters recognized the potential for "higher" use as equipment handles and snowshoes if there were enough quality “saw logs" available.

How do you plan to treat (handle) the woody debris? Example: Local marshalling yard

There were a diversity of responses, with no outstanding priority:

Debarking, contractor responsible for disposal, local storage, chip on-site, burn/debris pile, transfer to chipping site, dispose at private site for a fee, partnerships, temporary marshalling yard, approved MDA sites, city or county compost sites. Transferring logs across county lines might be an issue.

Several responses indicated they either had multiple use and disposal options or that they were unsure about what to do and that the issue seemed overwhelming to address.

How will you work with neighboring cities, the county, etc., to share resources? Example: shared emergency response, marshaling yard, agreements, shared equipment and training materials

The size and maturity of the community/trees influenced this discussion. There was consensus on the need for local collaboration, and concern about land mass available for storage.

The primary response was about sharing information for the public, followed by sharing equipment, overload support (similar to mutual aid agreements), rotating crews on a schedule, sharing ordinance information, plans for disposal and utilization, county storage, and sharing a marshalling yard.  

Topic 2: Chemical Treatments

What is the overall perception of your citizens and community leaders on the use of chemicals for long-term management of ash?

A recurring theme in this discussion was using chemical treatments to spread the removal cost out. There was strong concern about environmental impact in particular from drenches. Other responses included: “Wait until it’s here to educate and then use multiple approaches" or undecided.

There were several comments regarding mixed perceptions being dependent upon the information source, and needing to choose wisely but not knowing how to choose.

What chemical treatment method(s) do you plan to use and how did you make that determination? Key Points/Examples: Treatment Types (trunk injection, bark spray, soil drenches, soil and trunk injections; Costs(staff time versus tree removal and/or replacement); Staff time versus contractor rates, Environmental impacts (energy conservation, water quality, species diversity, etc) or Citizen Business Values Concerns (aesthetics, liability, tax burden, etc)

Two responses tied for the most common – the first prioritized the use of trunk injections only on legacy trees in public areas. The second related to the use of chemicals as triage treatment. With a couple of strong exceptions (Richfield and New Brighton), many cities are not doing extensive treatments. Those that do treat prefer trunk injections to soil drenches.

Responses indicated there was clear awareness about the cost to treat vs. remove and that there is research indicating that treatment can be effective. A couple of responses indicated there would be no treatments, and one indicated removal and replanting was also an option. Consideration of a permit for chemical treatment was noted as a way to have oversight of chemical use.

Cities are unsure of the position to take with residents’ requests about treating trees. There was a clear sense that if residents chose to treat there was a strong likelihood it would be with soil drenches rather than trunk injections due to ease-of-use and cost.

How are you going to track treated trees? Examples: Tree Tags, GPS pts, Excel or other data mgmt software, paper maps, policy for ROW trees and treatments, contract specs; landowner reports . . .

GPS and GIS were the top responses to this question, with other responses being color-coded tags (useful for education, research and tracking), paper trail, tree inventory, paper now/GIS later, private contractor reporting treated trees and Excel spreadsheet.

Topic 3: Tree Inventories, Reforestation, Maintenance

Assuming that you have completed an inventory, how was it completed? Key Points: What did you use for data collection and software?, How have you used/do you plan to use the data?, Do you keep it current? Creative ideas to pay for an inventory? If you have not completed an inventory, why not?

Responses varied with one most common – inventories were completed utilizing volunteers or seasonal staff/interns. Contracted workers and in-house staff were additional responses as were web-based live updates w/Arcview, inventorying only public spaces with GPS, inventorying only the ash trees, inventorying a sample of city trees, and inventorying all trees. Lack of funding was noted as the reason one city did not do an inventory.

One suggestion that was widely supported in discussion was to include a tree inventory with another (building) project (piggyback/multi-task) to save resources.

What factors are critical to building support among community leaders and alignment with local forest priorities? Examples: City vision, economic development strategy, public safety or quality of life issues for residents, availability of alternative funding sources.

There were strong responses recommending volunteer programs, education of councils, highlighting quality of life and public safety/storm water issues, promotion of citizen forestry, owner buy-in and outreach. Messaging about cost-benefits, utilization of grant funding, and forestry as part of a city vision was also indicated.

Having council members with personal interest in forestry, and council agreement on replacement ratios/diversity were also identified supports.

Discuss key strategies you utilize at planting and in the first 5-10 years to ensure tree survival? Key Points/Examples: Right tree/right place, native species, long-term sustainability/maintenance, diversity, hardiness, resource options (funding, nursery suppliers, contractors, specifications)

Responses can be sorted into 1) Knowledge of plants and good planting practices: plant diversity, use of native plants, "right tree/right place", correct planting depth, contract watering; 2) Involving citizens: Resident Education was strong with citizen volunteers/school projects and students, providing Tree Owner’s Manuals, websites, setting examples for private residents with public projects, and participation of residents with gator bag programs and citizen watering projects and 3) Addressing funding: Grants and use of storm water funds.

Topic 4: Policies, Removal, Enforcement

How have your policies or ordinances been changed to address EAB? Examples: Shade tree ordinances, City Project Specs to ensure no firewood brought out of quarantine area, In-house policies for pruning and removal of healthy ash; landowner guidelines, tree contractor licensing requirements

Most responses related to modifying existing ordinances for Dutch Elm Disease and Oak Wilt to include EAB. Upgrading shade tree replacement policies, tree preservation plans, hazardous tree ordinances, adding a new EAB ordinance, creating an ordinance that gives the city authority to act on the issue, adopting MDA and DNR regulations and education were all additional responses.

How will you enforce city, state and federal regulations? (EAB quarantines, firewood regulations) Examples: Treatment and removal options, establish/enhance local ordinances, perform compliance checks, establish permitting processes, rely on MDA, no enforcement

The strongest response category here was MDA enforcement of quarantines and compliance. Other responses include tree inspector enforcement, enforcement by observed incidence, passive compliance, enforcement as a public safety issue, education and no enforcement.

There was a comment that enforcement should be consistent and several comments indicated these would be hard to enforce.

How will you manage infested ash? Will you manage public and private ash differently?Key points: On maintained city property; in city-owned natural/wooded unmaintained areas; timely removal by residents, contract out removals or handle in-house

There was clear consensus that "public is public" and "private is private" on this response. Addressing private property is likely limited to education. Removing and treating boulevard trees had priority in some cities over park trees. There wasn’t a clear consensus about treating in natural areas. One city would remove and replace public trees, but possibly not on a 1-1 basis. Another city is considering subsidizing private treatment or replacement. Being proactive with public trees and silent on private was mentioned, as well as treating EAB infestation as diseased elm or oak.

The legality of entry onto private property to inspect/remove diseased trees was mentioned as a city concern.

Participants were encouraged to bring examples of ordinances, specifications, educational materials, RFP’s, etc. used in their respective area. Below is a list of items that were brought. If you have an interest in one or more of the items, please contact the organization directly.

City of Minnetonka

• Quarantine Brochure
• Tree Inventory Proposal
• Tree Removal Bids and Specs 2012
• Watering Contractor Scouting Report
• Park Ash Tree Reduction and Replanting Program Brochure

City of Minneapolis

• EAB and Ash Tree Removal and Replacement Door Hanger
• Tree Removal Door Hanger
• EAB Handout
• EAB Resolution
• Park and Rec Board Tree Work Permit
• Ordinance Changes (2009)

City of Saint Paul

• EAB FAQ Handout
• EAB Website Info Handout
• EAB Ordinance
• Private Property Ash Management Guide
• Watering Guidelines
• “Wait Til Fall to Haul” Yard Sign

City of New Brighton

• EAB Treatment Agreement

City of Ham Lake

• Shade Tree Disease Control Ordinance

City of Andover

• EAB Management Plan

City of Golden Valley

• Shade Tree Disease Control Ordinance

Ramsey County

• EAB Alert Sign