ECONOMICS AND EMERALD ASH BORER MANAGEMENT: A COMPARISON OF DOING NOTHING, PREEMPTIVE REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT, AND TREATMENT IN THE URBAN FOREST

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: MCINTIRE-STENNIS
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 0223963
• Project Start Date: Oct 1, 2010
• Project End Date: Sep 30, 2012
• Program Code: [(N/A)]- (N/A)

Recipient Organization
UNIV OF WISCONSIN
21 N PARK ST STE 6401
MADISON,WI 53715-1218

Performing Department
UWSP College of Natural Resources

Non Technical Summary
Ash tree are one of the most common trees in urban tree populations. For example, in Wisconsin, 737 million urban ash trees exist and represent 20% of the public urban forest (Cumming et al. 2007). Since the introduction of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in 2002, millions of ash trees have been killed in the United States (Poland and McCullough 2006, Herms et al. 2009). The emerald ash borer (EAB) kills ash trees by larva that feed in phloem and outer xylem tissue. Under sufficient larva numbers, ash trees get girdled and may die within one to four years (Poland and McCullough 2006). All ash trees native to the eastern United States are considered susceptible to EAB (Rebeck et al. 2008, Herms et al 2009). EAB moves naturally at a slow rate, however, its long distance spread is exacerbated through the movement of infested ash nursery stock and wood products (Knight et al. 2008, Raupp 2010). Without human induced spread, most EAB fly less than 100 m (325 ft) with a reported physiological capability of 5 km (3.1 mi) (Cappaert et al. 2005). Raupp (2010) reported flight distances of 0.3 km (0.2 mi) to 19.3 km (12 mi) per year with a dispersal typically 1.5 km (0.9 mi) per year. The cost of lost urban trees and management activities can be substantial for communities, states, and federal agencies (Sydnor et al. 2007, Kovacs et al. 2010). For example, in the State of Ohio, the loss of all urban ash from EAB is estimated to cost 2 to 8 billion dollars (Sydnor et al. 2007). Over 50 million ash in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana have been killed from EAB (McCullough et al. 2009, Kovacs et al. 2010). The management of EAB should consider the costs associated with different management objectives, what efficacy they provide, and what alternatives are available. This study advances a preliminary model that was built for a small ash population at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point (UWSP). This model is unique compared to others as it adds growth projections and tree values of existing and surviving trees. Other models have only considered tree costs, which does not sufficiently account for a the real impact of EAB and how different management approaches differ. The preliminary application of the model suggested active management of ash populations is better than doing nothing or getting rid of all ash (aka preemptive removal). However, we do not know if this finding is applicable throughout the United States. This study would address this.

Animal Health Component

(N/A)

Research Effort Categories

Basic

(N/A)

Applied

(N/A)

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
124	2110	1130	10%
124	2110	3010	40%
124	2110	3100	50%

Knowledge Area
124 - Urban Forestry;

Subject Of Investigation
2110 - Ornamental trees and shrubs;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology; 3010 - Economics; 3100 - Management;

Keywords

agrilus plannipenis, economic model, emerald ash borer, urban

forestry

Goals / Objectives
This study will enhance our understanding of the economics of emerald ash borer management approaches in the urban forest. Three management options or approaches would be compared to doing nothing. Doing nothing is an approach that lets ash infestation and mortality occur naturally. Ash trees are removed after they are dead in areas with high risk for property damage or human injury. The first approach currently used is referred to as preemptive removal. This approach suggests since ash are going to die anyways, getting rid of them over a period of years (typically 5 to 10 years) helps spread the management costs over time. One limitation of this approach is the value of urban trees is also removed. A second approach is a modified preemptive removal with all removed trees replaced by new non-ash trees. The third approach is prevention of insect attack through chemical treatment and preservation of the tree. This approach suggests that by preventing the mortality of ash trees you retain their annual benefits they provide society. To test which approach is economically superior, management options would compare net benefits (annual discounted benefits - annual discounted costs) of each management option to doing nothing. The research project aims to apply our existing preliminary model in ash tree populations values and management costs for selected test locations throughout the United States. Specifically within this study area, our objectives involve: 1) Compile regional ash tree management costs. 2) Determine ash tree population benefits using two standard modeling approaches (CTLA and i-Tree) to quantify urban tree values. 3) Test our hypothesize about the economics of emerald ash borer management strategies. a. Ho: preemptive removal = preemptive removal and replacement = treatment = do nothing b. Ha: treatment>doing nothing>preemptive removal and replacement>preemptive removal

Project Methods
Methods Site Descriptions and Sampling: We will test our hypothesis using public ash tree populations, management costs, and tree benefits from 12 communities in the Eastern United States. Communities will be aggregated in four groups by population (2,500 to 9,999), (10,000 to 49,999), (50,000 to 99,000) and (greater than or equal to 100,000) with 3 replications per group. Mortality and Growth Projections: Annual tree mortality will use a standard rate (2%) for urban trees and an average growth rate of 0.4 inches DBH (1.3 m) per year (Miller and Walsh undated, Hauer 2007). For the control (do nothing) option, mortality was set at 20% for ash trees after seven years, an EAB population "tipping point" (Knight et. al. 2007). Before this tipping point, an increasing mortality rate is applied with 3% mortality in year 2, 4% mortality in year 3, 6% mortality in year 4, 8% mortality in year 5, 12% mortality in year 6, and 20% mortality in year 7. Economic Assumptions and Analysis: The management options are analyzed in annual increments for a period of forty years to determine their net annual value and then compared to the control population using a benefit/cost analysis (B/C). Net annual values were also summed over the 40-year simulation period to attain an average B/C value using a 6% discount to obtain a present value. Net tree value was calculated using two valuation (benefit) approaches (CTLA and i-Tree Streets program) minus tree costs from each management scenario (Miller and Schuman 1981, Miller 1997, CTLA 2000, Anonymous undated). Treatment costs are determined using commercial prices for insecticide application for each location (by example, $7.00 per diameter inch annually based in Milwaukee, WI, using the chemical Emamectin Benzoate). Tree planting, maintenance and removal costs will be based on real values from each community. By example, pruning and tree removal ($10 per diameter inch based on Stevens Point WI, municipal removal contract) and tree planting costs ($100 for a two-inch caliper tree, assuming in-house installation) are sized based costs. Costs by study location will reflect those collected from each community. Expected Results: We expect to find that preemptive removal is the least economically supported management decision. This is contrary to the suggestion of some urban forestry professionals at state, county, and local levels (Blake 2010). We also suspect that doing nothing will have merit in some situations. Our study results will provide some clarification and application. Finally, we suspect to find that active management aimed at retaining exiting ash trees will provide the most economically supported management outcome. Study findings will further our understanding of how different EAB management options compare in a unified economic comparison. Research Finding Transfer: Research findings are scheduled to be presented through oral presentation and one manuscript to be submitted for peer-reviewed publication to the International Society of Arboriculture. Research findings will be tailored towards both the scientific community and practitioners.

Progress 10/01/10 to 09/30/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Published one peer reviewed publication, one popular article, released EABPlans economic analysis planning simulator, and presented nine conference presentations (summarized below): 1) Hauer, R.J. 2013. Emerald Ash Borer Economics, Planning, and Management. 2013 Iowa Shade Tree Short Course and INLA Tradeshow. Oral Presentation. Ames, IA, Februrary 27-28, 2013. 2) Hauer, R.J. 2013. EAB: Emerald Ash Borer Economics ...Economics and Balance. Minneapolis, MN, Februrary 12, 2013. 3) Hauer, R.J. 2013. Pre-emptive EAB Planning Before Post-mortem Removal: EAB Economics, Planning, and Management. 2013 MW-ISA Annual Conference & Trade Show. Oral Presentation. St. Louis, MO, February 6-8, 2013. 4) Hauer, R.J. 2012. EAB Management and Economics. American Public Gardens Association Annual Conference. Oral Presentation. Columbus, OH, June 19 - 22, 2012. 5) Vanatta, A.R. and R.J. Hauer, R.J. 2012. The Economic Impact of EAB Management Strategies. Emerald Ash Borer Risk Management Workshop. Oral Presentation. Cincinnati, OH. March 9, 2012 6) Hauer, R.J. 2012. The Economic Impact of EAB Management Strategies. Emerald Ash Borer Risk Management Workshop. Oral Presentation. Oak Creek, WI. February 22, 2012. 7) Hauer, R.J. 2012. Economics of EAB and Plant Health Care Management Objectives. Winter 2012 Tree & Turf Conference. Oral Presentation. Eagan, MN, February 15, 2012. 8) Hauer, R.H., A.R. and VanNatta. 2012. What's Up at the UWSP - EAB Management Planning, Cost Calculator 1. 9) Wisconsin Arborist Association Annual Conference. Oral Presentation. Green Bay, WI. January 29 - 3, 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Richard Hauer, Mr. Andrew VanNatta, Mr. Montri Intassen, Mr. Andrew Koeser. TARGET AUDIENCES: Academic Professionals: Urban Forestry, Arboriculture. Entomology Practitioners: Urban Forestry, Arboriculture, Entomology. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Developed urban forest cost and inventory data from 172 communities. Data is used in the EABPlans simulator to plan for management approaches to EAB management. Released EABPLans computer simulator that allows communities and practitioners to develop EAB management plans based on economic analysis of management alternatives.

Publications

• Hauer, R.J. 2012. Emerald Ash Borer Economics, Management Approaches, and Decision Making. Tree Care Industry. August 2012. 23(8):14-17.
• VanNatta, A.R., R.H. Hauer, N.M. Schuettpelz. 2012. Cost Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Management Strategies. Journal of Economic Entomology. 105(1):196-206.
• VanNatta, A. and R. Hauer. 2012. Money and Ash Tree Management: Prioritizing Decisions in the Face of EAB. Arborist News. 21(4):42-44.

Progress 01/01/11 to 12/31/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Published 1 peer reviewed paper, 1 peer review in draft, 1 conference proceedings published, 1 poster presented, and five conference oral presentations ... all summarized below: VanNatta, A.R., N.M. Schuettpelz, and R.H. Hauer. 2011. Cost Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Management Strategies. in press, Journal of Economic Entomology. Hauer, R.J. and A.R. VanNatta. 2011. Economic and Management Models for Emerald Ash Borer Control. Conference Proceedings of the International Society of Arboriculture 87th Annual Conference & Trade Show. Sydney, Australia, July 23 - July 27, 2011; Hauer, R.J. 2011. EAB Management Resources: Economics of Management Options. Emerald Ash Borer Risk Management Workshop. Oral Presentation. Naperville, IL, December 8, 2011; Hauer, R.J. 2011. EAB: Economics and Management. Kentucky Arborists Association 2011 Conference & Meeting. Oral Presentation. Burlington, KY, November 2 - 3, 2011; Hauer, R.J. 2011. An Economic and Management Simulator for Emerald Ash Borer Control. International Society of Arboriculture 86th Annual Conference & Trade Show. Poster Presentation. Sydney, Australia, July 23 - July 27, 2011; Hauer, R.J. 2011. Cha-ching, Cha-chew . Economic Decision Making Models and Emerald Ash Borer Management. 49th annual Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course. Oral Presentation. Arden Hills, MN March 15 - 16, 2011; Hauer, R.H., A.R., VanNatta, N.M. Shuettpelz, and. 2011. Cha-ching, Cha-chew . Economic Decision Making Models and Emerald Ash Borer Management. Wisconsin Arborist Association Annual Conference. Oral Presentation. Green Bay, WI. January 30 - February 1, 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Richard Hauer, Mr. Andrew VanNatta TARGET AUDIENCES: Academic Professionals: Urban Forestry, Arboriculture, Entomology Practitioners: Urban Forestry, Arboriculture, Entomology PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Expanded the number of study sites from 12 to 24 due to increased funding from external sources.

Impacts
Developed and economic analysis tool that allows the end user to enter urban forest ash populations statistics (mean dbh, number of ash trees, mean condition, percent value) and urban forest management costs (pruning, planting, removal, injection, etc.) to develop an economic analysis of management decisions. Incorporated a Goeller Scorecard to aid decision making. The software program has been released for public use. The developed software tool was the basis for the economic analysis used in the publications and presentations

Publications

• Hauer, R.J. and A.R. VanNatta. 2011. Economic and Management Models for Emerald Ash Borer Control. Conference Proceedings of the International Society of Arboriculture 87th Annual Conference & Trade Show. Sydney, Australia, July 23 - July 27, 2011
• VanNatta, A.R., N.M. Schuettpelz, and R.H. Hauer. 2011. Cost Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Management Strategies. in press, Journal of Economic Entomology