Recommended Approach for the Management of Emerald Ash …

Recommended Approach for the

Management of Emerald Ash Borer

July 2012

Prepared by: TRCA Forest Health Working Group

Recommended Approach for the Management o f Emera ld Ash Borer

Ju ly 2012

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

2. Background ............................................................................................................................1

3. Existing Forest Health Initiatives - TRCA ...............................................................................2

4. Actions Taken by Other Agencies .........................................................................................3

5. Recommended Approach - TRCA .........................................................................................4

6. Priority Actions for 2012 .........................................................................................................6

7. Financial Implications.............................................................................................................7

Appendix A: Emerald Ash Borer Regulated Areas .........................................................................9

Appendix B: High Value Ash Tree Selection Criteria ................................................................... 10

Appendix C: Ontario Urban Forest Council Resolution ............................................................... 12

Appendix D: Candidate Tree Species to Replace the Ash Component in TRCA Restoration and Reforestation Projects ..................................................................................... 14

Appendix E: Draft Implementation Plan for Heart Lake Conservation Area ................................ 16

Appendix F: TRCA Authority Meeting #12/11 Board Report ....................................................... 17


July 2012

1

1. Introduction

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) poses a very serious threat to forest health in southern Ontario. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has the responsibility to assess this threat in the context of our current forest management initiatives as applied to approximately 8,700 ha of forested land owned by TRCA, and determine what, if any, additional management action may be warranted. The intent of this short report is to provide the information needed to inform decisions made by TRCA Directors and Board regarding the management of emerald ash borer (EAB). The report provides background on EAB, the current TRCA initiatives regarding forest management, and actions undertaken by other agencies regarding EAB management. The report also outlines a recommended approach to EAB management for TRCA and lists the next steps required to implement this approach.

2. Background

Emerald ash borer is an invasive insect species introduced from eastern Asia that attacks and kills all native North American ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). EAB was first detected in Detroit, Michigan in July 2002. In August of 2002 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed the presence of EAB in Windsor, Ontario. It has since spread throughout southern Ontario and Quebec despite the efforts of Canadian and US agencies to contain the infestation. The beetle can disperse naturally through flight; however, the large scale spread of EAB has been facilitated by the transport of firewood, nursery stock and other ash products throughout Ontario. EAB belongs to a group of metallic, wood-boring beetles commonly found in Asia. Adults are dark green, 10 mm in length, and 3mm wide (Figure 1). The larvae feed just beneath the bark of the tree and disrupt the transport of water and nutrients. Once signs and symptoms of infestation have developed the tree is usually in serious decline. In areas with established populations trees can be mass attacked and killed in as little as two growing seasons. The CFIA is the principle agency responsible for regulations affecting EAB management in Canada. The CFIA has established regulated areas from which the movement of all firewood and any ash material is prohibited (Appendix A). Ash trees are very common in southern Ontario both in rural and urban settings. Consequently, the presence of EAB in TRCA’s jurisdiction has serious economic and environmental implications, including huge tree removal costs, public safety hazards, and a loss of ecosystem services.

Figure 1: Adult emerald ash borer


July 2012

2

Complete eradication of EAB has been deemed impossible, but advances in detection and treatment may help to lessen the devastating impact that will likely be observed in the next 5 to 10 years. The bioinsecticide TreeAzin™ (Azadirachtin) has been approved under emergency provisions in Canada. TreeAzin™ is injected into the base of an individual tree; this treatment has been shown to effectively kill EAB larvae. Researchers from academic institutions and government agencies are actively studying biological control agents for EAB and are working to develop a biocontrol program.

3. Existing Forest Health Initiatives - TRCA

The most effective approach to sustainable forest management is to ensure a diverse and robust forest system that is resilient to the inevitable pest and disease outbreaks and other stressors associated with a forest system located within a human dominated landscape. It is important to place any proposed management actions regarding EAB in this context and not lose sight of long-term forest management objectives. TRCA has a long and active history in the effective protection, restoration and management of the forest system within its jurisdiction. Some of these initiatives are listed here: Forest Management:

o TRCA undertakes an active forest management approach on TRCA lands that acknowledges the importance of a dynamic and diverse forest structure. Forest management on TRCA lands is guided by four objectives: to establish and maintain healthy forest cover; “to protect the environment”; to maintain and improve wildlife habitat; and to support forest resource production.

Stewardship and forestry outreach programs:

o TRCA offers programs that provide advice and expertise to allow private land owners to manage their forests to become healthier, more diverse and self-sustaining.

Habitat restoration planning and implantation:

o TRCA has an active forest restoration planning and implementation program on both private and public lands. The TRCA Nursery provides a wide variety of native tree and shrubs for restoration and reforestation projects.

Conservation land planning:

o The Conservation Land Care Program’s objective is to protect TRCA property assets, including forests and other natural heritage, through the completion of integrated management and master plans which protect and improve property assets and public use.

Plan input and review: o TRCA develops internal policies regarding the protection, enhancement and

management of forests and provides input into the development of external forest health policy at both the municipal and provincial scale. TRCA staff provide comments on development submissions where protecting existing woodlands and natural heritage is an important requirement.


July 2012

3

Forest Monitoring and Surveys:

o TRCA has developed numerous forest heath monitoring and survey initiatives, including long term regional monitoring, forest inventories and volunteer monitoring.

Land Securement:

o The TRCA Greenlands Acquisition Project was initiated to provide a foundation and mechanism for acquiring greenlands, including forests, within the TRCA jurisdiction.

Strategic natural heritage system and forest planning:

o TRCA has developed a targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System that helps to achieve the biodiversity objectives of the Living City, including the protection and restoration of forests.

o TRCA, in partnership with municipalities, is completing urban forest studies that assess the existing condition of the urban forest, summarize the ecosystem services provided and give recommendations for management and enhancement.

Mapping and Data Management:

o TRCA has compiled a wealth of digital resources for vegetation within our jurisdiction that informs species/community composition, planting efforts, long-term monitoring, pest control initiatives, and future management objectives for TRCA owned property.

Knowledge Transfer:

o TRCA staff continues to seek out learning opportunities and partnerships to maintain a high level of expertise and proficiency. This information allows a successful and evolving forest health program while also allowing TRCA to act as a resource to our municipal and other partners.

The EAB infestation provides an excellent example of why a diverse and resilient forest system is important and should lend further justification for the numerous activities in which TRCA is already engaged. This ongoing work, as well as the human resources and expertise of staff have placed TRCA in an excellent position to help address the current threat EAB poses. TRCA will continue to manage the forest system for diversity and resiliency. In addition, there are specific management actions required that will help to mitigate the impact of EAB.

4. Actions Taken by Other Agencies

TRCA has developed strong and effective working relationships with municipal staff and other partner organizations involved in forest management. These partnerships not only allow TRCA to act as a resource and facilitate sharing of expertise, they also enable a clear understanding of the collective efforts regarding forest management within and surrounding our jurisdiction. There are four management options that have been commonly considered by resource managers in southern Ontario when developing an emerald ash borer management plan. These options are categorized based on standard silviculture industry classifications for the management of invasive forest pests; these four options have formed the framework for the


July 2012

4

management strategies developed by the City of Hamilton, the City of Mississauga, York Region, the City of Vaughan, and the Towns of Richmond Hill and Markham.

1. Minimal Management: Generally involves continued implementation of current operation practices. Costs associated with this approach are a result of workload increases (i.e. increases in the volume of hazard trees requiring removal) rather than changes from status quo operational procedures.

2. Active Management: Includes increases in service levels (i.e. enhancements to operational procedures) designed to reduce liability and / or minimize aesthetic and financial impacts. Typically this approach results in increased workloads and costs for staff, but no additional program costs.

3. Proactive Management / Pre-emptive Management: Includes increases in service levels designed to reduce liability and/or minimize aesthetic and long term financial impacts. Typically this approach results in increased workloads and costs for staff and require additional program funding for implementation.

4. Aggressive Management: The primary objective of this approach is to do everything possible to manage EAB, slow its spread and protect the existing ash population.

5. Recommended Approach - TRCA

TRCA will continue to engage in active and effective forest health management for the purpose of protecting and enhancing a diverse, robust, and ultimately resilient forest system. Any additional actions specific to EAB management must be placed within this existing management framework and must recognize long term management goals. Most ash trees on TRCA lands are located within natural forests and therefore may not require additional management. However, there will be circumstances where EAB specific actions should be taken to help minimize both the long term ecological and economic implications. For example, TRCA has started to modify management prescriptions in forest stands containing large numbers of ash. Numerous information sources were considered during the development of a management approach to EAB. Staff consulted with municipal partners and neighbouring conservation authorities to ensure that TRCA’s approach is consistent and complementary. Experts from government agencies and academia were consulted as well. The approach listed below is loosely based on the standard “Active Management” approach outlined in Section 4 of this report. However, elements of the other management options are incorporated where appropriate. The actions outlined below constitute a reasonable approach to managing short term and long term costs. The survey activities described will permit early detection and improve tree removal efficiencies. The approach will also minimize uncertainty regarding future forest structure and composition, and will be compatible with the EAB policies of our municipal funding partners. In addition, private landowner consultation services will benefit from the distribution of best management practices information, including but not limited to invasive pest management approaches.


July 2012

5

1. Detection and Risk Assessment

o Increase ground surveys (branch sampling) to detect the presence of EAB in areas closest to known infestations

o Identify high value, heritage ash trees for treatment using a set of criteria for the selection of candidate trees (Appendix B)

o Identify high risk trees that pose safety hazards o Identify high conservation value ash stands that currently support species of regional

concern and which may require active management strategies in order to protect long-term ecological function

2. Communications and Public Outreach

o Deliver a public education and interpretive program building on existing materials and resources, in association with municipal partners where possible

o Facilitate information sharing, collaboration and knowledge transfer (e.g. emerging research) among forest managers, academic researchers and relevant stakeholders within a GTA context

o Maintain ongoing communication with municipal partners and SCOCA; provide regular updates to partners as required

o Continue to advocate for upper level government support for the management of EAB and urban forest generally. Seek TRCA Board endorsement of the Ontario Urban Forest Council’s (OUFC) resolution (Appendix C).

3. Insecticide Treatment

o Identify and treat TRCA high value or heritage ash trees using insecticide injections where appropriate

o Implement a tree protection program involving insecticide injections for the ash seed trees required by the TRCA nursery to ensure the future availability of locally adapted and grown ash seeds

4. Tree Removal

o Initiate pre-emptive hazard tree removals of affected trees once infestation is confirmed o Explore potential for some salvage logging provided revenue generated does not

conflict with restrictions placed on TRCA property by the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program

5. Forest Management and Tree Planting

o Implement partial seedling replacement program (using non-ash species) within forest settings where adequate regeneration and species diversity has been affected by the loss of ash seedlings

o Develop management strategies for the protection of ash-dominated stands that provide critical habitat to species of regional concern

o Implement a tree planting program to address high value areas where significant numbers of TRCA owned ash trees will be lost

o Increase private land planting efforts to offset loss of ash trees


July 2012

6

o Place a moratorium on TRCA ash planting on TRCA and private properties to minimize the potential duration of the EAB infestation

o Develop planting prescriptions utilizing appropriately diverse multiple species selections to compensate for the loss of ash trees

o Develop an ash tree alternative planting list for use in restoration activities (Appendix D); increase TRCA nursery production of alternative species

6. Monitoring and Evaluation

o Monitor success of actions implemented in strategy; revisit and revise strategy as needed to reflect emerging trends and opportunities

o Continue dialogue with research community, municipal partners and government agencies to ensure new adaptive strategies are applied as they emerge.

6. Priority Actions for 2012

TRCA has taken significant steps towards an effective plan for the management of EAB. The next step is to incorporate the approved management approach into existing forest health initiatives undertaken by TRCA. This will include communicating with each TRCA section and working with them to devise an approach for implementation. The Forest Health Working Group will lead the development of the management guidelines and help facilitate implementation. Due to the urgency of this threat, immediate action is required in early 2012 in order to effectively mitigate risk and ensure that high value trees are treated prior to full infestation. The actions proposed for immediate undertaking are outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Immediate management actions for 2012

Action Timeline Status

1. Characterize the extent of ash trees within the jurisdiction: a) Complete a GIS analysis to determine the quantity and distribution of

ash trees located on TRCA properties February Complete

2. Identify priority areas for potential hazard tree removal:

a) Use information gained from Action 1 together with recreation information (e.g. trail locations) to determine priority areas for hazard tree management;

b) Conduct ground surveys to confirm location of priority areas for hazard tree management.

February – May

Complete


July 2012

7

3. Determine the location of high value ash trees for treatment:

a) Develop a set of criteria for the identification of high value ash trees (Appendix B);

b) Complete a desktop spatial analysis based on information gained from Action 1 together with the established criteria to determine the location of high value ash trees;

c) Conduct ground surveys to refine and confirm the location of high value ash trees for treatment.

February – May

Action a) complete

4. Determine location of high conservation value ash communities for

targeted management:

a) Develop a methodology for identification of high conservation value ash communities that provide critical habitat to species of regional concern;

b) Develop management strategies for the protection of ecological function in communities identified.

March - June

Initiated

5. Develop implementation plans for TRCA properties:

a) Produce a recommended ash management implementation plan (map only) for each TRCA property by synthesizing results of actions 1, 2 and 3 (See Appendix E for Draft Heart Lake Implementation Plan).

March - September

Initiated

6. Finalize the EAB Management Approach: a) Finalize the management approach in consultation with all relevant

TRCA sections to identify staff and budget resources required to implement short and long term actions;

b) Seek TRCA Board approval of Management Approach (See Appendix F).

May Complete

7. Initiate a tree protection program: a) Undertake TreeAzin injections for high value nursery trees as well as

other priority trees as determined through Action 3. May

Complete for 2012

8. Initiate communications strategy: a) Incorporate EAB information into existing and new communication

initiatives to inform the public of TRCA activities and best management practices on private lands;

b) Seek TRCA Board endorsement of OUFC resolution (Appendix C).

May - July Initiated

7. Financial Implications

The impacts from EAB will have inevitable financial implications. As outlined above, the management approach being taken by TRCA balances the short term implications with the long term financial implications and desire to protect the important ecosystem services Ash trees provide. It is important to note that although there will be financial resources needed to implement the outlined management approach, these will be significantly less than what will be required by municipal partners. As the infestation proceeds, the early detection and proactive removal of hazard trees located on TRCA lands will require dedicated staff time to ensure that public safety is protected. This additional staff time is projected to be the most notable 2012 short-term expense associated with the presence of EAB. Treatment of high value trees will also require resources in 2012.


July 2012

8

Funds to support staff time and additional resources for 2012 will come from re-allocating existing funds within the approved 2012 budget. A long-term financial commitment will also be required to protect forest health and ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. A detailed assessment of long term expenses associated with the proposed management approach will be conducted during the development of ensuing implementation plans and will be considered through the 2013 budget process.

Recommended Approach for the Management of Emera ld Ash Borer

July 2012

9

Appendix A: Emerald Ash Borer Regulated Areas


July 2012

10

Appendix B: High Value Ash Tree Selection Criteria

Criteria for Identifying Potential Ash Trees for Protection with TreeAzin

The decision to protect an individual ash tree from EAB infestation, or attempt to preserve an already infested tree, will be influenced by various factors. These factors include the tree’s location, the cost of treatment versus other management options, the likelihood of success, and the benefits provided by the tree’s preservation. The overall number of trees to be treated on TRCA lands and on individual properties will depend on the resources available. Consideration of the criteria below should both ensure efficient use of these resources and increase the likelihood of realizing treatment objectives. The criteria focus on individual tree management and not forest stand-level objectives. The decision to treat should be guided by the criteria below, however the weight given to each of the criteria will depend on the site and preservation objectives. In general, treatment will be required every two years while significant EAB populations are present – possibly ten or more years. The final decision to treat will be the responsibility of the appropriate property manager in consultation with forestry staff. The Canadian Forest Service’s online “Ash Protection Model” is available to analyze the costs of treatment versus replacement options. TreeAzin is a systemic insecticide which is injected directly into the tree. Optimal annual treatment timing coincides with initial emergence of EAB adults – in our region typically in late May or early June. TreeAzin’s active ingredient is an extract from seeds of the Indian neem tree and it is registered by the Organic Materials Review Institute. It is an Ontario Class 4 Pesticide with a Class 11 active ingredient (permitted for cosmetic use). TreeAzin must be applied by an MOE licensed exterminator.

Criteria to be considered:

1) Tree Health o Avoid treatment of trees already in decline from other factors or showing signs

of stress o Treatment of trees already exhibiting signs of EAB infestation should be

considered carefully as it is more expensive and less likely to succeed – current research indicates that success rates are low in trees with more than 30% crown dieback

2) Size o In general, medium-sized and large trees provide more benefits than small trees

and are more costly to remove. However, lower treatment costs of small trees especially in the immediate vicinity of other trees already chosen for treatment should be considered

3) Hazard Potential o Trees whose decline will pose a hazard to individuals or infrastructure will

require a management response and represent a non-discretionary demand on


July 2012

11

resources – treatment cost and benefits should be evaluated against other management options

4) Removal Cost o In most cases, only hazardous and potentially hazardous trees will require

removal o Removal costs are affected by tree size, form, location, proximity to target (eg

power lines), equipment required, and processing & removal requirements for the downed material

5) Replacement Cost o Where tree replacement is required or desired, replacement costs should be

included in option evaluation - recognizing that the services & benefits provided by medium and large trees will not be offset by tree replacement for many years

6) Treatment Cost o Costs are dependent on tree diameter, tree condition, location, and number of

trees being treated at a location. o Treatments are required every 2 years while EAB populations are present –

Chemical costs of treatment are $3.40/cm DBH – incl. tax ($100 for a 30 cm tree).

7) Amenities Provided by Preservation o These are site dependent values such as overall aesthetic value, shade

provision, noise and wind buffering, visual barriers, etc. Loss of these amenities could have real costs in terms of the quality of experience for visitors to TRCA properties and the ability to attract visitors

8) Ecological Value Protected by Preservation o Ecological values at the individual tree level include genetic and future seed

source value o Treated trees have the potential to act as EAB population sinks following the

elimination of the majority of ash trees in an area by attracting egg laying adults and affecting the EAB population’s ability to maintain or re-establish viable population level

9) Cultural\Heritage\Educational Value Protected by Preservation

o Trees with a significant history, memorial trees, or trees in some settings such as Black Creek Pioneer Village will have tree-specific heritage values

o Some treated trees may provide an opportunity to educate the public regarding EAB and forest stewardship

10) Tree Permanence o Property management and future development plans should be considered in

choosing trees for preservation


July 2012

12

Appendix C: Ontario Urban Forest Council Resolution

A FEDERAL and PROVINCIAL ROLE IN URBAN FORESTRY

WHEREAS over 80% of Canadians now live in urban areas and have come to rely on the environmental, ecological and economic benefits of urban forests;

AND WHEREAS the health of Canadians is sustained by their urban forests which provide services through improving air quality, cooling city streets and buildings, acting as a windbreak, shading from harmful UV rays, and filtering storm water, as well as beautifying our communities; AND WHEREAS neither the federal nor provincial governments currently include urban forestry in their mandates except in a limited role with respect to exotic, invasive pests; AND WHEREAS the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not been able to stop the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer throughout Ontario and Quebec AND WHEREAS the Emerald Ash Borer is expected to cost Canadians over $2 Billion dollars in treatment and replanting;

AND WHEREAS Canadian forestry programs and research are solely focused on industrial forests and do not at present include urban tree planting, appropriate species research, and insect control and management; and

AND WHEREAS other jurisdictions such as the United States Forest Service and the European Urban Forestry Research and Information Centre include urban forestry as a program and research area; AND WHEREAS Canada engages municipalities in a number of substantial infrastructure programs; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Conservation Authority of _______________________________ calls on the Federal and Provincial governments to take leadership roles in recognizing the need to support urban forestry, by establishing urban forestry mandates and programs which includes funding assistance to Conservation Authorities for the control and management of the Emerald Ash Borer- and any future significant imported diseases and insects -as well as the creation and funding of programs designed to support the on-going sustainable management of urban forests. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That all Conservation Authorities across Ontario be encouraged to endorse this proclamation and that this resolution be distributed to The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food; The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources; The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; The Honorable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance; Local Federal Member of Parliament _____________________; Honourable Michael Gravelle, Minister of Natural


July 2012

13

Resources; Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Local Provincial Member of the Ontario Legislature__________________, Tim Hudak, MPP, Leader of Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the Opposition Party; Andrea Horvath, MPP, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario; Association of Municipalities of Ontario; and Federation of Canadian Municipalities.


July 2012

14

Appendix D: Candidate Tree Species to Replace the Ash Component in TRCA

Restoration and Reforestation Projects

The list below provides alternative species to replace ash in restoration and reforestation projects within the TRCA. It provides alternatives to fill the ash component of a planting plan which in most cases should include coniferous and other deciduous species. Based on the nature of sites commonly planted by the TRCA and its partners, a number of selection criteria were considered in choosing these candidate species. The criteria ultimately focus on the likelihood of successful propagation, transplantation and site restoration. No one species can replace the wide site compatibility and survival rates of white and green ash and history has shown the danger in overreliance on individual species. As in all tree planting, success depends on choosing the correct species for the site conditions and limiting vegetative competition and damage from deer and rodents. This list is not comprehensive - on individual sites, with appropriate care, several other species could be considered.

SELECTION CRITERIA PREFERRED SITE CONDITIONS

SPECIES

Native*

Indigenous**

Site

Adaptability

Transplantability

Seed\Propagule

Availability

Ease of

Propagation

Pests***

Soils

Soil Moisture

Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum)

yes yes wide excellent readily;

local seed high

several, none serious

all prefers moist to wet

will tolerate a wide range of moisture conditions

Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)

yes marginally very wide excellent intermittent; local seed

high several,

none serious

all (prefers

limestone based)

prefers moist, well-drained will tolerate a wide range of

moisture conditions

Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp deltoide)

yes marginally moderately

wide fair to good

readily; local hrdwd cuttings

high several, some

debilitating all prefers moist to wet

Freeman Maple (Acer saccharinum x rubrum)

yes probable moderately

wide good

good; local seed

good several

none serious all

prefers moist to moderately wet will tolerate a wide range of

moisture conditions


July 2012

15

Black Cherry (Prunus serotina)

yes yes somewhat restricted

good intermittent; local seed

high several, some

debilitating

prefers sandy loam & loams

prefers moist, well-drained poor growth on very dry or very

wet

Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera)


good intermittent; local seed

moderate several, some

debilitating

prefers sandy loam

prefers moist , well-drained

Big-Toothed Aspen (Populus grandidentata)


good sporadic; local seed


debilitating

all (prefers

sandy loam) prefers moist to moderately wet

Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides)

yes yes wide good sporadic; local seed


debilitating all

prefers moist, well-drained will grow on dry sites

American Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis)

yes marginally wide excellent uncertain; local seed & cuttings

good several,

none serious

all (prefers sandy

loam & loams)

prefers moist to wet

Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa)

yes yes wide fair intermittent; local seed

high several,

none serious all

prefers moist, well-drained will grow on shallow soil &

drought prone sites

For use as a minor component

Elm, White & Slippery (Ulmus americana & rubra)

yes yes wide good intermittent; local seed

moderate several,

some lethal all prefers moist to wet

* growing naturally within southern Ontario; ** local adaptation to environmental conditions with TRCA watersheds; *** both biotic (i.e. insects, diseases, mammals) and abiotic (i.e. weather), debilitating = stressful/of concern but not generally lethal


July 2012

16

Appendix E: Draft Implementation Plan for Heart Lake Conservation Area


July 2012

17

Appendix F: TRCA Authority Meeting #12/11 Board Report

Item AUTH7.1 TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #12/11, January 27, 2012 FROM: Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services RE: FOREST HEALTH AND EMERALD ASH BORER Annual Update and Proposed Management Approach _____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE: An update on the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2011 within the TRCA jurisdiction, and proposed management approach to address the threat posed by the emerald ash borer to ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages numerous forests and conservation areas and is engaged in several forest management initiatives on both private lands and TRCA-owned lands; AND WHEREAS emerald ash borer is an invasive insect species that poses a serious threat to all ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction, affecting forest biodiversity, public safety and TRCA operations; AND WHEREAS TRCA has the ability and responsibility to lessen the impact from forest pests and invasive species including emerald ash borer by developing effective management approaches; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats; THAT staff act to integrate an appropriate emerald ash borer management approach into all relevant TRCA actions and initiatives; THAT staff continue to engage with TRCA's partners in the coordinated and effective management of emerald ash borer, including providing expertise and advice to TRCA's municipal partners as they develop and implement their own emerald ash borer management plans; AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, including emerald ash borer, their implications and recommended responses.


July 2012

18

BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011, Resolution #A70/11 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats; AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, their implications and recommended responses.

The TRCA Forest Health Working Group was established in January 2010 to coordinate and monitor forest health issues and to facilitate coordination and improve efficiencies between internal departments and programs. The Forest Health Working Group provides this report to address two main issues. The first is to provide a summary of the 2011 Silvicultural Forest Health Report outlining the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2011. The second is to outline the TRCA management approach required to address emerald ash borer, the most significant forest pest facing southern Ontario. This report fulfills the request made to staff from the Authority to report on emerald ash borer and potential management implications. This report is timely as action is needed in the very near future to help address emerald ash borer. 2011 Silvicultural Forest Health Report The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) with the assistance of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and local agencies, monitor across Ontario potentially harmful forest pest populations and forest damage caused by pest outbreaks and abiotic causes. In some aspects, 2011 was a relatively “quiet year” when it comes to many of the cyclical forest health disturbances in Ontario and the TRCA jurisdiction. Within TRCA watersheds, gypsy moth populations and defoliation are at low levels; no significant forest tent caterpillar defoliation was noted; and precipitation levels and extreme weather events did not cause any concern of note. Our forests continue to face some very significant threats with the emerald ash borer currently presenting the greatest concern. Asian Long-horned Beetle (ALHB) Monitoring and sampling efforts within the ALHB regulated area in Toronto and Vaughan did not detect any new infested trees in 2011. No new finds have occurred since December 2007 and if ongoing systematic monitoring of the area does not detect any more beetles before 2013, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will be able to declare ALHB as eradicated from the regulated zone. Although this "eradication" of the current ALHB infestation in the Toronto area may be considered a great success story, as noted in the recent report on Biodiversity for the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the current efforts in the eastern United States have not had the same results. The potential for future infestations from either the United States or abroad continues to threaten our forests. Only through increased efforts to maintain or improve forest biodiversity will these potentially devastating effects be minimized. Beech Bark Disease Beech bark disease is caused by a complex involving a non-native scale insect and associated non-native fungus. The disease causes significant mortality or defects in beech trees. It is believed that it was introduced to North America in Nova Scotia in the late 1800’s. While the


July 2012

19

scale has been present in Ontario since the 1960’s, the expanded distribution in Ontario and increased effects of the disease in the past couple of decades has resulted in increased concern and monitoring efforts. The scale and disease are found throughout TRCA’s watersheds, however healthy beech are still present and the long term prognosis is not clear. Beech nuts are an important source of food for a wide variety of wildlife. Thousand Canker Disease of Walnut Thousand Canker Disease of Walnut has not been detected in Ontario, however this is a disease of concern due to detections over the past couple of years in the eastern United States. This disease, like beech bark disease, is caused by an association of an insect and fungus. This disease complex was only recognized in 2008 although it has been determined that the disease was killing trees in the western U.S. as far back as 2001. Recent detections in Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania raise concerns for southern Ontario. CFIA is completing a Pest Risk Assessment and draft Import Requirements and Regulations in response to this potential threat. Emerald Ash Borer Emerald ash borer is the most significant forest pest threatening southern Ontario forests at this time. The remainder of this board report provides background on emerald ash borer and outlines a recommended management approach to address this threat. Proposed Emerald Ash Borer Management Approach Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) is an invasive insect species introduced from eastern Asia that attacks and kills all native North American ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Emerald ash borer (EAB) was first detected in Detroit, Michigan in July 2002. In August of 2002, CFIA confirmed the presence of EAB in Windsor, Ontario. It has since spread throughout southern Ontario and Quebec, despite the efforts of Canadian and U.S. agencies to contain the infestation. The beetle can disperse naturally through flight; however, the large scale spread of EAB has been facilitated by the transport of firewood, nursery stock and other ash products throughout Ontario. EAB belongs to a group of wood-boring beetles commonly found in Asia. Adults are dark green, 10 mm in length, and 3 mm wide. The larvae feed just beneath the bark of the tree and disrupt the transport of water and nutrients. Once signs and symptoms of infestation have developed the tree is usually in serious decline. In areas with established populations, trees can be mass attacked and killed in as little as two growing seasons. Once dead, ash trees tend to fall quite quickly, often within two years, compared to other tree species. CFIA is the principle agency responsible for the regulation of EAB in Canada. CFIA has established regulated areas from which the movement of specific materials, including any ash material and all firewood, is prohibited. Attachment 1 is a map of the regulated areas within Canada. Ash trees are very common in southern Ontario both in rural and urban settings. Consequently, the presence of EAB in TRCA’s jurisdiction has serious economic and environmental implications, including tree removal costs, public safety hazards and a loss of ecosystem services. Complete eradication of EAB has been deemed impossible, but advances in detection and treatment may help to lessen the devastating impact that will likely be observed in the next 5 to 10 years. The bio-insecticide TreeAzin™(Azadirachtin) has been approved under emergency provisions in Canada. TreeAzin™ is injected into the base of an individual tree once every two years; this treatment has been shown to effectively kill EAB larvae. To maintain tree health, injections must be repeated until either the infestation has subsided or an effective biological control agent has become established. Researchers from academic


July 2012

20

institutions and government agencies are actively studying biological control agents for EAB and are working to develop a "biocontrol" program. The most effective EAB management approach is to ensure a diverse and robust forest system that is resilient to the inevitable pest and disease outbreaks and other stressors associated with a forest system located within a human dominated landscape. It is important to place any proposed management actions regarding EAB in this context and not lose sight of longer term forest management objectives. TRCA has a long and active history in the effective protection, restoration and management of the forest system within its jurisdiction. Some of these initiatives are listed below:

• sustainable forest management;

• stewardship and forestry outreach programs;

• habitat restoration planning and implantation;

• conservation land planning;

• plan input and review;

• forest monitoring and surveys;

• land securement;

• strategic natural heritage system and forest planning;

• mapping and data management;

• knowledge transfer between and among partners.

The activities described above, as well as the human resources and expertise of staff have placed TRCA in an excellent position to help address the current threat that EAB poses. TRCA will continue to engage in active and effective forest health management for the purpose of protecting and enhancing a diverse, robust and ultimately resilient forest system. Any additional actions specific to EAB management must recognize and complement these long term management goals. Most ash trees on TRCA lands are located within natural forests and therefore may not require additional management. However, there will be circumstances where EAB specific actions should be taken to help minimize both the long term ecological and economic implications. Additional management will be required to address hazards from dead ash trees, and to maintain important ecosystem services and functions such as aesthetics, recreation and important wildlife habitat. Through the development and implementation of TRCA forest health initiatives, staff has developed strong and effective working relationships with municipal staff and other partner organizations involved in forest management. These partnerships provide an excellent perspective on the collective efforts regarding EAB management within and surrounding TRCA's jurisdiction. In determining the best management approach for EAB, staff looked to TRCA's partners to ensure we have considered all possible approaches and that the TRCA approach is consistent and complementary. Attachment 2 provides a table summarizing the EAB management approaches of partner municipalities and neighbouring conservation authorities. The management approach outlined below is complementary to the management plans being developed by TRCA's partner municipalities while at the same time recognizing the unique TRCA context and our established long term forest health goals.


July 2012

21

1. Detection and Risk Assessment a. Increased ground surveys (branch sampling) to detect the presence of EAB in

areas closest to known infestations. b. Identify high value, heritage ash trees for treatment (this process will be guided by

a set of criteria for the selection of candidate trees). c. Identify high risk trees that pose public safety hazards.

2. Communications and Public Outreach

a. Public education and interpretive program building on existing materials and resources for private landowners.

b. Maintain key messaging regarding EAB management in cooperation with municipal, regional, provincial and federal partners.

3. Insecticide Treatment

a. Option to preserve TRCA high value or heritage ash trees using insecticide injections where appropriate.

b. Tree protection program involving insecticide injections for the ash seed trees required by the TRCA nursery to ensure the future availability of locally adapted and grown ash.

4. Forest Management, Tree Planting and Habitat Restoration

a. Partial seedling replacement program using non-ash species within forest settings where adequate regeneration and species diversity has been affected by the loss of ash seedlings.

b. Tree planting program to address high value areas where significant numbers of TRCA owned ash trees will be lost.

c. Increased private land planting efforts to offset loss of ash trees. d. Moratorium on TRCA ash planting on TRCA and private properties to minimize the

potential duration of the EAB infestation. e. Development of planting prescriptions utilizing appropriately diverse multiple

species selections to compensate for the loss of ash trees. f. Increase TRCA nursery production of alternative species to possibly replace the

ecological gap created by the loss of ash trees. 5. Monitoring and Evaluation

a. Ongoing monitoring of actions outlined in management plan. b. Continued dialogue with researchers, municipal partners and government agencies

to ensure new adaptive strategies are applied as they emerge. RATIONALE Emerald ash borer poses a very serious threat to forest health in southern Ontario. TRCA has the responsibility to assess this threat in the context of TRCA's current forest management initiatives and determine what additional management action may be warranted. Balancing short term operational costs and limitations against longer term management implications and the desire to maintain ecosystem services can be challenging. It is now widely agreed by forestry experts that the proactive management of this threat will minimize financial losses and enable land managers to amortize costs over a longer period of time. TRCA’s approach recognizes the need for more intensive management in strategic situations such as


July 2012

22

hazard tree removal, the maintenance of high value heritage trees and the protection of a local ash seed source while at the same time recognizing the adaptive capacity of natural forests. TRCA’s management approach will ensure that forest regeneration and succession will not be restricted such that long-term forest health is threatened. In turn, this approach will minimize the loss of ecosystem services as a consequence of EAB; many of these services provide direct financial benefits to TRCA (e.g. recreational opportunities) and residents of the GTA (e.g. stormwater management, erosion control and air pollution removal). Staff is confident in the management approach outlined in this report. It is based on the best available science, utilizes the most effective approaches to management and duly considers the specific TRCA context. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA has taken significant steps toward an effective plan for the management of EAB. In order to ensure effective implementation a management plan will be finalized that helps to relate and incorporate the identified management approach into existing forest health initiatives undertaken by TRCA. This will include communicating with each TRCA section and working with them to devise an approach for implementation. Due to the urgency of this threat, immediate action is required in early 2012 in order to effectively mitigate risk and ensure that high value trees are treated prior to full infestation. The actions proposed for immediate undertaking are outlined in Table 1. FINANCIAL DETAILS The management approach taken by TRCA balances the short term implications with the long term financial implications and desire to protect the important ecosystem services ash trees provide. The financial resources needed to implement the outlined management approach will be significantly less than what most municipalities are faced with due to the relatively low numbers of TRCA ash trees in public areas. The early detection and proactive removal of hazard trees located on TRCA lands will require dedicated staff time. This additional staff time as well as treatment costs for high value ash trees is projected to be the most notable 2012 expense associated with the presence of EAB. Funds to support staff time and additional resources for 2012 will come from re-allocating existing funds within the approved 2012 budget. A long-term financial commitment will also be required to protect forest health and ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. A detailed assessment of long term expenses associated with the proposed management approach will be conducted during the development of ensuing implementation plans and will be considered through the 2013 budget process. Report prepared by: Noah Gaetz, extension 5348, Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379, Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Emails: [email protected] Date: December 02, 2011 Attachments: 2

Recommended Approach for the Management of Emerald Ash …

Documents

Transcript of Recommended Approach for the Management of Emerald Ash …