Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee

Monthly Meeting Minutes

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

90 West Plato Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55107

May 19, 2005 – 9:30 - 11:30 A.M.

Attendees:

To be added

BUSINESS SECTION:

Call to Order

President Simons called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.

President Simons mentioned the MnSTAC mentoring program for UMN students and encouraged members to sign up on the form he routed.

Review and Motion to Approve Previous Meeting Minutes

Gary Johnson made the motion to approve the April 2005 minutes and Kirk Brown seconded. It was noted the misspelling of Top Notch and the last name of Jim Vaughan to be corrected. Motion carried.

.

Introductions and Nominations of New Members

Jeff Cordes nominated and Gary Johnson seconded the nomination of Dan Forseth.

Gregg Hove nominated and Gary Johnson seconded the nomination of Adam Gerber. Motion carried on both nominations.

Committee and Partner Reports

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Tina Markeson reported on the approval for a summer internship. Please provide names of potential candidates. With the increase in DED, MnDOT is encouraging communities to contact Bob Wryks at 651-775-0369 to alert him of DED in MnDOT roadways.

Minnesota Forestry Association

No report.

Tree Trust

Kirk Brown reported (with humor) Tree Trust’s specialty niche of planting in the rain! Tree Trust has completed several successful tree planting projects including the Midtown Greenway with over 400 trees and shrubs planted and 80 trees at the Munisotaram Temple (Cambodian Buddhist Society) near Farmington. Kirk noted that maples and lindens were coming too deep in the containers.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

No report.

Tree Care Advisors

Glen Hambleton reported on the Tree Trust Home Depot project. The Home Depot project utilized the expertise of Tree Care Advisors to serve as the “Ask the Expert” contact at Home Depot stores in the Metro Area on Sunday, May 15. The next phase is to train Home Depot staff on tree care and other topics. Tree Care Advisors felt their efforts were very worthwhile. There is a real opportunity to work with Home Depot employees to help them understand and share correct information with their customers. Dave Hanson noted that there are 220 active Tree Care Advisors in Minnesota.

University of Minnesota

Gary Johnson reported on the proposed merger of the Colleges of Natural Resources and Agriculture, Food and Environment. Gary provided a handout with information on how to make your concerns/comments known to President Bruininks. On June 10 the Board of Regents will vote on this issue. Of concern is that the U&CF program will be reduced. There are already indications of funding issues with the reduction by 25% of funding for TRE nursery – worst case scenario is that the TRE nursery will be lost in 2 years, best case 4 years if funding is not restored. James Burks moved to have Mike Max send a broadcast e-mail to inform all MnSTAC members on this issue. Glen Hambleton seconded. Motion carried. Ken Holman moved and Kim Sullivan seconded a motion to have a letter sent from MnSTAC President Simons to President Bruininks stating that MnSTAC was opposed to this merger. Motion carried.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Ken Holman reported. The deadline for MnReLeaf proposals is May 29.

Ken thanked all of those who participated in the April 29 Arbor Day Celebration at the Capital. Of interest is the total estimated value of over $40,000 for an actual $5,000 media contract.

He circulated a copy of a pamphlet on the FS research on cost/benefit analysis on urban tree management. The minimum payback is 3-times the investment in tree care. Visit www.mntrees.org for more info. This information could be used to justify continued investment in this type of research from the UMN CNR. We need to start talking about the value of the trees and that trees neglected become a liability.

Ken reminded the group that Mike Carroll will soon be leaving his position as Forestry Director. There are many good candidates including Burnie Fischer from Indiana who is a tremendous advocate for U&CF.

USDA Forest Service

No report.

Forest Health Committee

Kathy Widin reported that the Forest Health Committee recently held a joint meeting with the Legislative Committee. Committee members will be meeting with community leaders to make recommendations.

Sue Burks reported that U.S. Congressman Sabo and Mayor Rybak will be going to Washington DC to ask for dollars from the FS for DED. There is a small amount of funding this year, but will use the DED survey data to write an Environmental Assessment for much more in the future. Additional funds will be used to supplement the tree inspector program.

Website Committee

No report.

Education and Research Committee

Gary Johnson reported that the Shade Tree Advocate and Shade Tree Short Course committee meetings are coming up, so if you have any ideas or thoughts on either of these, please give them to Gary Johnson. There were 825 participants at the STSC – record setting! This is the largest, stand-alone conference in the U.S. The deadline for the Winter edition of the Advocate is the end of August. The deadline for Spring 2006 is the end of January.

General Business

Ken Holman reported and shared a handout on the “MN DNR FFY 2005 U&CF Program Budget Worksheet” outlining the 2005 expenditures and FFY 2005 dollar amounts. There is an increase of $32,000 from U&CF federal dollars. Ken explained how the dollars are distributed among the various activities. The MnSTAC Board of Directors reviewed and approved this budget. Mike Max moved and John Bathke seconded member approval of the budget. Motion carried.

FORUM:

Speaker: Susan Burks, MN DNR Forest Health Specialist

Presentation: Oak Wilt Change Detection and Assessment, 2003-2004 (and MnSTAC/Tree Trust DED Survey).

Sue explained that the accuracy and reliability of the previously existing data may not be as good as she would like due to the transfer of data between different technologies and other issues over the years. Currently, the extent of active oak wilt is from as far north as Pine County and into many southeast counties.

Sue evaluated the existing 2002 Oak Wilt (OW) data. Some questions became evident such as what was the full extent of OW? Between 1992 and 1997, suppression efforts successfully reduced the amount of OW. However, in 1997 that changed and by 2001, OW increased above the pre-1992 level. Some areas did slightly decrease, but was outweighed by Sherburne County that saw a tremendous increase. This is surprising because Sherburne County has a very good program, so data issues may be a factor.

The 2003-2004 Oak Wilt Assessment survey was conducted to look at change detection and distribution – very difficult and expensive. The survey looked at the entire region versus individual communities. Brief details: 1) the study area was defined by the intersection of two photo periods (1988-1993 and 2002-2003); 2) the study area and plot design included random samples from 651 40-acre plots with a minimum of 15% forest cover; 3) sample design consisted of a regular grid of points totaling 37,856, using 13,563 for change detection; and, 4) CIR field checks of a 5% sample by contacting all landowners and verifying point locations and data. Using the point data and additional data layers (such as Tree Trust phone survey of community suppression programs, soil types, land use classes, and population change), a regression analysis was run to determine factors associated with the change in OW. Analysis suggested that: 1) OW suppression programs can effectively reduce OW incidence and reinforces the need to maintain and begin active programs; 2) sample points occurring on sandy soils were more likely to see an increase in OW incidence than those on no sand; 3) land use classes when lumped together and compared to the “undisturbed greenspace” class indicates that the change in OW is greater in the “greenspace” areas; and, 4) population change that showed insignificant results.

Discussion:

· Change in OW as a percent difference. Those communities with functioning programs are having a positive impact on OW.

· Soil types for root graft potential. Significant difference between those soil types with sand and those without sand. With sandy soils, root grafting was more frequent and for longer distances.

· Increase in OW in greenspace contrary to popular belief. Relative to the amount of forest land present, it may be true that there is more OW in developing areas than there is in the woodlands. However, in terms of the shear number and size of infection pockets, there are more in woodlands than elsewhere due to more trees to infect. Woodland areas haven’t been addressed by MnReLeaf, but the relative abundance of OW in these woodlands means that as communities expand into them, they are inheriting many well-established infection pockets serving as large reservoirs of inoculum. Needs to be addressed.

Implications:

· Although the infection rates are low, disease incidence is increasing in all counties

· Differences in local program implementation seem to be as important as other determining factors

· Where OW occurs, communities w/o a program need to be involved

· Communities with high rates of change need greater outreach and assistance

· Undeveloped areas need to be addressed

Remaining Issues:

· Some communities and factor categories were under-represented

· Missing data and subjective answers clouded the role of specific program components

· As a result, the data is insufficient to make significant changes in MnReLeaf funding priorities (currently based on OW density)

Some things can be done - MnReLeaf application changes:

· No cap on FH requests – had to turn landowners away, others ask for cap and not use it

· FH requests must accompany a management plan – realistic description of need and historic perspective to justify request.

· Plan must define the need as well as the outline the approach

· Local Units of Government personnel can account for up to 10% of FH requests

MnReLeaf program changes:

· Outside contractors to provide technical assistance and cover compliance checks (minimum of 3 sites per year)

· Guidelines monitored more rigorously – invoice and reporting templates

· Data management upgraded. Dropping all active spots older than 5 years.

· Other?

o Regional funding priorities – regional coordinator = outreach coordinator – offer additional programs, homeowner workshops, etc. in the band of counties outside the main OW areas

o Treat to the Line (TTL) – appropriate in the outlying counties.

Point:

Ø Take advantage of current funding for OW

Ø Think outside the box

Ø Act now (get your MnReLeaf application in) or risk losing the opportunity if funding is lost through the FS in 2007.

Comment: Sue believes the issues of OW and DED would lend to the importance of ordinances. MnSTAC should consider this and create what might be recommended language.

DED Survey:

Out-state DED Survey: 101 responses out of 850 (12% return) largely out-state communities. Out-state survey results show similar results to the Metro Region survey conducted by the DNR. U&CF priorities indicate that tree planting and pruning are top 2 – with implications for a more holistic approach to funding and programs.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn meeting made by Gary Johnson and seconded by Jeff Cordes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:30.