Deborah McCullough Cliff Sadof Richard Hauer Professor Professor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Second Wednesdays | 1:00 – 2:00 pm ET www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars This meeting is being recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, please disconnect now. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Deborah McCullough Cliff Sadof Richard Hauer Professor Professor Professor University of Wisconsin – Michigan State University Purdue University Stevens Point

e- mail… Hauer UWSP … for a copy of today’s talk Emerald Ash Borer: Status, management options, and cost calculators Richard J. Hauer, Ph.D Professor of Urban Forestry College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

“ Whether you like it or not, it will cost you money!” Mark Stennes

American Elm ( Ulmus americana ): The Tolerant One The Actors are Showing the Play

Whether You Like it or Not, DED Will Cost You Money Figure 2. Projected elm tree losses from Dutch elm disease under varying levels of control. (From Cannon and Worley 1976) How much will it cost? A DED Example circa 1970’s

Figure 7. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. 100,000 90,000 - Predicted Minimum Sanitation 80,000 70,000 Number of Elms 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year

Figure 7. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. 100,000 90,000 Predicted Intensive Sanitation 80,000 Predicted Minimum Sanitation 70,000 Number of Elms 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year

Figure 7. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. - 100,000 Actual Results 90,000 Predicted Intensive Sanitation 80,000 Predicted Minimum Sanitation 70,000 Number of Elms 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year

Figure 8. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. 5,000 4,500 - Cost (Thousands of Dollars, USD) 4,000 Predictive Minimum Sanitation 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

Figure 8. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. 5,000 - 4,500 Predicted Intensive Sanitation Cost (Thousands of Dollars, USD) 4,000 - Predictive Minimum Sanitation 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

Figure 8. A quarter-century of DED management in Minneapolis, MN compared to predicted results of Baughman (1985) under two levels of sanitation. 5,000 - 4,500 Actual Results - Cost (Thousands of Dollars, USD) 4,000 Predicted Intensive Sanitation - 3,500 Predictive Minimum Sanitation 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

Figure 1. Elm population in Milwaukee over a 40 year period comparing the actual outcome and four management approaches and anticipated percentage annual loss. (Simulated losses adapted from Cannon and Worley (1976) with a starting population106,738) 110,000 100,000 Best 90,000 80,000 Good Number of Elm Trees 70,000 60,000 Fair 50,000 40,000 Best (1.0%) 30,000 Good (3.5%) Actual Fair (5.0%) 20,000 No Control (18%) 10,000 No Actual Population Control 0 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Year

Estimated American elm canopy cover under different Dutch elm disease management scenarios and the estimated right of way tree canopy for all tree species from aerial photos. 25 25 Actual Elm Population No Control (18% Annual Mortality) Fair Control (5.0% Annual Mortality) All Tree Good Control (3.5% Annual Mortality) Species 20 20 Best Best Control (1.0% Annual Mortality) All Tree Species Percent Tree Canopy Cover 15 15 10 Good 10 Elm Fair Trees 5 Only 5 No Control Actual 0 0 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Year

EAB Decision Making Model Study Objectives • Complete Inventory: UW- Stevens Point • Economic analysis of four EAB management scenarios… 1. Do nothing (control) & remove after dead 2. Approved insecticide treatment 3. Removal of all ash in five years 4. Removal with non-ash replacement * No EAB What are your objectives?

Determining Benefits • CTLA: Compensatory value (replacement value included) • i-Tree: Functional value (only the benefits provided, not replacement value) What is your data?

Calculating Net Present Value 𝑜 𝐷 𝑞 𝑊 𝐷 𝑛 𝐷 𝑢 𝐷 𝑠 𝑑 𝑊𝑆 𝑗 = (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 − (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 − (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 − (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 − (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 Retained Value 𝑢=1 𝑜 𝐷 𝑞 𝑊 𝐷 𝑛 𝐷 𝑢 𝐷 𝑠 𝑑 𝑊𝑀 𝑗 = (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 + (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 + (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 + (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 + (1 + 𝑒) 𝑢 Lost Value 𝑢=1 Where: VR i = net average annual value retained for alternative i VL i = net average annual value lost for alternative i C m = maintenance costs C t = treatment costs C r = removal costs C p = planting costs d = discount rate What is your data?

EAB-PLANS http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Pages/outreachExtension.aspx A way to compare management options

Modeled Ash Tree Loss Over 20 Years 160 140 120 Number of Trees 100 80 Preemptive Remove & Replant No EAB 60 Treatment Control 40 Preemptive Remove 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year Different Options and Tree Retention

EAB-Induced Ash Mortality SE Michigan Solid line: direct measurements Dotted line: inferred from dendrochronology data confirming EAB-induced ash mortality from 1994 - 2004 The outcome of doing nothing (Image by Dan Herms)

EAB- PLANS … Entering Customized Data VARIABLES UNIT VALUE  17.90 Starting Di amete r Mlean Size (In ches)  31,421 Starting Population Number of Tr ees  5 Preemptiv· e R. emoval Number of Years 0.50 Tr ee Growth R. ate Inches/Year Enter your ash population statistics

EAB- PLANS … Entering Customized Data $/Di ameter Inch Maintenance Cost 3.50 Removal Cost $/Di ameter Inch 31 . 90  Treatment Cost $/Di ameter Inch 3.75  Treatment ( Tx ) Interval Years Between Tx 2  99. 0% Expected Tx Success Percent Planting Survival 90 . 0% Percent Natural Survival 99. 2% Percent No Control Survival ( EAB Percent 80 . 0% Enter your management costs and treatment outcomes

Default values from McPherson et al. 2005 … Midwest Guide (Adjusted for Inflation to 2012) Includes Stumps Actual values from City of Milwaukee Production Records (Mean 2013 and 2014) Includes Stumps

EAB- PLANS … Entering Customized Data Replacement Size Inches 2.00 Replacement Cost Dollars 145 Installation Cost Dollars 200 $/sq. in. Unit Tree Cost 46 . 15 Species Percent 70. 0°/o Condition Percent 69 .5% 70. 0% Location Percent Interest Rate + 1 Percent 1. 03 Enter your economic parameters