Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery
—A Management Plan
by
Yuqi Yang
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation
Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto
©Copyright by Yuqi Yang 2017
ii
Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery
—A Management Plan
Yuqi Yang
Master of Forest Conservation
Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto
2017
Abstract
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennes Fairmaire), an invasive insects, has caused
significant loss of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Eastern North America. Prospect Cemetery, an
arboretum-cemetery in Toronto, with 140 Ash trees, has been threatened by this insect as well.
Infested and decaying Ash trees cause serious safety concerns. In order to prevent further EAB
infestation and prioritize hazard tree removal, a 10 year management plan was developed based
on single tree inventory data. For trees that could be possibly saved, trunk injection with
TreeAzin was suggested as the most suitable treatment. Criteria for selecting Ash for injection
are that a tree must be no less than 20 cm in DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), and that has no
significant dieback in crown. For all other Ash trees, treatments, such as removal, monitoring, or
do nothing, were identified based on their health condition, location, and tree size. As a result,
three management scenarios were developed, and their estimated cost were calculated for Mount
Pleasant Group to select from. The three scenarios are: ―Do Everything‖, ―Reduced Injection‖,
and ―Eliminated Replanting‖. Comparison of the scenarios, enabled the scenario of ―Do
Everything‖, injection of all healthy Ash and removal of unstable trees with replanting as the
most efficient. Annual inventory, continuous monitoring, and follow-up adjustment on
operations and budgets are also recommended to minimize safety risks.
iii
Acknowledgement
I would like to appreciate Dr Danijela Puric-Mladenovic, my supervisor of this Capstone Project.
Thank you for your patient guidance and precious advices. Your dedicated edit is greatly
appreciated. The completion of this project owns to your contribution and support. I would also
like to appreciate Mr Jeff McMann, my internship supervisor. Thank you for providing me the
opportunity to work at Prospect Cemetery, and thank you for inspire me on the topic of this
capstone. Learning from your great experience on data collection and species identification has
been a key step for the establishment of this project. Without the data and pictures, you offered,
the project could not be developed. Thank you for helping me all the way to today. I would also
like to send my sincere appreciation to Dr Sally Krigstin and Dr Sandy Smith. Thank you for
connecting me with Jeff and recommending me to Mount Pleasant Group. Without you this
project could not be produced. Last but not the least, I would like to appreciate all my fellow
2015 Master of Forest Conservation candidates for your continuous support during the 16 intense
month. Thank you!
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................3
2.2 Data Analysis and Treatment Determination .......................................................................4
2.2.1 Ash Selection Criteria for Trunk Injection ..............................................................4
2.2.2 Removal Priority and Timeline ................................................................................7
2.2.3 Replanting and Maintenance....................................................................................8
2.3 Budget Calculation...............................................................................................................9
3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................9
3.1 Ash Condition at Prospect Cemetery .................................................................................10
3.2 Treatments and Timeline ...................................................................................................11
4 Management Scenarios and Budget ..........................................................................................13
4.1 Scenario One—Do Everything ..........................................................................................13
4.2 Scenario Two—Reduced Injection ....................................................................................14
4.3 Scenario Three—Eliminated Replanting ...........................................................................16
4.4 Budget Comparison ...........................................................................................................17
5 Management Recommendation and Conclusion .......................................................................18
Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................20
Appendix I .....................................................................................................................................25
Appendix II ....................................................................................................................................26
Appendix III ...................................................................................................................................28
Appendix IV...................................................................................................................................30
v
Appendix V ....................................................................................................................................31
Appendix VI...................................................................................................................................31
Appendix VII .................................................................................................................................33
Appendix IV...................................................................................................................................34
1
1 Introduction
In recent years, the value of urban green space has been more recognized (Derkzen et al., 2015).
Cemeteries, as islands of green within the compacted urban space, are increasingly important
component of urban green spaces, (Kowarik et al., 2016; Klaufus, 2016; Swensen et al., 2016).
To serve environmental and cultural demands, many cemeteries are transforming into arboreta
(Kowarik et al., 2016; Klaufus, 2016; Swensen et al., 2016). Arboretum is a collection of diverse
shrubs and trees that provide horticultural, educational, scientific, and public benefits (Idzojtic, et
al., 2011; Elliott et al., 2008; Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009).Cemeteries with diverse collection
of trees, that bloom, flower, and change colors in different time are more attractive to urban
communities. Cemetery-arboretum also serve to awake public environmental awareness and
moderate moral pressure (Ijeomah et al., 2014; Elliott et al., 2008; Sherburn & Devlin, 2004;
Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown, 2013). Inevitably, some clients, who have their beloved berried in
an arboretum-cemetery, dislike trees, but in general, more people are grateful to the recreational
function provided by these cemeteries. Trees and shrubs are used to landscape graveyards and as
a mean of memories (Clayden & Dixon, 2007; Swensen et al., 2016).
Besides the cultural and environmental values, arboretum cemeteries could also be used for
public and professional education. Decomposition processes taking place in the soil of
cemeteries could provide continuous nutrient support to trees and shrubs growing on. Addition to
this, sufficient space an arboretum-cemetery provides to plants could support the fully display of
their growth (Ijeomah et., 2014; Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown,
2013; Idzojtic, et al., 2011; Klaufus, 2016). Hence, arboretum-cemeteries can serve to
demonstrate the establishment and maintenance of native and non-native urban trees and their
growth characteristics to future arborists and foresters (Ijeomah et al., 2014; Buhler &
Kristoffersen, 2009). Besides, old cemeteries often have old and heritage trees and as such could
also act as genetic pool and provide seed source. This could be a crucial scientific data base for
academic researches and other urban forest plans (Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al.,
2016; Brown, 2013). Additionally, as a collection of various species, an arboretum-cemetery
could be an experimental site providing potential options for new urban tree species (Buhler &
Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown, 2013).
2
Prospect Cemetery of Mount Pleasant Group also functions as an arboretum and as such provides
significant cultural and ecological values to public. Although Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) only
makes about 2% of all trees, it is an important representative in the arboretum-cemetery.
However, due to the spreads of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennes Fairmaire)
benefits provided by Ash trees as well as tree canopy of the cemetery are evidently threatened.
Emerald Ash Borer, a phloem-feeding insect native to Asia, is the most destructive pest to
Eastern North America forests and urban trees since it was first observed in 1980s. As of 2002
EAB started causing vast damage to Ash population, first in Michigan (Herms &McCullough,
2014; McCullough et al., 2009; McCullough et al., 2016) and then spread out from there, the
insect is now threatening more than 95% Ash trees in North America. Ash species, but
specifically Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) ,White Ash (Fraxinus americana) , Black Ash
(Fraxinus nigra), and European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), are under the risk of EAB to different
degree (McCullough et al., 2016; Mercaader et al., 2015; Herms & McCullough, 2014). EAB
spreads both naturally and by human-assist. Ash trees in Prospect Cemetery are scattered with a
relatively low density, so it could be relatively difficult for the insect to fly from one tree to
another by itself. However, the high pedestrian volume at the cemetery makes human an
important carrier for EAB spread (Herms &McCullough, 2014). The diversity of tree species is
decreasing due to the increasing ash mortality. Weak and dead branches, along with dead trees
are significant hazards to the visitors and pedestrians. The dying trees and snags could also cause
damage to paths and monuments underneath and nearby. Questions regarding to the decaying ash
trees have already been brought out by clients of the cemetery. Additionally, the infestation of
EAB in Prospect Cemetery could result in multiple damages to urban canopy, such as gap
openings, understory alteration, and loss of habitat for over 200 arthropod species (Herms
&McCullough, 2014). Ash loss also promotes spread of other shade-intolerant invasive species,
many of which have been already observed in Prospect Cemetery (Herms &McCullough, 2014).
In spite of the significant damages the insect could cause, EAB could be controlled with multiple
methods if observed at the early stage of its infestation (McCullough et al., 2016; Mercaader et
al., 2015; Herms & McCullough, 2014; McCullough et al., 2009). Unfortunately, while the city
and many forest managers, including Mount Pleasant Cemetery, are seizing the time to treat /
remove the targeted species, little measure was addressed in Prospect Cemetery. Only few ash
trees were injected three years ago, and no follow-up injection was addressed, regardless that
3
insecticide to be effective has to be applied every year. Thus, the replacement of dead and dying
trees at Prospect Cemetery would be imperative, and a management plan addresses to prevent
further EAB infestation strategically would be urgency.
The paper develops an Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) management plan for Prospect Cemetery
utilizing tree inventory data. Data on tree condition and size were analyzed, which enabled
determing treatments. A list of species for replacement was created, and the timeline of removal
and replacement was also designed. A detail operation plan and the budget of the plan were
generated for the upcoming year (2017). Follow-ups as well as future costs up to 2027 were
suggested, so that all Ash in the property could be taken care of. Besides, alternatives and
treatment priorities are provided in case of budget insufficiency. Meanwhile, the study tended to
demonstrate the importance and the application of single-tree inventory with standard data to
support decision making.
2 Methods
2.1 Data Collection
Single tree inventory was conducted to collect detail and up-to-date information on all tree
species and understand local and neighborhood condition of the property. Tree inventory was
also conducted to collect necessary information for developing a tree management plan
(Vastaranta et al., 2014; Saarinen et al., 2014). Besides species identification and recording
during the inventory, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), crown width, and height of the tree were
measured. In addition to these, tree condition was assessed following the scale: good, fair, poor,
or dead. A tree with almost full / full canopy and no cracks or rots was defined as good, a tree
with less than 30% crown was defined as poor , and any condition between good and poor was
defined as fair. Additional notes were taken to further describe health condition. For example,
girdling roots, hangers, insects, conks, wounds / scars, cracks, rots, marks of woodpeckers, and
marks of historical injections were recorded. The location of a tree was mapped and it was
recorded if a tree is beside road, office building, mausoleum, or property line.
A software Arbor pro was used for entering and managing tree inventory. A google map of
Prospect Cemetery was preloaded in the program; for every tree inventoried, a point location was
digitized at the center of the tree on the map. Then, inventory information for each point / tree
4
was entered in an automatic pop-up form that enabled entering a standard set of attributes.
Finally, a picture of a tree was taken and documented as a reference. If a tree was a memorial
planting, a picture of the memorial plaque was also taken to document its private ownership. The
memorial plaque information means that Mount Pleasant Group does not have the right to treat /
remove the tree without the authorization from the family / client. As a result of this,
management of memorial trees will not be included in this plan.
2.2 Data Analysis and Treatment Determination
In order to demonstrate Ash condition, tree DBH was categorized into six classes according to
2016 US Forest Service Tree Marking Guide (Table 1). The lower limit of DBH class three (3)
was modified from 18cm (original) to 20cm (Table 1)
since 20cm is the suggested threshold of TreeAzin trunk
injection (personal communication Jeff McMann, Arbor
Services Co-ordinator of Mount Pleasant Group;
Melamed & Zhou, 2012; Knight et al., 2013; Campbell
and Sloan 1977; Haavic and Stephen 2010; Volney
1998; Jennings et al., 2014; Marshall et al. 2013; Lyons
et al., 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Siegert et al. 2007;
Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009). Data
analysis was done with Excel where Ash condition, DBH classes, and inventory information
were used as input criteria.
2.2.1 Ash Selection Criteria for Trunk Injection
Annual trunk injection of TreeAzin was selected as a management measure for preventing EAB
infestation (Grimalt et al., 2011). Grimalt et al (2011) and Kreutzweiser et al. (2007) confirmed
that TreeAzin has short residual time and low side effect to untargeted species, so it is an
environmental friendly insecticide recommended for retardance of EAB infestation at Prospect
Cemetery. TreeAzin is an insecticide proved to be efficient to control EAB larvae and adult for
one year (Kreutzweiser et al., 2011; Grimalt et al., 2011). Since some EAB larvae need 1 to 2
years to hatch, annual injection would be necessary (Flower et al., 2015; Grimalt et al., 2011)
5
Two criteria were applied for selecting Ash trees warrant injection: the tree must be no less than
20 cm (DBH) and have no significant sign of dieback in tree canopy. The criteria were provided
by Mount Pleasant Group and supported by Harbord Village EAB Management Plan (Melamed
& Zhou, 2012) and other studies (Knight et al., 2013; Campbell and Sloan 1977; Haavic and
Stephen 2010; Volney 1998; Jennings et al., 2014; Marshall et al. 2013; Lyons et al., 2009; Duan
et al., 2010; Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009).
2.2.1.1 Significant Sign of Crown Dieback
Tree size, crown class, and vigor influence Ash susceptibility to EAB infestation (Campbell and
Sloan 1977; Haavic and Stephen 2010; Volney 1998). Knight et al. (2013) discovered that tree
mortality rate is 50% higher for trees that had crown dieback, regardless of the cause of the
dieback. Even trees have mild canopy thinning have significantly higher EAB mortality rate than
trees with full, healthy canopies (Knight et al., 2013). Jennings et al. (2014) also observed that
most EAB emergence was found on trees with 40-60% dieback. Studies of other borers also
show that the survival of the insects is significantly correlated with the condition of the tree
(Barter, 1957, 1965, Haack & Benjamin, 1982 in Duan et al., 2010).
Studies indicates that self-defense, killing the borer, EAB larvae, via chemical toxicants or
physical barriers generated by the tree itself, is the major mechanism fight from the infestation
(Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). Healthy
ash trees with good crown conditions could defense to EAB larvae more effectively and
aggressively since they have more nutrient and energy reserves to support production of
defensive chemicals. Also, physically EAB larvae could be surrounded and absorbed by the
formation of callus tissue, a fast grown layer that seals damaged area. This mechanism would be
most effective when the growth rate is high, which also requires healthy canopy to produce
necessary energy and nutrients (Duan et al., 2010). An weakness, such as defoliation, wounded,
or infestation by other insects could weaken its self-defense (Barter, 1957, 1965, Haack &
Benjamin, 1982 in Duan et al., 2010). For these reasons, EAB females prefer stressed trees for
oviposition, and EAB larvae develops faster on stressed ash trees (Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et
al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). However, self-defense system of Ash
species in North America is not strong enough to stop establishment of EAB larvae in trees
(Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). Insecticide
6
injection was developed to assist the self-defense system by providing extra chemical
compounds targeting the borers (Grimalt et al., 2011). However, the treatment to-be applied does
not heal the tree. A tree need to be healthy enough to perform its fundamental physical function,
so injecting significantly infested tree would not be effective (Grimalt et al., 2010). For example,
the 2012 EAB management plan for Harbord Village, Toronto also indicates that trees in fair
condition, with little signs of EAB infestation shown in canopy were considered for preservation.
Thus, of healthy canopy (canopy without significant sign of crown dieback) is a rational criterion
for selecting ash tree for EAB treatment.
2.2.1.2 20cm DBH Limit
With the consideration that host defense mechanism is the most important factor causing EAB
larvae mortality (Duan et al., 2010), since greater trees usually have developed more mature self-
defensive system, and since greater trees also have more energy and nutrient reserves comparing
with the smaller trees at similar health condition, it gives more chance to greater trees to survive
from infestation after wiping out the borers with the help of trunk injection (Lyons et al., 2009).
Harbord Village EAB Management Plan (2012) also suggested that ash trees greater than 20cm
DBH can be effectively treated in the long-term, while smaller trees may not be as easily saved.
Even though the bores were effectively removed, small trees might not reserve sufficient
nutrients to survive. Besides, physical damages caused by trunk injection on small trees might
kill the tree even faster than EAB (Lyons et al., 2009).
2.2.1.3 Rationality of the Combined Criteria
Although, self-defense system in relatively larger Ash trees is stronger than in smaller trees, the
defense mechanism is most effective for trees with good crown condition (Jennings et al., 2015).
The behavior of EAB also indicates that the basing decisions on a sole criterion could not
guarantee treatment effectiveness. EAB adults favor relatively large trees in decline, as they have
reduced self-defense but still provide relatively sufficient food resource for larvae (Jennings et al.,
2015). Studies for other similar borers, including trees infested by other insects such as gypsy
moth (Lymantria dispar) (Campbell & Sloan, 1977), red oak borer (Enaphalodes rufulus)
(Haavic & Stephen, 2010), jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) (Volney, 1998), white pine
weevil (Pissodes strobi) (He & Alfaro, 2000) also imply that large trees with full canopy has
larger area for photosynthesis, which may require longer time for borers to weaken the tree, and
7
hence allow for higher survivorship (Kathleen et al., 2013). Thus, in order to prevent further
infestation in Prospect Cemetery, the combined application of the two criteria would be rational.
2.2.2 Removal Priority and Timeline
Ash trees, that have not meet injection criteria, and that might pose hazard and high safety risk
were categorized as trees to-be removed. Then, removal priorities were determined accordingly.
Ash hazard was evaluated based on health condition, location, and size by DBH. In order to
estimate the instability of a tree, a marking scheme was developed to Ash health condition and
location. The sum of health condition scores and location scores indicates the initial risk to
human and was related to initial removal priority (Table 3; Figure 1). Then, initial removal
priority was adjusted for tree size. Ash health conditions are categorized into four types: good,
fair, poor, and dead (Table 2). Higher score represents more severe health condition; for example,
a good tree was given a score of one, and a dead tree was given a score of four (Table 2).
Similarly, location was categorized into three types: not close to any building or pathway (shown
blank in Table 2); near office building or mausoleum; near road or property line. A score of three
was given to trees near road or property line, where there is the highest pedestrian traffic. A
score of one was given to trees not close to any building or pathway. After generating initial
removal priority by summing health condition scores and location scores, the priority was further
adjusted by tree size (Table 3; Figure 1). Relatively large trees (DBH no less than 5cm) were
considered risky and remained in their initial removal priority (Figure 1). Whereas small trees
(DBH less than 5 cm) were considered not as risky; these trees were rejected from their initial
removal priority and moved to next priority category (Figure 1). The adjusted priority also
suggests removal time (Table 4). Higher adjusted priority suggests that trees are more hazardous
and need to be removed sooner. Trees categorized into priority one would be recommended to be
8
removed in the first year (2017).
2.2.3 Replanting and Maintenance
Ash trees to-be removed and the existing ash stumps represent potential plantable space. Each of
these locations was assessed replanting based on the planting preference of Mount Pleasant
Group. As a result sites along property lines are not considered for replanting as they provide no
significant visual values while trees planted there could cause relatively high risk to pedestrians.
Species for replanting were selected with respect to the interest of Mount Pleasant Group and
managing the cemetery as an arboretum. A list of potential species and a list of available species
at Uxbridge Nurseries were provided by Mr Jeff McMann. The Uxbridge Nurseries provides
Mount Pleasant Group with the planting stock. Comparison between the two lists generates
replanting options. Extra comparisons were addressed among existed tree species at the property,
9
native tree species at risk in Ontario (Ontario, 2016), and the previously created list of replanting
options.
For Ash trees that did not meet the injection criteria or fall into priority one to five removal,
further categorization were developed to determine adequate maintenance measure, including do
nothing and monitoring. No specific operations will be undertaken on Ash trees in good / fair
condition but are smaller than 8cm in DBH and are not close to any buildings or pathways, for
these trees could lead to less risk to human safety. Other trees in good / fair condition, but are
less than 20cm in DBH, are suggested to be monitored to determine future operations.
Monitoring is also suggested for to-be removed trees and injected trees as well, so that
maintenance operations could be decided.
2.3 Budget Calculation
In order to obtain the financial support of this plan from Mount Pleasant Group, predicted
expenditure is calculated. In consultations with Mr Jeff McMann and literature review (Melamed
& Zhou, 2012; Tree Removal, 2016; Pang, 2016), an estimate of EAB management cost is
provided. Per capita cost of each operation to-be conducted on Ash genus in Prospect Cemetery,
including injection, maintenance of current Ash and newly planted trees, tree removal, stump
removal, and replacement, was listed in Table 5. Besides, 3% interest rate (personal
communication Mr Jeff McMann) was applied to estimate future costs during 2018 to 2027.
3 Results and Discussion
By using a standard inventory data and the criteria described, Ash condition at Prospect
Cemetery was assessed. Number of trees / stumps for each treatment was clarified accordingly.
Although it is suggested that rare species should be injected regardless of its condition
10
(suggested by Mr Jeff McMann), since no rare Ash species was observed, no exceptional
treatment would be developed.
3.1 Ash Condition at Prospect Cemetery
Based on data from the 2016 Ash inventory at Prospect Cemetery, 8% are stumps (Figure 2). The
remaining 92% are Ash trees. Each of the conditions, dead, poor, fair, and good, is about 25% of
all Ash trees. The number of dead
trees is the lowest while the number
of good trees is the highest (Figure 2).
Categorizing the trees into six DBH
classes shows that all Ash trees less
than 8cm in DBH are alive and only
a small portion of them are in poor
condition (Figure 3). In general,
number of Ash trees in good and fair
condition decreases as DBH
increases (Figure 3). DBH class three (3) (20-38cm) has the largest number of dead trees and the
second largest number of poor trees, while DBH class five (5) (50-75cm) has the largest number
of poor trees (Figure 3). This indicates that Ash in these two DBH classes have been decaying
significantly, and could be important targets of removal. In DBH class six (6) (≧75 cm), due to
11
the great size of these trees, the dead / poor trees could be significantly hazardous. Hence,
although the fewest number of good trees was observed in this DBH class (Figure 3), the dead /
poor trees will not be remained for their heritage values.
3.2 Treatments and Timeline
Every Ash tree in the cemetery has been evaluated, based on the criteria selected, and assigned
with a suitable treatment. Number of Ash trees allocated in each treatment was counted, and the
sum of DBH in each treatment was also calculated. Among 140 Ash trees, 36 trees are suggested
for annual trunk injection with the total DBH 1,562cm (Table 6). 34 trees are in good / fair
condition but have not reached 20cm DBH threshold for injection (Table 6). For these trees, 10
of them do not require treatments since they
could bring relatively low risk to pedestrians
due to the small size and the location with low
pedestrian traffic (Table 6). The other 24 of
them requires monitoring to determine future
operation. Another 70 trees are suggested to be
removed, of which 19 are recommended for
priority one removal (Table 6; Figure 3).
According to figure 3, the first three years are
recommended for relatively intensive Ash removal, which indicates that most of the to-be
removed trees are fairly risky. Less trees, but greater total DBH, are suggested to be removed in
2021 (priority removal four). This means that some big trees are relatively stable for now, but
12
would be decayed in following years (Table 6; Figure 3). This phenomenon agrees with the
studies of Lyons et al. (2009) and Duan et al. (2010), which implies that if infested by EAB,
great trees could stand longer than small trees.
Among 153 observed live and dead trees and stumps, 13 of them are Ash stumps. 10 out of the
13 stumps are not near property line and preferred to be replacement of other species by Mount
Pleasant Group (Figure 4). Besides, 48 out of the 70 to be removed Ash trees are not close to
property line and preferred for replanting (Figure 4). 31% of the live and dead trees and stumps
are Ash need removal and re-planting, while 14% require removal only (Figure 5).Trees warrant
injection occupies 23% of Ash genus at Prospect Cemetery (Figure 5). 16% Ash trees might be
determined to be injected or removed through following monitoring (Figure 5).
13
4 Management Scenarios and Budget
Base on the results, three management scenarios were developed: ―Do Everything‖, ―Reduced
Injection‖, and ―Eliminated Replanting‖. Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ means that all Ash meet
the injection criteria will be injected, all unstable trees will be removed following one to five
removal priorities, and all plantable sites will be replanted with tree species other than Ash.
Scenario Two ―Reduced Injection‖ means that only two representative trees of each Ash species
will be injected. The greatest two trees of each Ash species meet the criteria for injection will be
selected. Other operations will be remained as described in Scenario One, while follow-up
removal after year five (priority five removal) might be required due to potential increasing EAB
infestation. Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖ remains same injection and removal
operations as scenario one, but no replanting will be conducted. Annual cost covering from 2017
to 2027 for the three scenarios was calculated, so that Mount Pleasant Group could choose a
suitable one with respect to their budget.
4.1 Scenario One—Do Everything
Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ includes TreeAzin trunk injection for all Ash that meet 20cm in
DBH and has no significant dieback shown in crown. This scenario suggests removing all
unstable trees following priority removal one to five. Additionally, all to-be removed trees and
existing stumps that are not along property line will be replanted with species other than Ash.
Replanting will be addressed before the next summer after stump removal. For example, if a
stump is removed in 2017 summer, then replanting on this site should be completed before 2018
summer. The replanting and maintenance cost was included in the estimated budget of 2017.
14
Assuming 100% survivor rate of injected Ash, this alternative requires annual trunk injection of
36 Ash with TreeAzin (Table 7). This will cost C$ 4,920 in 2017 (Table 8). The increasing trend
of injection cost was caused by 3% interest rate (Table 8). Stump removal will be addressed on
sites preferred for replanting, which includes to-be removed trees and existing stumps. Hence,
under the same assumption, no removal or replanting will be required from year 6 to year 10
(Table 7). Therefore, starting from year 6, the cost of Scenario One could be saved on tree
removal, stump removal, and replanting (Table 8). Monitoring should cover all trees, while the
24 trees highlighted in Table 6 should be focused. Maintenance could focus on injected Ash and
newly planted trees, while monitoring could provide necessary information for maintenance or
removal adjustment.
4.2 Scenario Two—Reduced Injection
As described, Scenario Two ―Reduced Injection‖ only injects the two greatest healthy trees of
each Ash species. Thus, declination of the un-injected healthy trees is expected with the
consideration of potential EAB infestation. In order to estimate the increased loss of Ash trees,
Ash mortality curve (Figure 6) caused by EAB (Zwack, 2016) was used. According to the curve
(Figure 6), the mortality rate is relatively low from year one to year five, while evident mortality
was observed from year 6. Therefore, from year one to year five, removal timeline of Scenario
Two ―Reduced Injection‖ could follow the original removal priorities, while additional removal
would be required starting from year six. Since the curve was calculated from street trees with
approximately similar DBH, it could be assumed that the mortality rate equals to the percentage
15
of Ash loss in DBH. Addition to this, since it could be difficult to specify which tree would die
in which year, Ash loss between year six and year ten at Prospect Cemetery was estimated based
on DBH (Table 9). The DBH based prediction also matches with budget calculation, for the per
capita cost of tree removal is C$ 22/cm-DBH.
Assuming all injected Ash could survive, only eight trees will be injected annually for Scenario
Two, which will cost C$ 1,714 in 2017 (Table 10, Table 11). Removal and replacement between
year one to year five would be the same as Scenario One, but specified Ash tree removal starting
from year six requires further determination based on monitoring (Table 10). Due to the
insufficient information about the location of to-be removed trees during this period, stump
removal and replacement have yet been decided (Table 10). According to Table 9, Ash loss
could be increasingly significant as time goes by, and the estimated tree removal cost would also
increase with the same trend (Table 11).
16
4.3 Scenario Three—Eliminated Replanting
For Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖, injection of valuable Ash and removal of unstable
trees will be remained as Scenario One, while no monitoring or maintenance for newly planted
trees will be undertaken (Table 12). Therefore, the cost of injection and removal for ―Eliminated
Replanting‖ would be the same as for the scenario ―Do Everything‖, while cost on stump
removal, planting, and maintenance of seedlings could be saved (Table 13). Nevertheless, actual
cost on injection and removal from year two to year ten still need adjustments based on actual
Ash response to trunk injection.
17
4.4 Budget Comparison
Comparing estimated cost among three scenarios, ―Eliminated Replanting‖ cost the least (Figure
7). Between year one and year six, the cost of ―Do Everything‖ is slightly higher (about C$3,000)
than the cost of ―Reduced Injection‖, but the trends of the expenditure of these two scenarios are
the same (Figure 7; Table 8; Table 11). In this period, the difference between ―Do Everything‖
and ―Reduced Injection‖ is caused by the different number of Ash trees to-be injected. However,
after year six, when the cost of ―Do Everything‖ and ―Eliminated Replanting‖ stabilize, the cost
of ―Reduced Injection‖ would increase due to the increasing Ash mortality (Figure 7). At year
eight, estimated cost of ―Reduced Injection‖ would be the same as ―Do Everything‖; after year
eight, predicted expenditure of ―Reduced Injection‖ would be the highest. At year 10, ―Reduced
Injection‖ would require about C$10,000 more than ―Do Everything‖ (Figure 7; Table 8; Table
11). Additionally, predicted cost at hand does not include any planting after year five, while
―Reduced Injection‖ might require further planting to offset canopy lost caused by increased Ash
mortality. This could lead to even higher expenditure of this scenario.
18
Accumulating the annual differences between estimated cost of ―Do Everything‖ and ―Reduced
Injection‖, before year eight, ―Do Everything‖ costs about C$1,8000 more than ―Reduced
Injection‖; between year eight and year ten, ―Do Everything‖ costs about $1,3000 less than
Reduced Injection (Figure 7; Table 8; Table 11). Addition to the fact that the actual expenditure
of ―Reduced Injection‖ could be even higher due to increased replanting, the overall budget
required for ―Do Everything‖ and ―Reduced Injection‖ could be close. However, while ―Do
Everything‖ protects all Ash trees that could be potentially saved, ―Reduced Injection‖ could
cause about 60% loss of Ash trees that are currently in good condition. Therefore, Scenario Two
―Reduced Injection‖ will not be recommended. For Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖, it
remains same Ash values as the scenario of ―Do Everything‖, but ―Eliminated Replanting‖ will
not increase the collection of tree species for the arboretum-cemetery. Thus, when the budget is
sufficient, Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ would be recommended instead of Scenario Three
―Eliminated Replanting‖.
5 Management Recommendation and Conclusion
According to the results, the scenario of ―Do Everything‖ would be the optimal choice for
protecting Ash and increasing tree species diversity at Prospect Cemetery. Therefore, in the first
year (2017), TreeAzin spring trunk injection of 36 ash trees that are greater than 20cm in DBH
and with no visible sign of die back shown in canopy is recommended. For safety concerns, 19
trees marked with priority removal one should be cut down. Stump grinding is recommended for
removed trees and the exiting stumps that are not close to property line. Two of each interested
19
species are suggested to be planted at the 19 available spots. Hence, nine to ten species from the
previously generated list (Appendix I) would be selected according to seedling availability in
nurseries in 2017. Clones should be avoided when selecting the two trees of each to-be planted
species. Additionally, detail planting spot should be assigned via matching the space and the
mature size of an interested species. It is suggested that space availability could be reflected by
canopy width of to-be removed trees. Moreover, replanting at sites near road/mausoleum/office
building should be completed first since these trees could provide important visual values for the
cemetery. Planting at sites with signs of exotic species should be addressed early as well.
Pesticides and understory planting could be applied with tree planting in order to prevent
expansion of invasive species.
Annual tree inventory of Ash trees is recommended since the operations proposed rely on the
response of injected Ash trees. If all injected trees remain healthy, then same trees would be
injected in the next year. However, if any injected Ash decayed significantly, following injection
might not be recommended, and removal would be suggested based on the stability of the tree.
Besides, re-inventory could provide specific data guiding maintenance, especially for the newly-
planted trees. Therefore, annual inventory would be necessary for precise arrangement of follow-
up operations and explicit budget estimation.
In order to minimize safety threats, routine staff monitoring is recommended along with annual
inventory. Actually, any trees considered unstable should be removed as soon as possible. As for
potential species to-be planted, besides the listed species of interest, other native species that are
not collected in the property would be recommended for consideration. Species proposed for
consideration includes Betula lenta, and Quercus shumardii. These two species are not available
at the Uxbridge Nurseries in 2017, but it could be worthwhile to check with other nurseries or
book the seedlings from Uxbridge Nurseries for future planting.
20
Literature Cited
Abell, K. J., Duan, J. J., Bauer, L., Lelito, J. P., & Van Driesche, R. G. (2012). The effect of bark
thickness on host partitioning between tetrastichus planipennisi (hymen: Eulophidae) and
atanycolus spp. (hymen: Braconidae), two parasitoids of emerald ash borer (coleop:
Buprestidae). Biological Control, 63(3), 320-325. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.08.009
Buchholz S, Blick T, Hannig K, Kowarik I, Lemke A, Otte V, Scharon J, Schönhofer A, Teige T,
von der Lippe M, Seitz B (2016) Biological richness of a large urban cemetery in Berlin. Results
of a multi-taxon approach. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7057. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.4.e7057
Brown, T. (2013). The making of urban ‗healtheries‘: The transformation of cemeteries and
burial grounds in late-victorian east london. Journal of Historical Geography, 42(Complete), 12-
23. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2013.05.001
Bühler, O., & Kristoffersen, P. (2009). The urban tree arboretum in hørsholm, denmark: A new
tool towards an improved education of arborists and tree managers. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 8(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.10.001
Derkzen, M. L., Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). REVIEW: Quantifying urban
ecosystem services based on high‐resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for
rotterdam, the netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(4), 1020-1032. doi:10.1111/1365-
2664.12469
Duan, J.J., Ulyshen, M.D., Bauer, L.S., Gould, J., & Driesche, R.V. (2010). Measuring the
impact of biotic factors on populations of emerald ash borers (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).
Environmental Entomology,39(5),1513-1522.
Elliott, P., Daniels, S., & Watkins, C. (2008). The nottingham arboretum (1852): Natural history,
leisure and public culture in a Victorian regional centre. Urban History, 35(1), 48-71.
doi:10.1017/S0963926807005172
Flower, C. E., Dalton, J. E., Knight, K. S., Brikha, M., & Gonzalez-Meler, M. A. (2015). To treat
or not to treat: Diminishing effectiveness of emamectin benzoate tree injections in ash trees
21
heavily infested by emerald ash borer. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 790-795.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.003
Grimalt, S., Thompson, D., Chartrand, D., McFarlane, J., Helson, B., Lyons, B.,& Scarr, T.
(2011). Foliar residue dynamics of azadirachtins following direct stem injection into white and
green ash trees for control of emerald ash borer. Pest Management Science, 67(10), 1277-1284.
doi:10.1002/ps.2183
Herms, D.A. & McCullough, D.G. (2014). Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: history,
biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology, 59, 13-30.
Idzojtic, M., Zebec, M., & Poljak, I. (2011). Dendrological and horticultural value of lisicine
arboretum. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering. 32(1), 193-201.
Ijeomah, H. M., Okoli, C., & Iyah, E. I. (2014). Ecotourism resources of university of uyo,
nigeria: The arboretum and ravine destinations in perspective.Ethiopian Journal of
Environmental Studies and Management,7(3) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v7i3.13
Johnson, T. D., Lelito, J. P., Pfammatter, J. A., & Raffa, K. F. (2016). Evaluation of tree
mortality and parasitoid recoveries on the contiguous western invasion front of emerald ash
borer. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 18(4), 327-339. doi:10.1111/afe.12164
Jennings, D. E., Duan, J. J., & Shrewsbury, P. M. (2015). Biotic mortality factors affecting
emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis) are highly dependent on life stage and host tree crown
condition. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 105(5), 598-606.
doi:10.1017/S0007485315000498
Jennings, D., Taylor, P., & Duan, J. (2014). The mating and oviposition behavior of the invasive
emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis), with reference to the influence of host tree
condition. Journal of Pest Science, 87(1), 71-78. doi:10.1007/s10340-013-0539-1
Klaufus, C. (2016). ―The dead are killing the living‖: spatial justice, funerary services, and
cemetery land use in urban Colombia. Habitat International, 54, 74-79.
22
Kowarik, I., Buchholz, S., von der Lippe, M., & Seitz, B. (2016). Biodiversity functions of urban
cemeteries: Evidence from one of the largest jewish cemeteries in europe. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 19(Complete), 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.023
Knight, K.S., Brown, J.P., & Long, R.P. (2013). Factors affecting the survival of ash (Fraxinus
spp.) trees infested by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Biological Invasions, 15(2), 371-
383. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0292-z
Kreutzweiser, D., Good, K., Chartrand, D., Scarr, T., & Thompson, D. (2007). Non-target effects
on aquatic decomposer organisms of imidacloprid as a systemic insecticide to control emerald
ash borer in riparian trees. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 68(3), 315-325.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.04.011
Kreutzweiser, D., Thompson, D., Grimalt, S., Chartrand, D., Good, K., & Scarr, T. (2011).
Environmental safety to decomposer invertebrates of azadirachtin (neem) as a systemic
insecticide in trees to control emerald ash borer. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 74(6),
1734-1741. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.04.021
Lyons, D.B., de Groot, P., Jones, G.C. and Scharbach, R. (2009). Host selection by Agrilus
planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): inferences from sticky-band trapping. The Canadian
Entomologist, 141(1), pp. 40–52. doi: 10.4039/n08-045.
Marshall JM, Smith EL, Mech R, Storer AJ (2013). Estimates of Agrilus planipennis infestation
rates and potential survival of ash. Am Midl Nat 169(1), 179–193
McCullough, D.G., and Siegert, N.W. (2007). Estimating potential emerald ash borer
(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) populations using ash inventory data.Journal of Economic Entomology,
100: 1566–1586.
McCullough, D. G., T. M. Poland, and D. Cappaert. (2009). Emerald ash borer (Agrilus
planipennis) attraction to ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide or wounding. Can. J. For. Res.
39: 1331Ð1345.
23
Moran, Emilio F. (2010). ―Environmental decision making,‖ chapter 7 (pp. 127-142)
inEnvironmental Social Science: Human-Environment Interactions andSustainability,Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Magarey, Roger D., Borchert, Daniel M., & Schlegel, Jay W.. (2008). Global plant hardiness
zones for phytosanitary risk analysis.Scientia Agricola, 65(spe), 54-
59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000700009
Mercader, R. J., McCullough, D. G., Storer, A. J., Bedford, J. M., Heyd, R., Poland, T. M., &
Katovich, S. (2015). Evaluation of the potential use of a systemic insecticide and girdled trees in
area wide management of the emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and
Management, 350(Complete), 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.020
McCullough, D. G., Poland, T. M., & Lewis, P. A. (2016). Lethal trap trees: A potential option
for emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis fairmaire) management. Pest Management
Science, 72(5), 1023-1030. doi:10.1002/ps.4083
McCullough, D.G., Poland, T.M., & Cappaert, D. (2009). Attraction of the emerald ash borer to
ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide treatment, or wounding. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 39, 1331-1345.
Melamed, S., & Zhou, X. (2012). Harbord Village EAB management plan. Retrieved from:
http://harbordvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TreesEABmanagementplan.pdf
Ontario (2016). Species at risk in Ontario list. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list
Pang, S. (2016). Assessing tree survivorship for the Toronto District School Board: potential
benefits of tree maintenance. Master of Forest Conservation Thesis. University of Toronto
Swensen, G., Nordh, H., & Brendalsmo, J. (2016). A green space between life and death – a case
study of activities in Gamlebyen Cemetery in Oslo, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift -
Norwegian Journal of Geography, 70(1), 41-53. doi:10.1080/00291951.2015.1102169
24
Saarinen, N., Vastaranta, M., Kankare, V., Tanhuanpaa, T., Holopainen, M., Hyyppa, J., &
Hyyppa, H. (2014). Urban-tree-attribute update using multisource single-tree inventory. Forests,
5(5), 1032-1052.
Sherburn, M. & Devlin, A. S. (2004). Academic major, environmental concern, and arboretum
use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 23-36.
Tree Removal (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.treeremoval.com/costs/tree-stump-removal-
cost-price-guide/#.WGjXilUrJoA
US Forest Service (2016). Marking guide. Retrieved from:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3794596.pdf
Vannatta, A.R., Hauer, R.H., & Schuettpelz, N.m. (2012). Economic analysis of emerald ash
borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) management options.Horticultural Entomology, 12, 196-206.
Vastaranta, M., Saarinen, N., Kankare, V., Holopainen, M., Kaartinen, H., Hyyppa, J., & Hyyppa,
H. (2014). Multisource single-tree inventory in the prediction of tree quality variables and
logging recoveries. Remote Sensing, 6(4), 3475-3491.
Zwack, J. (2016). Emerald Ash Borer management options vs. the Ash mortality curve.
Retrieved from: http://www.isa-
arbor.com/events/conference/proceedings/2013/presentationDescription.aspx?ID=985
25
Appendix I
Tree Species of Interest Available at Uxbridge Nurseries
Abies cephalonica Picea Alcoquiana
Abies chensiensis Picea Engelmannii
Abies Ernesti Picea Glehnii
Abies holophylla Picea jezoensis
Abies sibirica Picea Koyamai
Acer argutum Picea schrenkiana
Acer capillipes Pinus Jeffreyi
Acer Davidii Pinus rigida
Acer Forrestii Pinus Wallichiana
Acer Grosseri var. hersii Populus alba 'Raket'
Acer Maximowiczianum Populus balsamifera
Acer micranthum Populus deltoides
Acer Sieboldianum Populus grandidentata
Alnus crispa Populus x canadensis
Betula Maximowicziana Pterocarya rhoifolia
Betula platyphylla var. japonica Quercus phellos
Betula utilis Quercus serrata
Callicarpa Bodinieri 'Profusion' Robinia Pseudoacacia 'Tortuosa'
Callicarpa japonica Stewartia sinensis
Castanea pumila Styrax Obassis
Castanea sativa Vitex Agnus-castus
Larix Gmelinii Zanthoxylum americanum
26
Appendix II
Ash Trees Warrant Injection
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crow
n
width/
m
exact_
dbh/c
m location notes
40000 9 Fraxinus nigra Good 12 37 Road
40204 8
Fraxinus
americana Good 6 57
40434 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 11 48
injected
40435 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 7 25
injected
40439 8
Fraxinus
americana Fair 17 138
40871 12
Fraxinus
excelsior Fair 13 32
41001 12 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 21
ID confirm
41003 12
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 12 36
41029 12
Fraxinus
americana Good 6 23
41042 12
Fraxinus
americana Good 12 50
41055 12
Fraxinus
americana Good 4 22
crack on trunk
41466 15
Fraxinus
americana Fair 8 24
Property
Line suckers
41688 14
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 7 31 Road
ID confirm , leaf
miners, disease
41727 14
Fraxinus
excelsior Good 13 56
42293 19
Fraxinus
americana Fair 13 73
orange tag on tree
42564 22
Fraxinus
americana Good 13 38
injected
42723 21
Fraxinus
americana Good 11 21
42809 17
Fraxinus
americana Good 7 31
girdling roots ,
injected
42813 17
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 9 25
injected
42907 17
Fraxinus
americana Good 6 27
injected
42925 17
Fraxinus
americana Fair 3 21 Property Line
42950 17
Fraxinus
americana Good 8 50
27
43378 23
Fraxinus
americana Fair 20 60 Property Line
43379 23
Fraxinus
americana Fair 8 35 Property Line
43523 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 20 55
43587 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 12 45 Property Line
43592 29
Fraxinus
americana Fair 18 40 Road
43598 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 10 30 Road
44251 39 Fraxinus nigra Good 6 85
44350 35
Fraxinus
americana Fair 4 40
eab
44359 35
Fraxinus
americana Fair 14 50
eab, injected
50267 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 6 22
ID confirm
50274 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 8 46 Property Line
50295 1
Fraxinus
americana Fair 18 93
ID confirm
50597 3 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 32 Road
50985 7
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 13 43
28
Appendix III
Ash Trees Marked for Priority 1 Removal
id area
Botanical_N
ame condition
Crown
width/
m
exact_
dbh/c
m location notes
40556 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic
a Dead 7 37 Property Line
40565 8
Fraxinus
americana Dead 15 29 Property Line
40856 12
Fraxinus
americana Dead
72 Road suckers
41453 15
Fraxinus
americana Dead 10 47 Property Line suckers
41456 15
Fraxinus
excelsior Dead 10 32 Property Line suckers
41621 10
Fraxinus
americana Dead 6 14 Property Line suckers
41622 10
Fraxinus
americana Dead 8 22 Property Line suckers
41623 10
Fraxinus
americana Dead 5 8 Property Line suckers
42259 18
Fraxinus
americana Dead 4 16 Property Line suckers
42786 17
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic
a Dead 6 19 Road
43386 23
Fraxinus
americana Dead 8 15 Property Line
43554 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic
a Dead 8 30 Road
43555 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic
a Dead 12 40 Road
43677 36
Fraxinus
americana Dead 10 30 Road suckers
43970 33
Fraxinus
americana Dead 20 55 Road
43974 33
Fraxinus
americana Dead 18 35 Road
44369 35
Fraxinus
americana Dead 6 25 Road
50292 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic
a Poor 11 22 Property Line
2 out of 4 stems
dead, ID
confirm
42497 22
Fraxinus
pennsylvanic Poor 22 89 Road
2 rots, 1 cable,
injected
29
a
30
Appendix IV
Ash Trees Marked for Priority 2 Removal
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crown
width/
m
exact_
dbh/c
m location notes
40221 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 44
Property
Line
40451 8 Fraxinus excelsior Poor 8 56
Property
Line
40497 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 4 18
Property
Line
40568 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 7 26
Property
Line suckers
40577 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 7 69
Property
Line
41452 15 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 32
Property
Line suckers
41490 15 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 20
Property
Line
42863 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 69 Road
43380 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 50
Property
Line
43381 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 4 20
Property
Line
43655 36 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 30 Road suckers
43664 36 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 40 Road suckers
44091 30
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 12 25 Road
44371 35 Fraxinus americana Poor 15 105 Road suckers
44406 34 Fraxinus americana Poor 18 55 Road
50015 1 Fraxinus americana Poor 3 12 Road
Fraxinus spp,
EAB
50053 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 6 14 Road EAB
50288 1 Fraxinus americana Poor 6 21
Property
Line
31
Appendix V
Ash Trees Marked for Priority 3 Removal
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crown
width/m
exact_
dbh/c
m location notes
41551 15
Fraxinus
americana Dead 20 133
41666 13
Fraxinus
americana Dead 17 53
41698 14
Fraxinus
americana Dead 18 115
42174 18
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 5 43
suckers
42398 22
Fraxinus
americana Dead 6 27
43939 33
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 12 45
44114 30
Fraxinus
americana Dead 18 40
leaf miners
44121 30
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 6 25
44257 39
Fraxinus
americana Dead 10 30
44421 34
Fraxinus
americana Dead 8 30
50377 2
Fraxinus
americana Dead 8 44
50796 3
Fraxinus
americana Dead 12 56
42944 17
Fraxinus
americana Fair 12 65
Property
Line 30% dead
50054 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 3 5 Road
ID confirm,
cracks on stem
42591 22
Fraxinus
americana Poor 11 47
suckers , co
dominant
stems
43042 24
Fraxinus
americana Poor 14 87
80 % dieback,
suckers
42241 18
Fraxinus
americana Poor 1 6
Property
Line
Appendix VI
Ash Trees Marked for Priority 4 Removal
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crown
width/
exact_
dbh/c location notes
32
m m
40433 8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Poor 8 59
41013 12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Poor 17 60
suckers
41037 12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Poor 16 50
42162 18 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 72
suckers
42929 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 63
50 % dead
43328 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 20
43946 33 Fraxinus americana Poor 18 55
EAB
43959 33 Fraxinus americana Poor 17 55
44132 31 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Poor 26 60
44306 34 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 20
suckers
44361 35 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 70
eab,
girdling
roots ,
suckers ,
fungus
51007 7 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 87
33
Appendix VII
Ash Trees Marked for Priority 5 Removal
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crown
width/
m
exact_
dbh/c
m location notes
42211 18 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 11 Road suckers
40417 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 0 5
40506 8 Fraxinus americana Fair 1 3
only one trunk
is alive
42918 17 Fraxinus americana Fair 10 49
30% dead
34
Appendix IV
Initial Data
id area Botanical_Name condition
Crown
width/
m
exact
_dbh
/cm location notes
40000 9 Fraxinus nigra Good 12 37 Road
40013 9 Fraxinus americana Good 7 17 Road
40185 8 Fraxinus americana Stump
40201 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0
40204 8 Fraxinus americana Good 6 57
40208 8 Fraxinus americana Stump
40213 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0
40216 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Stump 0 0
Property
Line
40217 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 2 19
Property
Line
40218 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 3 14
Property
Line
40219 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 3 9
Property
Line
40221 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 44
Property
Line
40239 8 Fraxinus americana Stump
40290 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 10 103
Property
Line
40347 8 Fraxinus americana Good 0 0 seedling
40364 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0
40417 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 0 5
40429 8 Fraxinus americana Stump
40430 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0
40433 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 8 59
40434 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 11 48 injected
40435 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 7 25 injected
40439 8 Fraxinus americana Fair 17 138
40451 8 Fraxinus excelsior Poor 8 56
Property
Line
40495 8 Fraxinus americana Good 1 4
Property
Line ID confirm
40497 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 4 18
Property
Line
40498 8 Fraxinus americana Fair 1 3
Property
Line
35
40506 8 Fraxinus americana Fair 1 3
only one trunk
is alive
40556 8
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 7 37
Property
Line
40565 8 Fraxinus americana Dead 15 29
Property
Line
40568 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 7 26
Property
Line suckers
40577 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 7 69
Property
Line
40578 8 Fraxinus americana Good 6 11
Property
Line
40687 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0
40856 12 Fraxinus americana Dead 72 Road suckers
40871 12 Fraxinus excelsior Fair 13 32
40909 12 Fraxinus americana Fair 0 0 seedling
40979 12 Fraxinus americana Good 0 0 seedling
41001 12 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 21 ID confirm
41003 12
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 12 36
41013 12
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 17 60 suckers
41029 12 Fraxinus americana Good 6 23
41037 12
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 16 50
41042 12 Fraxinus americana Good 12 50
41055 12 Fraxinus americana Good 4 22 crack on trunk
41378 11 Fraxinus americana Good 6 15 suckers
41452 15 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 32
Property
Line suckers
41453 15 Fraxinus americana Dead 10 47
Property
Line suckers
41456 15 Fraxinus excelsior Dead 10 32
Property
Line suckers
41466 15 Fraxinus americana Fair 8 24
Property
Line suckers
41490 15 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 20
Property
Line
41541 15 Fraxinus americana Good 1 5
41551 15 Fraxinus americana Dead 20 133
41610 16 Fraxinus americana Good 1 1 seedling
41611 16 Fraxinus americana Good 1 8 seedling
41621 10 Fraxinus americana Dead 6 14
Property
Line suckers
41622 10 Fraxinus americana Dead 8 22
Property
Line suckers
41623 10 Fraxinus americana Dead 5 8
Property
Line suckers
41666 13 Fraxinus americana Dead 17 53
36
41688 14
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 7 31 Road
ID confirm ,
leaf miners,
disease
41693 14
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 8 17 Road leaf miners
41698 14 Fraxinus americana Dead 18 115
41727 14 Fraxinus excelsior Good 13 56
41821 15 Fraxinus americana Good 0 2
41822 15 Fraxinus americana Good 0 2
41977 15 Fraxinus americana Good 0 0 seedling
42162 18 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 72 suckers
42174 18
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 5 43 suckers
42211 18 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 11 Road suckers
42234 18 Fraxinus excelsior Fair 4 6
Property
Line
42235 18 Fraxinus excelsior Stump
Property
Line suckers
42241 18 Fraxinus americana Poor 1 6
Property
Line
42259 18 Fraxinus americana Dead 4 16
Property
Line suckers
42293 19 Fraxinus americana Fair 13 73
orange tag on
tree
42318 19 Fraxinus americana Stump
42398 22 Fraxinus americana Dead 6 27
42497 22
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 22 89 Road
2 rods, 1 cable,
injected
42564 22 Fraxinus americana Good 13 38 injected
42591 22 Fraxinus americana Poor 11 47
suckers , co
dominant stems
42723 21 Fraxinus americana Good 11 21
42786 17
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 6 19 Road
42809 17 Fraxinus americana Good 7 31
girdling roots ,
injected
42813 17
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 9 25 injected
42863 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 69 Road
ID confirm ,
Phelodendron
amurence
42868 17 Fraxinus excelsior Good 4 15 Road injected
42907 17 Fraxinus americana Good 6 27 injected
42918 17 Fraxinus americana Fair 10 49 30% dead
42925 17 Fraxinus americana Fair 3 2112
Property
Line
42929 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 63 50 % dead
42944 17 Fraxinus americana Fair 12 65
Property
Line 30% dead
37
42950 17 Fraxinus americana Good 8 50
43042 24 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 87
80 % dieback,
suckers
43328 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 20
43378 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 20 60
Property
Line
43379 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 8 35
Property
Line
43380 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 50
Property
Line
43381 23 Fraxinus americana Poor 4 20
Property
Line
43386 23 Fraxinus americana Dead 8 15
Property
Line
43424 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 8 10 Road
43426 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 6 10 Road
43427 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 6 5 Road
43523 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 20 55
43554 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 8 30 Road
43555 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 12 40 Road
43587 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 12 45
Property
Line
43592 29 Fraxinus americana Fair 18 40 Road
43598 29
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 10 30 Road
43655 36 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 30 Road suckers
43664 36 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 40 Road suckers
43677 36 Fraxinus americana Dead 10 30 Road suckers
43932 33 Fraxinus americana Fair 8 10
43939 33
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 12 45
43946 33 Fraxinus americana Poor 18 55 EAB
43959 33 Fraxinus americana Poor 17 55
43970 33 Fraxinus americana Dead 20 55 Road
43974 33 Fraxinus americana Dead 18 35 Road
43981 33 Fraxinus americana Good 6 10
Property
Line
43986 33 Fraxinus americana Good 6 6
Property
Line
43987 33 Fraxinus americana Good 4 5
Property
Line
44091 30
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 12 25 Road
44114 30 Fraxinus americana Dead 18 40 leaf miners
44121 30
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Dead 6 25
38
44132 31
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 26 60
44251 39 Fraxinus nigra Good 6 85
44257 39 Fraxinus americana Dead 10 30
44306 34 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 20 suckers
44350 35 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 40 eab
44359 35 Fraxinus americana Fair 14 50 eab, injected
44361 35 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 70
eab, girdling
roots , suckers ,
fungus
44369 35 Fraxinus americana Dead 6 25 Road
44371 35 Fraxinus americana Poor 15 105 Road suckers
44372 35 Fraxinus excelsior Good 6 15 injected
44406 34 Fraxinus americana Poor 18 55 Road
44421 34 Fraxinus americana Dead 8 30
44535
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 14 35 Road
kitchener s,
injected, cracks,
compacted soil,
shadowed ,
damaged on
base, girdling
roots
44540
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 10 45 Road
kitcher
s,injected
44544 Fraxinus americana Good 18 45 Road
kitcher s,
injected
44545
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 14 35 Road
kitcher s,
injected
44869 36 Fraxinus americana Fair 1 0 seedling
50015 1 Fraxinus americana Poor 3 12 Road
spp unknown,
EAB
50053 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 6 14 Road EAB
50054 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 3 5 Road
ID confirm,
cracks on stem
50076 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 7 17 Mausoleum ID confirm
50267 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 6 22 ID confirm
50274 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Fair 8 46
Property
Line
50288 1 Fraxinus americana Poor 6 21
Property
Line
50292 1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Poor 11 22
Property
Line
2 out of 4 stems
dead, ID
confirm
50295 1 Fraxinus americana Fair 18 93 ID confirm
50377 2 Fraxinus americana Dead 8 44
50597 3 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 32 Road
39
50611 3 Fraxinus excelsior Good 4 10 Road ID confirm
50796 3 Fraxinus americana Dead 12 56
50797 3 Fraxinus americana Dead 12 56
50798 3 Fraxinus americana Dead 12 56
50799 3 Fraxinus americana Dead 12 56
50985 7
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Good 13 43
51007 7 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 87
51058 10 Fraxinus americana Fair 0 0 seedling
51125 10 Fraxinus americana Fair 6 18 treated
51197 10 Fraxinus excelsior Good 0 0 seedling
51204 10 Fraxinus americana Good 0 0 seedling