HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.14.14 EAB Packet
CITY OF BOULDER
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA
DATE:
May 14, 2014
TIME:
6 p.m.
st
PLACE:
1777 Broadway, 1 floor, 1777 W. Conference Room
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.SWEARING-IN OF NEW BOARD MEMBER
3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 9, 2014
A.The Environmental Advisory Board minutes are scheduled for approval.
4.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Climate Commitment (Brett KenCairn)
B.Resilience (Brett KenCairn)
6.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.IPM and Emerald Ash Borer (Rella Abernathy and Kathleen Alexander)
7.OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES
A.Boulder Energy Challenge
B.Joint PB/TAB/EAB meeting follow up
8.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND
CITY ATTORNEY
9.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
10.ADJOURNMENT
For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, at the Boulder
Public Main Library’s Reference Desk, or at the Planning and Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor.
CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING GUIDELINES
CALL TO ORDER
The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order.
AGENDA
The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring public notice.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is welcome to address the board (three minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any
item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on
the agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board
and admission into the record.
DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS
Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows:
1. Presentations
Staff presentation (15 minutes maximum*) Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to
the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record.
Environmental Advisory Board questioning of staff for information only.
2. Public Hearing
Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (three minutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time
allotted will be determined by the Chair. Two minutes will be added to the pooled speaker for each such speaker’s allotted time up to a
maximum of 10 minutes total.
Time remaining is presented by a green blinking light that means one minute remains, a yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a red
light and beep means time has expired.
Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group please state that for the record as well.
Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement.
Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a
part of the official record.
Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the
board and admission into the record.
Interested persons can send a letter to the Community Planning and Sustainability staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks
before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, to be included in the board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be
distributed at the board meeting.
3. Board Action
Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. Motions are generally used to approve (with or without conditions), deny, or continue
agenda item to a later date (generally in order to obtain additional information).
Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. Members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon
by the Chair.
Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion approving any action.
MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORYBOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY
Any Environmental Advisory Board member, City Manager, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board matters which are not included in the
formal agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 8 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 8 p.m. except by majority vote of board members
present.
*The Chair may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION:
Environmental Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING:
April 9, 2014
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY:
Juliet Bonnell,
303-441-1931
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
Environmental Advisory Board Members Present:
Mara Abbott, Tim Hillman, Larissa Read,
Stephen Morgan.
Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent:
Morgan Lommele
Staff Members Present:
Brett KenCairn, Jamie Harkins, Kara Mertz, Jonathan Koehn, Juliet
Bonnell
MEETING SUMMARY:
EAB felt the zero waste evaluation study and subsequent recommendations were
thorough, informative, and well thought out.
The board appreciated the community-driven approach of the Zero Waste Strategic Plan
and emphasized the importance of zero waste education and outreach and of having the
community’s support for the plan.
Overall, the board supported the evaluation study’s recommendations, including
mandating commercial recycling, but noted that mandates need to be implemented
strategically and should be paired with incentives to be effective and acceptable to the
community. S. Morgan suggested that there be incentives to the building trades. He
recommended that there be a reciprocal benefit to both the city and the contractor: .if they
volunteer to pay a 3% deposit they could cut their permitting time by 3-4 weeks. Right
S. Morgan’s
now 10-16 weeks seems long. Under suggested approach, those who choose
to pay 2% would still have normal permitting times.
1. CALL TO ORDER
M. Abbott
The Environmental Advisory Board Chair declared a quorum and the meeting was
called to order at 6:11 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M. Abbott, T. Hillman
On a motion byseconded by, the Environmental Advisory Board
M. Lommele
approved (4-0, absent) the March 19, 2014 meeting minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Climate Commitment
B.KenCairn
postponed this discussion item to next month’s EAB agenda.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Zero Waste Strategic Plan: Kara Mertz and Jamie Harkins
K. Mertz
provided background information about the Zero Waste (ZW) Evaluation Study.
Laurie Batchelder Adams
, of Kessler Consulting and LBA Associates presented the findings of
the ZW Evaluation Study. She noted that Boulder is already doing a great job of diverting waste
which means that implementing additional zero waste measures will be more challenging than if
Boulder hadn’t already been working so diligently to reduce waste. The goals of the study are to
provide recommendations on how to divert 85% of waste, maximize GHG emissions reductions,
maximize jobs, minimize costs, and maximize leveraging partnerships, upstream conservation,
public engagement, ease of implementation, and provision of a strong foundation for future zero
waste activities.
L.Batchelder Adams
recommended that yard and wood waste drop-off center customer analysis
be improved, BVSD program funding be reprioritized, BCPH funding be refocused, and
commercial programs (including compost subsidies, recycling coupons, and zero waste rebates)
be phased out. Kessler also recommended increasing and modifying contractual relationships
with haulers, recycling centers, and other zero waste partners to enhance the transparency of how
money is being spent and the benefit to the community.
The Zero Waste Task Force helped to identify a broad range of zero waste initiatives that could
be implemented to help the city reach its goal. These zero waste initiatives were short-listed to
include the following mandatory initiatives:
every-other-week (EOW) trash collection,
multi-family unit (MFU) composting,
all homeowner curbside service,
commercial recycling,
commercial organics recovery,
C&D deposit program,
special events diversion requirement,
city purchase of local compost,
BCRC improvements (ability to sort and recycle plastics more efficiently),
existing program enforcement,
And the voluntary initiative of take-out packaging.
The initial cost per year, diverted tons and costs/revenues per year to continue
programs/initiatives for each of the initiatives were then estimated. If all of the identified
initiatives were implemented, 82% of all waste would be diverted, GHGs reductions would equal
10-16,000 vehicles, and both city jobs and private jobs would increase.
The consultant then identified the initiatives with the greatest ability to meet specific project
goals and bundled them together. Bundle 1created the greatest diversion/GHG reduction
potential. Bundle 2 created the lowest cost to the city. Bundle 3 created the lowest cost to the
customer. Tons diverted, net costs or revenues per year and customer costs per month were all
calculated for each bundle.
The consultant recommended Bundle 1 which includes EOW trash collection, all homeowner
service, commercial recycling and organics collection and C&D deposit. They suggested
implementing these initiatives in phases with EOW trash, commercial recycling and organics
implemented by 2016 and all homeowner services and a C&D deposit program implemented by
2018.
They also recommended the following:
eliminating and modifying existing programs
enforcing existing regulations
improving data collection
more clearly defining city contracts
tabling discussion of a single-hauler system as long as there is hauler support for
implementing other zero waste recommended initiatives
expanding education and outreach with county-wide messaging and branding
increased use of 6400 Arapahoe with C&D deposit administration/metals storage, Eco-
Cycle’s “Fix-it” clinic, and new metal diversion
and on-going updates and evaluation of the Zero Waste Strategic Plan
If Bundle 1 initiatives are implemented, the estimated annual costs are $2 million.
K. Mertz
noted that city staff will be sharing the consultant’s recommendations with the
community to gather feedback and discuss community values. She asked the EAB for ideas on
the city’s outreach approach including how to gather feedback from the community and what
questions the city should be asking.
J. Harkins
noted that staff is looking forward to discussing zero waste issues with council and
the community to better understand what our goals are moving forward and how to accomplish
them. There will be a zero waste event in May that will kick-off a robust outreach program.
Staff’s goal is to learn what the community thinks of the proposed zero waste strategy and
discover what the community’s barriers are to zero waste.
Public Participation
Randy Moorman
of Eco-Cycle presented Eco-Cycle’s recommended priorities for Boulder’s
Zero Waste Strategic Plan. Eco-Cycle supports adopting Bundle 1 from the Zero Waste
Evaluation Study to achieve the greatest diversion and GHG reductions. Eco-Cycle felt the
following initiatives were most important:
mandatory commercial recycling and composting
enhancement of composting and composting processing infrastructure
expansion of recycling, reuse and waste reduction opportunities at CHaRM and other
facilities at 6400 Arapahoe
enhancement of C&D debris transfer station for Boulder and the region
expansion and enhancement of the Boulder County Recycling Center
expansion of public outreach and education efforts
better connection between the city’s zero waste efforts and Climate Action Plan
Board Discussion
T. Hillman
thought the waste reduction strategy and study were great. The metrics used in the
zero waste evaluation study were appropriate and he liked that this is such a community-driven
approach and plan. He emphasized the importance of having the community’s support for this
zero waste plan since the city will be implementing mandatory initiatives.
L. Read
liked the scope of the study and the details included in the recommendations and noted
that these provide council and the community with a lot to respond to. She commented that the
name zero waste isn’t entirely true since our community goal is an 85% diversion rate. She
suggested enhancing the clarity of the city’s messaging by advertising the 85% goal. Commercial
issues keep recurring and she’d like a forum such as a future EAB meeting or retreat to discuss
commercial issues across various topics such as zero waste, energy and more. She also
emphasized the importance of outreach and education in businesses, colleges, and schools.
Single family homeowners and commercial businesses should be better informed about the
availability of tax incentives for demolitions. She suggested that Eco-Cycle increase their
presence in our community and ensure that the community is aware of Eco-Cycle’s new location
and mission.
S. Morgan
noted that the commercial aspects are tricky. He commented that recycling should be
done easily without much additional cost because costs will likely be passed along to customers,
which is regressive and needs to be considered. Mandated recycling with incentives seems
reasonable and rational. He felt that construction and demolition mandates need to be separated
into MFU/commercial and single family because of different funding sources and economies of
scale. He emphasized that the city should carefully consider the way in which commercial
mandates are implemented and consider incentivizing initiatives. He suggested withholding
Certificates of Occupancy until buildings have recycling and compost service as the most
effective way to ensure this. He mentioned that single family homes will be hard hit by some of
these mandates and that incentives on single family construction will be important to the
community. Mandates for single family homes may not be necessary if there is a quid pro quo. If
they volunteer to pay a 3% deposit on construction of single family homes, they could cut their
permitting time by 3-4 weeks. Currently 10-16 weeks seems long to get a permit. Those who
choose to pay 2% would still have normal permitting times.
M. Abbott
loved watching the subsidies for commercial recycling move into mandates. She was
curious about what can be done to increase composting and recycling in MFUs and suggested
increasing mandates for that sector of the community as well. She noted that waste reduction is
really tangible and something that can be seen. She supports additional outreach and education to
help get people involved and interested in waste reduction where progress can so clearly be seen.
S. Morgan
noted that just because people are required to have recycling service doesn’t mean
that they’re using it. There is a disconnect between the current ordinance’s goal and its
effectiveness in reaching that goal.
T. Hillman
pointed out that waste diversion is valued similarly to the city’s Climate Action Plan
(that there are similar funding amounts in the CAP tax and the Trash Tax). He commented that if
these waste reduction initiatives reflect community values, he felt that the costs are minimal and
wanted to keep the costs in perspective with the benefits of achieving the community’s zero
waste goals.
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED)
A. Energy Future: Jonathan Koehn
J. Koehn
provided the board with an update on municipalization efforts including: what has
happened since August, the utility of the future, energy services, and what’s ahead.
In August City Council authorized condemnation through an ordinance that was created.
Additional charter requirements were added in November and since December staff has been
working with a consultant to develop a transition work plan. The transition work plan includes
steps that need to be taken between now and when the city would be running the utility (first to
be able to replicate system and subsequently set up for the utility of the future) and prepare for
condemnation. In January the city sent Xcel a notice of intent to acquire the system. The city is
now in good faith negotiations with Xcel regarding the city’s intent to acquire the system. Xcel
will likely respond that they aren’t willing to sell their system in which case the city will file for
condemnation later this year.
The Boulder Docket is Xcel’s request to the commission to limit Boulder’s participation in on-
going efforts that we pay into on efficiency programs and solar. The city is planning to file an
appeal on the PUC decision regarding jurisdictional authority.
Solar issues (related to the Boulder Docket, net metering, and reduction of soft costs) are being
addressed with the help of a Solar Working Group. The city is working to remove restrictions
and barriers to solar to make Boulder the most solar-friendly community.
The Natural Gas Working Group is helping staff evaluate natural gas fracking concerns,
determine how natural gas will play into Boulder’s energy portfolio, developing criteria for
purchasing natural gas, and develop an energy services plan to present to council.
Municipalization is an opportunity to help us achieve our climate commitment goals and create a
Utility of the Future business model focused on decarbonization, decentralization and
democratization of our electricity services. The city is focused on providing stable, safe and
reliable energy using a customer centric model that makes energy a service instead of a
commodity. Local economic vitality needs to be promoted and energy services should be
flexible, dynamic, and universal (available to all, not just to those who can pay). Energy should
be increasingly sustainable, resilient and carbon free and rates should be stable and predictable.
An entrepreneurial platform will develop the model of the future that we’re looking for.
Staff is working toward a seamless transition so that on day one the city will be able to provide
safe, reliable utility services. A utility formation ordinance will be going to council so that the
city will be able to finance this project. A transition plan outlining operations, power supply,
customer service and more will be presented to council on May 13 and working groups will be
formed to help implement the transition plan and potentially create new services and innovations
and insure we don’t create barriers to our long-term vision.
There are many legal steps that will likely proceed (such as condemnation, potential settlement,
appeal). On April 29 there is a City Council Study Session during which energy services will be
discussed. Next the transition plan will do to City Council on May 13. Public engagement and
outreach around the Utility of the Future vision and transition plan will continue and the city
remains open to working with Xcel on a potential partnership.
7. OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES
ndrd
The 2 reading of the ordinance related to bears and trash passed unanimously. After 3 reading
of the ordinance, all properties west of Broadway will be required to have bear-resistant
containers.
8. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY
MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY
9. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
10. ADJOURNMENT
Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Approved:
_________________________________________________________
Chair Date
MEMORANDUM
To: Environmental Advisory Board
From: Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
Date: May 14, 2014
Subject: Emerald Ash Borer Update and Workplan
2014 Emerald Ash Borer Workplan
In late September 2013, the department’s Forestry staff discovered an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
infestation within the city. The subsequent delimitation survey showed that EAB is well
established within a corridor in central Boulder. Over the next 15 years, EAB management,
including tree removal, tree replacement, wood disposal and pesticide treatments will have a
significant direct budgetary impact to the city and private residents. The loss of tree canopy will
have considerable economic, social, and environmental impacts for decades. In April, an
Information Item detailing the 2014 Emerald Ash Borer work plan was sent to City Council.
This detailed information can be found in Attachement A.
Staff has collaborated with leading EAB experts from across the US and Canada to develop the
2014 EAB work plan. The plan includes:
The formation of an Interdepartmental EAB Working Group;
Tree removals, replacements and limited pesticide treatments.
Community outreach;
Collaborative research projects;
Asset Management; and
Ongoing monitoring
The collaborative research projects for 2014 include:
Research into effects of wounding from trunk injected pesticides on ash trees in
Colorado; with Colorado State University (CSU)
Trials of 1 year vs 2 year control with TreeAzin vs. Tree-äge; with CSU
Pesticide residues in leaf litter; with CSU
Bee Pollen Study; CSU and local beekeepers
Testing accuracy of degree day models to predict emergence of EAB in Colorado; with
(CSU)
Testing a new pheromone; collaboration with Canadian Forest Service (CFS)
Testing new monitoring/survey protocols; with CFS
Testing new trapping protocols; with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS)
Dendrochronology analysis of CO EAB infestation; with APHIS
The Interdepartmental EAB working group will meet over the next year to discuss EAB
management on a city-wide scale and ensure consistency across departments. This group will
develop a series of recommendations that will be presented to boards and city council during the
first quarter of 2015.
Attachment A
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of City Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Recreation Director
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
Susan Richstone, Community Planning and Sustainability Deputy Director
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager
Rella Abernathy, City Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
Date: April 16, 2014
Subject:: 2014 Emerald Ash Borer Workplan
Information Item
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to update City Council on the 2014 workplan for the federally
quarantined ash tree pest, emerald ash borer (EAB), including:
The potential impacts and scope of the issue;
Action items completed to date;
Analysis of the major issues associated with EAB including pesticide usage; and
2014 EAB Workplan.
The 2014 EAB Workplan includes:
The formation of an Interdepartmental EAB Working Group;
Community outreach;
Collaborative research projects;
Ongoing monitoring; and
Tree removals, replacements and limited pesticide treatments.
In late September 2013, City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Forestry staff discovered an EAB
infestation within the city. The subsequent delimitation survey showed EAB is well established
within a corridor in central Boulder. Over the next 15 years, EAB management, including tree
removal, tree replacement, wood disposal and pesticide treatments will have a significant direct
budgetary impact to the City of Boulder and private residents. The loss of tree canopy will have
considerable economic, social, and environmental impacts for decades.
Information Item2B Page 1
Staff has collaborated with leading EAB experts from across the United States and Canada to
develop an emergency 2014 response to EAB. An Interdepartmental EAB Working Group has
been formed and will meet over the next year to discuss EAB management on a city wide scale
and to ensure consistency across departments. This group will develop a series of
recommendations which will be presented to council during the first quarter of 2015.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2013 US Forest Service (USFS) Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment Report estimates
there are 656,000 trees in the city of Boulder with an appraised value of $1.2 billion. There are
approximately 38,000 total city park and public street rights-of-way trees under the jurisdiction
of the Parks and Recreation Forestry Division; 4,808 (12.6 percent) are either green or white ash
trees with an appraised value of $15.4 million. The estimated number of public, private and
naturalized ash in Boulder is 98,000 trees.
Current non-personnel budget for the Forestry Division is $280,000 for tree pruning, removals,
planting, replacement, wood disposal, integrated pest management (IPM) and the commercial
tree program. Once EAB populations increase, management costs for EAB alone will exceed
existing Forestry funding levels on an annual basis and additional staffing will also be required.
A PCA code was created to track EAB related costs and an adjustment to base will be requested
in the third quarter of 2014 to cover the costs of the 2014 response. A variety of funding sources,
both public and private, will be required for EAB management over the next ten years. The
impacts to public funding will be to both the existing Forestry operating budget and Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Program.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
Economic: Ash trees are found in commercial areas throughout the city and two blocks of the
Pearl Street Mall are predominantly green ash. Research has consistently shown that
shoppers are more willing to pay for parking, goods, and services in business districts with
trees. Trees increase residential and business property values and the tax base; attract visitors,
businesses, and new residents to an area and increase occupancy and rental rates of
apartments and offices. Shading from trees can defer maintenance longer for materials that
are degraded by heat such as asphalt and pavement.
Environmental: Boulder’s urban tree canopy provides many environmental benefits to the
community. Urban trees help mitigate climate change by contributing to reductions in carbon
dioxide and other pollutants, improving water quality, reducing stormwater runoff and saving
energy through shading surfaces and reduced cooling demand. Although ash trees comprise
approximately 15 percent of the total tree population, they are large maturing, long lived
trees and therefore contribute more environmental benefits than expected by their percentage
in the urban tree canopy.
If left untreated, ash trees in infested areas will die from EAB causing high tree canopy
losses and subsequent loss of environmental, economic and social benefits. Pesticides are an
important component in EAB management programs and are effective in the prevention and
spread of EAB. However, pesticide treatments, whether public or private, can have impacts
to non-target organisms and the environment. Decisions about which pesticide products to
apply and which trees to treat must be carefully balanced to provide the least overall harm to
the environment.
Information Item2B Page 2
Social: Social scientists have shown trees and green spaces within cities provide social and
psychological benefits and improve the quality of life for residents. Connection to trees and
nature affects moods, activities and emotional health. Exposure to trees and green spaces can
reduce stress and mental fatigue, enhance mental health, enhance recuperation rates in
hospitals, reduce psychological precursors to crime, and increase recreational opportunities.
A community's urban forest is usually the first impression a community projects to its
visitors and is an extension of its pride and community spirit.
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2013, city of Boulder Forestry staff found EAB, an invasive pest of ash trees,
in a dead ash tree in the public right-of-way in northeast Boulder. The beetles were detected by
staff when sampling the ash tree prior to removal. This was the first detection of this insect in
Colorado and is the western-most occurrence of this invasive pest in North America.
After the initial EAB detection in Boulder, Forestry staff completed or collaborated with other
agencies to complete the following work items:
EAB Research Advisory Group: To assist staff with EAB monitoring and management, an
advisory group was formed including two of the leading EAB researchers and local experts
in entomology and tree pest management:
Dr. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University
o
Dr. Deb McCullough, Michigan State University
o
Dr. Krista Ryall, Canadian Forest Service
o
Dr. Sky Stephens, US Forest Service
o
Quarantine:EAB is a federally quarantined pest. There are federal and state quarantines in
effect that prohibit the movement of firewood and other ash wood materials outside the
quarantined area. The quarantine area includes all of Boulder County and small portions of
Jefferson, Weld and Larimer Counties to include landfills to facilitate movement of flood
debris and EAB-infested material.
Detection Surveys: City Forestry staff collaborated with the Canadian Forest Service,
Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), United State Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Colorado State University (CSU)
Extension and forestry staff from nine nearby cities to complete an EAB delimitation survey
within the city. EAB was detected in five of the thirty-eight square mile grids. Due to the
flight ability of the insect and rate of spread, other parts of Boulder are likely infested at low
pest populations.
Public Tree Inventory: A tree inventory and asset management vendor was chosen and ash
tree inventory updates were completed at the end of 2013. Information on the current
condition class, tree diameter and recommended maintenance action was collected for green
and white ash trees on public property under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation
Forestry Division.
Education/Outreach: Education and outreach is a critical component of a municipal EAB
response. Efforts were undertaken through city, county, state and federal agencies but many
more are planned for 2014. Efforts since the pest discovery include:
News Releases: The CDA and city of Boulder have distributed four news releases since
o
the initial detection.
Information Item2B Page 3
Websites: CDA has posted educational material about EAB on their website:
o
www.EABColorado.com; a website was also created for Boulder specific EAB
information at: www.EABBoulder.org.
Tree Dissections: City Forestry hosted a series of EAB “tree dissections” to train over
o
175 foresters and arborists on EAB symptoms and branch peeling techniques.
Prohibition of imidacloprid: The analysis of EAB pesticide options indicated that
imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid commonly used for the control of EAB, posed a high risk to
pollinators and other non-target organisms. Other products are available for EAB control
that are significantly more effective over a longer duration and have fewer known
environmental and non-target impacts. For these reasons, staff from the Urban Forestry and
Integrated Pest Management programs recommended, and the city manager concurred, that
the use of imidacloprid be prohibited for EAB control on city properties, including public
street rights-of-way. A city manager rule was not required to support the prohibition as
B.R.C. 6-6-5 (a) requires property owners gain permission from the city manager
(designated to city forester) prior to applying pesticides to trees on public property. The city
will also recommend to the public that imidacloprid products not be used for control of EAB
on private property.
ANALYSIS
An analysis of the ash inventory updates, existing Forestry Division workload and the available
EAB management options were completed for development of the 2014 EAB workplan.
Public Tree Inventory
Inventory information for ash trees in public street rights-of-way and in city parks was updated
after the discovery of EAB in Boulder.
Number of public ash trees: The current tree inventory has 4,808 ash trees total with an appraised
value of $15.4 million; 1,267 trees in city parks and 3,541 in public street rights-of-way. While
the Forestry Division has not planted ash trees since 2003, ash is naturalized and many have
seeded into natural areas in city parks or have been planted by adjacent property owners into
street rights-of-way. Inventory data from 2002 indicated 5,615 ash trees in city parks and in
street rights-of-way. Forestry staff has actively phased ash out of many locations and reduced the
overall percent ash from 15.8% down to 12.6% over the past 12 years.
Tree diameter: Ash trees range in size from one to 48 inches in diameter with an average
diameter of 12 inches.
Tree Condition: Tree inventory data indicated 80% of public ash trees were in good or fair
condition while 20% were in poor condition. EAB has not yet impacted many public trees so the
poor condition rating is due to other factors (i.e. environmental factors, other insect problems,
etc.)
Maintenance Need: Ash tree maintenance need data was divided into three categories:
Remove/Replace in 2014: 455 trees (9%);
Phase Out as Trees are Infested: 3,150 trees (66%);
Preserve Long Term (Treat): 1,203 (25%). The average diameter of ash trees in the Preserve
Long Term/Treat category is 16 inches diameter.
Information Item2B Page 4
Existing Forestry Division Workload
The Parks and Recreation Forestry Division manages approximately 38,000 trees in city parks
and in street rights-of-way and administers the following programs: tree planting, tree safety
inspections, commercial tree program, rotational pruning for trees in city parks and in public
street rights-of-way, tree removal, integrated pest management, arborist licensing, emergency
response, enforcement for tree protection codes and development review for park, transportation
and private projects. Discussions with staff from cities in the Midwest indicate EAB is a high
priority due to the large number of trees that will be impacted over the next decade, the
documented rate at which EAB populations build and kill trees and the potential liability from
the large number of standing dead ash trees. City Forestry services will be impacted and deferred
maintenance will become an issue as staff time is diverted toward EAB as insect populations
build over the next decade.
Control Options
Biocontrols
In Asia where EAB is native there are several important natural controls at work. Most important
are defenses produced by trees which protect them from invading organisms common to the
region, such as EAB. In addition, there are numerous natural enemies, notably various species of
parasitic wasps. Together, the inherent resistance of Asian species of ash combined with the
natural enemies very effectively limit EAB so that it rarely causes serious damage.
Host plant resistance is largely absent from the native North American species of ash which
greatly undermines the potential of natural controls. However, there is research being conducted
by federal agencies to identify parasites of the EAB present in Asia. Some of these have been
found suitable for introduction and release into North America. Three of these introduced natural
enemies have been released in EAB outbreak areas of the Midwest and in some cases they seem
to have proved capable of establishing and reproducing.
This work with natural enemies is ongoing. The long term goal for natural enemies is to suppress
EAB populations in the post-outbreak phase. If effective, they may allow for reduction in the
need for pesticide treatments in the future and, possibly, allow some of the remaining native ash
in the Midwest to survive without treatment.
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) rears the EAB biocontrols at
their Michigan facility. The local APHIS staff has applied for the permits necessary to release
two biocontrols, both parasitic wasps, in Boulder later in 2014. APHIS considers Boulder to be a
good candidate for introduction because it is still in the early stages of the infestation.
Pesticides
Since ash trees cannot survive an EAB infestation, the only option available to save the life of a
tree is pesticide application. Research has shown that specific pesticide products are effective
against EAB if used before trees are compromised by the pest and applied per label
requirements. As local EAB populations decline due to death of untreated ash trees, it is likely
that application frequency may be reduced in 12-15 years
The city of Boulder has an Integrated Pest Management Policy and any proposed action will be
in compliance with the policy. Staff assessed four of the commonly used products using
Information Item2B Page 5
documentation from the EPA, leading experts in EAB management and other regulatory
agencies and open literature.
TREE-äge (emamectin benzoate) – a “semi-synthetic” product derived from a soil
bacterium that is a restricted use pesticide (may only be applied by a certified pesticide
applicator). This product is only applied via tree injection.
TreeAzin (azadirachtin) – a natural product derived from the seeds of the neem tree –
certified for use under the USDA’s National Organic Program. This product is only
applied via tree injection.
Safari (dinotefuran) – a neonicotinoid insecticide applied as a low pressure, lower bark
spray
Merit (imidacloprid) – a neonicotinoid insecticide that is commonly used for EAB
treatments by injection or soil treatments. The city manager prohibited the use of this
product on public property for EAB control.
Only two of the products that were evaluated will be used during the 2014 season - TREE-äge
and TreeAzin. There are knowledge gaps about each of these products. The non-target impacts
are well-studied for TreeAzin with favorable results, but information about its efficacy is limited.
Forestry staff will test TreeAzin to determine if it is effective and the duration of its effectiveness
(1 vs. 2 year control) for EAB control in the local climate. TREE-äge has demonstrated excellent
efficacy in multiple studies. However, studies for impacts to non-target organisms are lacking.
Staff is seeking partnerships and research opportunities to explore potential environmental
impacts from TREE-äge. For 2014, TREE-äge will be applied to a limited number of trees with a
targeted strategy. This product will continue to be evaluated as more information becomes
available.
Pesticides are an important component of EAB management programs to preserve ash trees long
term, spread the tree removal and replacement costs over a longer time period and to help reduce
community wide EAB populations. EAB researchers used simulation models of EAB dispersal
and population dynamics developed from numerous field studies in the Midwest to evaluate the
effects of treating varying proportions of ash trees with the pesticide TREE-äge in residential
neighborhoods. The simulation showed that if 20% of trees were treated annually, 90% of the
trees (including untreated trees) would remain after ten years because of an area-wide reduction
in EAB population growth. Results showed however, that without any insecticide treatment, all
ash trees would be dead within ten years of the initial EAB introduction, a pattern consistent with
mortality rates observed in many communities in southern Michigan and northern Ohio.
Criteria to determine whether ash trees are candidates for long term preservation include:
Tree health and condition: Because the EAB larvae feed under the bark, the most
effective pesticides are systemic insecticides. Systemic insectides are transported
throughout the tree within its vascular tissues. Feeding by EAB larvae damages the tree’s
vascular system, as does damage from wounds and other pests. If the vascular system has
been compromised the pesticide will not translocate and be effective.
Tree defects: Ash trees in the Tree Safety Inspection program with poor structure or
defects are not good candidates for preservation and will be phased out.
Tree Size: The pesticides used are trunk injected. The injection process requires drilling
small holes into the lower trunk to inject the product. Large, healthy ash trees have a
better chance to close off wounds long term. Generally, ash trees less than 10” diameter
will not be injected and will be phased out as they are infested due to reduced ability to
Information Item2B Page 6
close wounds and the economics favor planting a replacement tree over treatment with
pesticides long term.
Location: If a tree has a poor location ((i.e. under power lines, causing hardscape damage,
etc) it would not be considered for long term preservation.
Irrigation: All systemic pesticides require water to be taken up internally within the tree.
Ash trees must be in an irrigated site or the site requires easy access for tank watering
prior to the application.
SLAM (SLow Ash Mortality)
Dr. Deb McCullough, a leading EAB researcher and member of the city EAB Research Advisory
Group, developed protocols to lower overall EAB populations during early infestation utilizing a
SLAM (SLow Ash Mortality) approach .The rate at which ash tree mortality advances during an
EAB infestation is related to EAB density. Therefore, an over-riding theme within the SLAM
approach is to reduce EAB numbers and the growth of EAB populations by concentrating and
eliminating adult beetles and their progeny.
As outlier EAB populations build and coalesce, the area encompassing dead, dying and declining
ash trees increases dramatically. A do-nothing approach means that EAB populations will build
and advance unchecked. Under that scenario, extensive local tree mortality is likely to occur
much sooner than under a SLAM management scenario. Applying a SLAM approach will not
eradicate EAB, nor will it eliminate tree mortality. The goal of this management strategy is to
slow the local invasion process and allow a more proactive approach rather than simply reacting
1
to overwhelming numbers of dead, often hazardous trees.
Enforcement
Existing city code allows city Forestry staff to enforce on private property owners with infested
or diseased and/or dangerous trees (B.R.C. 6-6-2). City Forestry has enforced in past years for
trees infected with Dutch elm disease and Thousand Cankers Disease of Walnut and for
dangerous trees on private property that directly threaten public property. For EAB however,
research from the Midwest indicates that active enforcement for infested trees does not
substantially slow the progression of the pest due to the inability to keep up with progressively
larger numbers of dying ash trees as the EAB population grows. Due to this research and the
number of potential infested ash trees moving forward, city Forestry staff will not enforce on
private property owners for infested trees.
Research also indicates that ash trees killed by EAB dry out and start to fail within a few years
after tree mortality. City Forestry staff will enforce as needed for dead ash trees that threaten
public property. It is anticipated that current staffing levels will not be sufficient to keep up with
the enforcement of dangerous trees as the EAB population reaches the peak. The methodology
for handling long term enforcement of dead ash trees on private property will be a topic for the
EAB Interdepartmental Working Group.
NEXT STEPS
Staff used the results from both the updated public ash tree inventory and the delimitation survey
in collaboration with the city EAB Research Advisory group to develop a city EAB 2014 Work
1
Additional information on the SLAM protocols can be found at http://www.slameab.info/
Information Item2B Page 7
Plan to respond to the infestation within the city and potentially slow the spread throughout
Boulder and to nearby communities. Work items below will occur simultaneously.
EAB Interdepartmental Working Group
The EAB Interdepartmental working group has been formed and will meet over the next nine
months with the goal of providing City Council with long term recommendations to manage
EAB. Recommendations will be presented to City Council in a study Session in first quarter,
2015.
Focus areas for the workgroup include:
Ensure consistent EAB management for ash trees in developed areas (streets rights-of-way,
around public buildings and recreation facilities, in city parks);
Management of EAB infested ash trees in natural areas;
Research and coordinate with Community Planning and Sustainability’s Development
Review staff for possible code changes to facilitate EAB management;
Long term wood debris plan;
Assistance to private property owners;
Downtown Sub-Area plan for phased removal/replacement of ash trees on Pearl St Mall and
in Downtown area;
Methodology for long term enforcement of dead ash trees on private property; and
Discussion of impacts from loss of urban tree canopy.
Tree Removals / Tree Replacements
Seventy-five ash trees will be removed and replaced in spring 2014. An additional estimated 150
ash trees will be removed in fall 2014 and replaced in 2015. Planning for the eventual loss of ash
tree canopy in the infested areas over the next several years, proactive tree planting will occur
this spring in the ten city parks and facilities within the known infested area. Letters were mailed
to property owners within portions of the known infested areas with good tree planting sites in
the public street rights-of-way. The letter educated residents on the Forestry tree replacement
program, the services provided by the urban tree canopy and offered to plant a tree into the right-
of-way adjacent to their home. Ash trees will be replaced with a variety of tree species to ensure
diversity in the urban tree population.
Education / Community Outreach
Extensive education and community outreach is planned for spring and summer, 2014. There
will be a series of EAB open houses to inform the public on ash tree identification, EAB
symptoms, approved pesticide treatment options for trees on public property, and assistance in
determination of whether ash trees should and can be preserved.
The city website will be updated to reflect the most up-to-date information on EAB pesticide
treatment options and Forestry staff will reach out to homeowner associations in the known
infested areas to ensure access to information that will facilitate informed management decisions.
Forestry staff is continuing the collaborative partnerships with both the statewide EPIC
(Emerging Pests in Colorado) workgroup and EAB Incident Command Team to develop and
provide EAB educational material and trainings statewide.
Several stores and garden centers within Boulder sell (a) trees that can be planted as ash
replacements; and (b) imidacloprid - one of the pesticide options. These stores are often a
Information Item2B Page 8
primary source of information to residents about landscaping products and plant options for their
yards. Staff will make contact with the stores within Boulder and provide information to
distribute to the public about EAB, appropriate pesticide choices and ash tree replacement
options. Information will also be provided about the prohibition of imidacloprid for EAB control
on public property.
Pesticide Treatment
Parameters for TREE-äge and TreeAzin use will be reviewed by the IPM Program and the EAB
Interdepartmental Working Group. The focus for pesticide applications in 2014 will be limited to
those areas known to be infested with a goal to slow the spread of EAB within the city. TREE-
äge and TreeAzin trunk injected products will be used to treat an estimated 270 ash trees.
Pesticides will also be used to treat ash trees at Columbia Cemetery as part of a collaborative
research project.
Trap Trees
Dr. Deb McCullough has recommended utilizing “trap trees” in Boulder. The methodology
includes girdling lower value ash trees in May, 2014 within each of the known infested grid and
treating public ash trees in the immediate vicinity with the pesticide, TREE-äge. Beetles will be
attracted to the stressed (girdled) trees. Those trees will be removed and chipped in fall, 2014 to
prevent those beetles from completing their life cycle. Additional beetles attracted to the area
2
will be killed while feeding on ash trees treated with Tree-age.
Collaborative Research
Colorado is the westernmost state with EAB. The weather patterns and ash tree growth differ
from the Midwest where most EAB research has occurred to date. Several research projects are
planned in Boulder over the next several years. Some initiated by city Forestry staff while others
are in collaboration with CSU, USDA APHIS and the Canadian Forest Service (CFS).
2014 projects include:
Testing a new EAB pheromone; initiated by Canadian Forest Service
Testing new EAB trapping protocols; initiated by USDA APHIS
Testing viability of degree day models to predict emergence of EAB in Colorado; Forestry
staff in collaboration with CDA
Research into effects of wounding from trunk injected pesticides on ash trees in Colorado
(ash trees grow more slowly in Colorado and receive less rainfall than in Midwest so
wounding may have bigger impact than elsewhere in US); Forestry staff in collaboration
with CSU
Research to determine feasibility of multi-year control with TreeAzin; Forestry staff in
collaboration with CSU
Measure amounts of certain pesticide products in ash leaves and pollen to determine
potential impacts to non-target organisms; Forestry staff in collaboration with CSU.
Asset Management
2
Additional information on trap trees can be found at http://www.slameab.info/wp-
content/uploads/2010/05/SLAM_general.pdf
Information Item2B Page 9
Forestry staff is working with Davey Resource Group to configure the TreeKeeper tree inventory
and asset management software to manage public trees in Boulder. The software will be used
long term to track not only EAB related maintenance but all tree maintenance for public trees in
city parks and in street rights-of-way.
On-Going Monitoring
Because EAB was detected in only 5 of the 38 grids during the delimitation survey, on-going
monitoring over the next several years is needed to track EAB progression through the city of
Boulder.
Forestry Annual Tree Health Survey: The focus of the 2014 survey will be to locate ash
trees exhibiting symptoms of EAB throughout the city.
Public Service Requests: Forestry staff will inspect symptomatic public ash trees at the
request of adjacent property owners. Requests to look at private property ash will be directed
to city of Boulder licensed certified arborists.
Destructive sampling: All declining public ash trees removed in EAB non-detect grids will
be sampled for the presence of EAB life stages.
Branch sampling: Additional branch sampling will be conducted in fall, 2014 in EAB non-
detect grids.
Trapping: Several types of EAB detection traps will be deployed throughout Boulder in an
attempt to detect its presence. Detection traps have not shown high success rates in the
Midwest due to the absence of an insect pheromone lure but both the CFS and USDA
APHIS want to conduct trapping experiments in Boulder as a leading edge of an EAB
infestation.
Rotational pruning: Tree care contractors conducting pruning on city Forestry contracts
within the city will be looking for signs of EAB infestation when working in ash trees.
Research Additional Funding Opportunities
Staff is working with state and federal agencies to identify potential funding sources to assist
with some of the anticipated funding impacts of the EAB management efforts, as well as the
development of a comprehensive Urban Forest Master Plan that would help guide the long-term
management of both the EAB outbreak and the city’s larger community forestry program.
Information Item2B Page 10
Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar
May 2014
Amended: May 7, 2014
LastPlanning Board Meeting: May 1, 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
12
Apr 2014Jun 2014
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
SMTWTFSSMTWTFS
A.Brockett absent
123451234567
Monthly Planner
*Density ROW/valuation code
change (K. Guiler)
6789101112891011121314
1314151617181915161718192021*2200 Broadway Trinity
Commons (McLaughlin)
2021222324252622232425262728
272829302930
56789
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CCBJAD, 9 am., CCBOZA Meeting,5 p.m. inCC
CC
*IP: Update on the Boulder
LB, 6 p.m. in CC
Energy Challenge Grant
Program (Jamie H)
*IP: Potential Call-Up for
Vacation of Utility Easement at
3584 Kirkwood Place (Jonathan
W.)
1213141516
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CCBDAB, 4 p.m. in1739 Broadway,PBMeeting, 6pm in CC
401 Conference Rm.
C.Grayabsent
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
*Pennsylvania Ave. FloodRepair
Conference Room
Info Item (K. Knapp)
*IPM and Emerald Ash
*Resilience Update (L. Ellis)
Borer(R.Abernathy, K.Alexander)
*Comprehensive Housing Strategy
(J. Sugnet)
*Resilience (B.KenCairn)
*Inclusionary Housing 101 (M. Allen)
1920212223
Board and CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC UHCAMC, 9am, Grace Lutheran
CommissionChurch
*1st reading Trinity Commons
Orientation, 6-8pm in
Ordinance(Elaine M)
CC
*1st reading Density
ROW/Valuation Code Changes
(Karl G)
*1st reading Ordinance for
Landmark Lofts Phase II Deed of
Vacation(Elaine M)
*Chautauqua Auditorium
Restrooms Approval (Jeff H)
*North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
(Jeff H)
*IP: Civic Area PlanUpdate (Paul
L)
*IP: Updateon the Mosquito
Control Program(Rella A)
*IP: Potential Call-up for Trinity
Commons (Elaine M)
2627282930
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
*Comprehensive Housing
Strategy (Jay S)
*East Arapahoe SS&c-
Envision East Arapahoe
(Lesli E)
June 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
23456
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,CC Meeting, 6 p.m. inBJAD, 9 am., CCPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
CCCC
LB, 6 p.m. in CCB. Bowenabsent
*2nd reading Ordinance
Monthly Planner
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West*SE Corner of 30th & Pearl
for Landmark Lofts Phase
Conference RoomConcept Plan (McLaughlin)
II Deed of Vacation (Elaine
M)
*Climate Commitment (B.KenCairn)*2550 Canyon Site Review
*Energy/Climate Commitment/Env. (McLaughlin)
*2nd reading Trinity
Outreach strategies & Sustainability
Commons Ordinance
*AMPS near term strategies
Survey results
(Elaine M)
and new TDMtoolkit (J.
(S.Huntley/C.Crouse)
Sugnet)
910111213
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CCBDAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 WestBOZA Meeting,5 p.m. inCC
Conference Room
1617181920
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. inUHCAMC, 9am, CCPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
CC
Begin CC RecessL.Paytonabsent
*2nd reading Density
*Pennsylvania Ave. Flood
ROW/Valuation Code
Repair Hearing Item (K.
Changes (Karl G)
Knapp)
*TMP Draft Plan and
Recommendation for Adoption
(Rutsch)
2324252627
CC RecessEAB 6-8pm, 1777 WestPB Recess
Conference Room
*Local Food (L.Kolb)
*Mid-year schedule check-in
(B.KenCairn)
30
May 2014Jul 2014
SMTWTFSSMTWTFS
12312345
456789106789101112
1112131415161713141516171819
1819202122232420212223242526
252627282930312728293031
July 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234
Jun 2014
CC RecessBJAD, 9 am., CCPB Recess
SMTWTFS
LB, 6 p.m. in CC
1234567
Monthly Planner
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930
7891011
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,CC RecessBDAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 WestBOZA Meeting,5 p.m. inCC
CCConference Room
1415161718
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. inUHCAMC, 9am, CCPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
CC
*Bike Parking changes (M.
Ratzel)
*Flood and Transportation 101
(E. Stafford)
*Short term parking code
changes (K. Guiler)
2122232425
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
28293031
Aug 2014
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CCPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
SMTWTFS
12
*Climate Commitment *2015-2010 CIP
3456789
(Brett K/Lesli E)
*East Arapahoe/SS&cDraft 10111213141516
Vision and Scenarios 17181920212223
*Zero Waste Strategic
24252627282930
Plan (Jamie H.)
31
August 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1
Jul 2014Sep 2014
SMTWTFSSMTWTFS
12345123456
678910111278910111213
Monthly Planner
1314151617181914151617181920
2021222324252621222324252627
2728293031282930
45678
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,CC Meeting, 6 p.m. inBJAD, 9 am., CCPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
CCCC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
*1st reading Short-term
Parking Code Changes &
LB, 6 p.m. in CC
Bike Parking (Karl G)
1112131415
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CCBDAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 WestBOZA Meeting,5 p.m. inCC
Conference Room
CU/City Oversight Group Meeting,
4 - 5:30 p.m., ATLAS Building CU
Campus- Executive Board Room
#229, 1125 18th St.
1819202122
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. inUHCAMC, 9am, Grace LutheranPB Meeting, 6pm in CC
CCChurch
*NoBo Subcommunity Plan
Update
2526272829
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
*BVCP Scoping and
Resilience (Lesli E)