Winter-2009

Trees inspire kids to read more By Lorrie Stromme

hotosynthesis,” declared a second-grader while reading a book on trees. It was the longest word he had ever read out loud.

He beamed with pride at his adult reading buddy. His excitement about reading is typical of students who participate in an innovative literacy program in Minneapolis.

Each Wednesday, 65 volunteers—Hennepin County District Court judges, law clerks, and court personnel—board a school bus at noon and head to City View Elementary in north Minneapolis. At the school, the volunteer reading buddies pair up with their assigned second-graders, who read books aloud to them for an hour.

Last year, the reading program partnered with “Books4Branches” to challenge each student to read 100 books in five months. The incentive? Trees! Each student who met the quota of 100 books earned a tree. The students kept track of the books they read by pasting a paper leaf—one for each book completed—on their very own giant paper trees on display in the classroom. From December to May, the paper trees leafed out.

By spring, most students had read 100 books—nearly three times the school district’s goal of 35 books for second-graders. On May 14, all of the students planted “their” trees on the school grounds and in an adjacent public park, with assistance from their reading buddies and the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board forestry crew. Five students hadn’t met their 100-book goal on planting day. They were told that “their” trees would belong to the

“P

Lorri

e Stro

mm

e

11

The Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee’s mission is to advance Minnesota’s commitment to the health, care and future of all community forests.

Inside ThIs Issue2 Perspectives

4 Mystery Tree

5 Trees and Construction

8 IsA—st. Louis—2009

10 Dispel-A-Myth

13 New Tech Transfer Items

14 MnsTAC News

15 Calendar

Visit MnSTAC on the Web at www.mnstac.org

Trees inspire kids continued on p. 3

COMMUNITY FOREST PROFILE

ADVOCATE • Winter 2009

WinTEr 2009

VOl. 11, nO. 1

PeRsPeCTIVes

rowing up as a child, I was able to spend a significant amount of time in

a small urban forest. At that time, I didn’t really understand the delicate balance of nature, but grew up to appreciate the native plants and animals and the protection of the urban forest.

As a grown up tree hugger, I guess it was only a matter of time before I got involved in the horticultural world. I quickly learned that I knew so little about trees but I also learned that a small group of dedicated volunteers can and do make a difference.

As a University of Minnesota Master Gardener and Tree Care Advisor, I have spent many hours with invasive species removal and reforestation events. The memories are priceless. I will never forget the look of excitement on the faces of little children as they plant their first seedling, or the man who listens carefully as we explain how deep to plant the new tree we just gave him for his front yard on Arbor Day.

As a founding member of the City of Oakdale Tree Board, I wanted to continue the Arbor Day Tree Giveaway project and to eventually change the plant material from crabapple and ash to more diverse species. I also worked to establish the Arbor Day Streetscape project (we won an Arbor Day Foundation Lady Bird Johnson award along the way), and set up a Buckthorn removal project.

Being a volunteer has become such a part of my life, I don’t even think about it. Will I keep volunteering? You bet! As I revisit some of the places I have volunteered, I see the trees growing, the prairie blooming and the sun shining through the forest. What a

wonderful pastime to be able to give something back to the community and make those small urban forests available to future generations to enjoy. Maybe one will even sprout a volunteer or two!

How do I find the time to volunteer? How does any busy person find the time for anything? I make it a priority to pay back to the community where I live. My

city doesn’t have the extra funds to do the things done by volunteers. Volunteers can make things happen with a lot of fun and without a lot of red tape.

There are so many worthy causes that need volunteers. Trees are very important to me. I have volunteered in many other areas but working for the urban forest is by far the most rewarding. At Arbor Day events, for example, I get to see the community come together to plant trees, and later, I can watch the trees grow and mature.

How do I get other people in my community to join me and volunteer? That’s a good question. Everyone has their “Feel Good” that needs to be met as a volunteer. I always try to find what that is for folks and try to

I Make it a Priority to Pay Back My CommunityBy Jane Klein

G

22 Winter 2009 • ADVOCATE

Being a volunteer has become such a part of my life, I don’t even think about it.

❆teachers until they had read all 100 books. It worked! By June, every single student achieved the reading goal and earned a tree.

The second-grade teachers at City View observed that their students’ reading skills—fluency, comprehension, and confidence—improved dramatically over the school year. The main motivator was the one-to-one atten-tion and encouragement provided by the read-ing buddies. As a bonus, attendance went up, because the students didn’t want to miss school on Wednesdays: reading day. The reward of trees helped, too, spurring the students to read many more books than expected and inspiring pride in their school and community.

Lorrie Stromme is a past president of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee, a master gardener, tree care advisor, and certified tree inspector. Lorrie is dedicating this article to her husband, Steve Pihlaja, who died suddenly and unexpectedly of cancer in September 2008. Steve, a judge, pioneered and led the Hennepin County Courts reading program from 2004 until he died.

Trees inspire kids from page 1

make that “Feel Good” be there for them. People are busy and if you bring them to an event, you must make sure that their work is appreciated and that their presence makes a difference. If they don’t feel like they made a difference, you will not get them to return. Also, your volunteer pool will change from event to event and from year to year, so you need to keep asking a lot of different people along the way. Publicity is important. We want lots of folks to attend our events. We find that word of mouth and our city publications work well to spread the news. We also send letters to the schools in our area because students are environmentally conscious. I have worked with a lot of students. They are wonderful volunteers and make many projects a success!

Jane Klein is a Minnesota Master Gardener, a Minnesota Tree Care Advisor, and a founding member of the City of Oakdale Tree Board. She received MnSTAC’s Outstanding Volunteer of 2007 Award.

❆

❆❆

❆

ADVOCATE • Winter 2009 3

?Winter 2009 • ADVOCATE4

his shrub is native to Minnesota and can currently be found throughout the

state, except for the very western edge. One advantage of this shrub is its edibility; however current orchard production does not include our native species but rather its European cousin. That does not mean it would not be a great addition to your edible landscape in Minnesota as long as you beat the squirrels!

Other hints for this species…This deciduous monoecious shrub is consid-ered a shrub but can attain heights of 18 feet and is generally accepted as an ideal natural-izing shrub. The female portions consist of a nonshowy flower that is just bright red pistils. Catkins are the male plant portion and consti-tute its position in the Betulaceae family. It has alternate, simple leaves with nuts as the fruit that are sheathed in a fuzzy husk. This fuzzy husk is rather difficult to remove so purchasing a can of its cousin’s offspring may seem like a good option.

Photo by National Park Service

Photo by Earl Rook

Photo by National Park Service

Mystery Tree...

T

See the bottom of page 7 for the answer.

uRBAN FOResT heALTh


nderstanding tree and people

interactions is important to foster healthy and sustained urban tree populations. Long-term studies that track individual plants, plant communities and ecosystems have been used to help us understand how rural forests are impacted by people interactions. Urban forest ecosystem studies, however, are relatively new. In the urban forest, people and trees engage in a grey and green infrastructure battle. Trees are damaged by construction activities in the repair and original infrastructure installation of buildings, streets, parking areas, sidewalks, and other built entities. Trees may be the aggressor and inflict damage of the built environment when tree roots grow and displace sidewalks and curbs or when limbs and whole trees fall on cars and buildings. If the grey and green could just learn to get along!

Is it the green or grey infrastructures fault? Yes, no, maybe and it depends on who you ask, what is the question(s), what is the perspective. Regardless of who’s at fault, we have learned much over the past several decades of studying the urban forest and developing urban forest planning and management models. Since the early 1980’s, we have carried out a long-term study of how trees respond to construction activities; ways to minimize construction

damage of trees as well as tree damage to infrastructure; and people perceptions of trees and how construction activities affect tree survival and health. An important part of introducing a truce between the grey and green infrastructure battle is to understand the many ways trees are damaged during construction.

Tree Damage, Place Your Bets?Trees are potentially damaged in many ways during construction. Damage may manifest itself through direct

damage to trees roots, stems, branches or indirectly through changes to the site. For example, when sidewalk and street repair occurs, roots can be severed, soil can be compacted, and the soil grade can be raised or lowered. With disregard to how these activities damage trees and to what level trees can tolerate some change, the grey infrastructure wins the battle. If you place all your money on the grey infrastructure, you win. Likewise, we can place all our bets on the green infrastructure and avoid any repair or building of the grey infrastructure and the green wins, but we pay the price of infrastructure dysfunction. We are often told the truth lies somewhere in between and the grey and green infrastructure battle likely parallels this idea. But what are the limits that the grey and green must live by?

Trees and Construction— A Quarter-Century Grey and Green Infrastructure Battle

MN D

NR

UBy Richard Hauer

Winter 2009 • ADVOCATE6

Learning From Street and Sidewalk Repair Since 1981In 1989, we asked some questions about trees and construction activities associated with street and sidewalk repair. We wondered if tree survival and health (approximated by tree condition) were related to different construction activities, tree size, tree species, growing space, past tree condition, and if construction compared to no construction in proximity to the study trees reduced tree condition and/or increased the loss of trees. As with most studies several questions were answered, some new ones arose, and some postulations were not proven.

Between 1981 and 1984, a study population of 989 street trees in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was subjected to construction activities. We found that trees subjected to construction compared to control trees (those near these and not subjected to construction) died sooner (survival %: 77.3 construction versus 81.4 control trees) and had reduced tree health (condition %: 71.0 construction versus 76.7 control trees). Prior to construction activities the construction and control groups had a similar 77.2% condition rating. The study also showed that if trees subjected to construction were growing in 8 to 10 feet or larger tree lawns (distance between curb and sidewalk), their condition was no different from trees not subjected to construction activities. It is nice to confirm and empirically document what people knew at the time, if you damage trees, you increase the probability they will die sooner and tree health can be impacted. However, it would be nicer to understand the limits of grey and green infrastructure and develop solutions towards a truce.

Can Construction Damage Prevention Work? Soon after the 1981 to 1984 time period when the study trees were subjected to construction activities, the City of Milwaukee pioneered the development of a program to reduce construction damage. The program was fully implemented around 1985. Key components of this program were hiring of tree preservation staff, developing tree preservation guidelines for contractors, host pre- and post-construction

meetings that outlined what can or can not be done, the levying of fines for damage to trees during construction, and monitoring trees during and after construction. The program continues to the present. But has the program made a difference?

After the initial tree evaluation in 1989, we looked at the tree population again in 2005. We answered the same questions from the initial study and also we’re curious if over the long-term were trees initially subjected to construction still dying sooner and less healthy trees? In brief, we did not find a long-term difference between the study control and construction trees for tree survival or tree

condition. Thus, it appeared that construction activities were manifested in the short-term four to eight years following construction and not the long-term nearly 25 years later. However, a confounding factor was some of the control trees were subjected to construction after the first study.

The initial study design allowed us to relook at the short-term side of construction and ask if the Milwaukee tree preservation program was paying out bets on both sides of the grey and green infrastructure battle. We took the original control trees, some of which were not subjected to construction to date (n=287) and others subjected to construction activities

“ …a sound tree

preservation program can be

implemented with the end

result of healthy and longer lived

urban trees.”

Mystery Tree Answer: American Hazel (Corylus americana)


(n=143). We found no difference in survivability (survival %: 81.0 construction versus 80.5 control trees) and or tree health (condition %: 75.2 construction versus 75.0 control trees). This finding suggests two things. First, construction can occur around trees and the battle ends in both the grey and green sides winning, much to the disadvantage of the odds makers, if tree biological needs are considered. Second, a sound tree preservation program can be implemented with the end result of healthy and longer lived urban trees.

SummaryThe battle of the grey and green infrastructure does not need to be a fight. It does not need to be the choice between one side or the other losing on a given day. Trees and the built environment are both important parts of the urban forest and urban communities.

We can kill trees by not considering the biological requirements of a tree when we build, maintain, or repair infrastructure. We can also save most trees by totally avoiding construction, which is not practical in many situations. A third option is developing good, better, and best management practices that facilitate construction and at the same time keeping the green infrastructure to mask the grey and support an ecosystem function urban environment.

Damaging Factors with Street and Sidewalk Repair

Grade Change (Fill and Removal)

Soil Compaction

pH Alteration

Root Severing

Trunk and Branch Wounding

Hydrology Changes

Richard Hauer is an Assistant Professor of Urban Forestry at the University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point. You can reach him at [email protected] or 715-346-3642.

MN D

NR

oes any arborist from Minnesota dream about traveling to St. Louis in late July

for an arborist conference? I’d say about mid-January I’ll be missing the Missouri heat, but as I was watching all those amazing “athlete tree climbers,” I was desperate for a little air conditioning. Other than the oppressive heat

that occurred outside, the accommodations and speakers generated a phenomenal conference experience. If you have chosen to dismiss the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) conferences as a high priced affair, you have also chosen to leave one of the best networking and progressive knowledge opportunities at the wayside.

I venture to say that one of the most excellent presentations that I heard was given by the redwood canopy scientist Dr. Steve Sillett. This guy spends his time hundreds of feet up in the canopy of the tallest trees in the word. He and his wife were married over 100 feet off the ground in a pair of redwoods…talk about a tree lover.

ISA—St. Louis—2008Photos by Nicholas CrawfordBy Jacob Ryg


D

It is safe to say that most people in the audience were blown away at the slides and photographs that Dr. Sillett presented. I’d bet very few people know that the crowns of some of the largest redwoods can harbor a tremendous abundance of wildlife and plants—as well as up to three feet of soil in some of the giant tree cavities. Dr. Sillett will undoubtedly be on a number of lists for regional speaking engagements in the future.

An additional highlight of the various presentations I attended was Dr. Ed Gilman from Florida who is still ramping up his “trees and wind” research with larger wind turbines to measure the effect high winds have on tree crowns.

The networking and hospitality at the confer-ence were superb with an adequate supply of refreshments and trade floor activities. Ken Palmer with Arbormaster training, who has become a trade show staple for the ISA, had an indoor tree anchored to the floor and presented safe rigging, removal, and chainsaw usage, and explored the vast number of innovations in commercial arboriculture.

If you’ve been thinking that the ISA conference is out of reach for you at the height of the “busy season,” you need to remember that outreach, support and knowledge is what advances our profession and ultimately our safety in everything we do within arboriculture. I argue that the workshops and conferences that are available to us are priceless because of the advancements they present to enhance our businesses, careers and safety. I challenge you to attend at least one or more workshops or conferences in 2009 to become a more improved arborist. Support professional arboriculture organizations!

Jacob Ryg is an ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Certified Tree Worker and a Municipal Specialist—all as the City Forester for the City of Rochester, Minnesota.

For more information about the 2009 ISA Conference and Trade Show, July 24-29, in Providence, Rhode Island, visit www.isa-arbor.com

9ADVOCATE • Winter 2009

and teachers, tree care consultants tend to have their own specialties. This is one of those times when it pays to request references and take the time to follow up on them.

It is wise to request proof that the consultant is not only experienced in tree preservation but has a successful track record. Contact previous clients and visit the sites if possible. Make sure that the consultant’s personality is one that you and your other contractors can work with on a daily basis. An egotistical or confrontational consultant isn’t worth the challenges to work with, especially when there are other equally competent and agreeable people in the profession. A consultant needs to listen to everyone and accept compromises as long as the compromises don’t affect the end goals. For example, the client may decide that as the construction on the project has progressed, a patio under a copse of trees may be a nice addition, even if it requires compromising the protected root zone. A good consultant will accept changes like this and move along with a reasonable solution such as a deck patio rather than an excavated brick patio.

Other indicators of competency and professionalism include two or four year college degrees in horticulture, forestry, or arboriculture. Memberships in professional organizations such as regional or state arborist chapters of the International Society of Arboriculture, and certifications in fields such as arboriculture, landscape architecture or nursery and landscape professions indicate some commitment to professionalism. However, there is no substitute for a good reputation and a record of success.

DIsPeL-A-MYTh


n the Fall 2008 issue of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate, the idea that trees and woodlands can

survive construction and development activities was proposed. Steps 1 and 2 are now presented in more detail.

Step 1: Hire an experienced tree care consultant the same day that you hire an architect and a contractor.

• Hiresomeonewithprovenexperienceintree and woodland preservation.

• Includetheconsultantinallplanningphases.• Empowertheconsultant.• Meetwiththeconsultantregularly.

Consider this: a wooded building lot is commonly worth at least 30% more than a bare lot. Trees rarely die immediately after the construction damage has been inflicted. Rather, they tend to decline over a period of years, commonly up to 5-10 years after the construction or development activity is completed. In the interim, the conscientious property owner has paid a considerable amount for tree care that may or may not save the trees. If the trees die, removal of these trees near the home is a considerable expense and in the end, the property owner has paid a lot of money for nothing. To compound the misery, the additional 30% that the building lot cost because it was wooded is still on a 30 year mortgage at 6.5% interest.

Prevention is cheaper than the cure. Preventing construction or development damage to trees and woodlands is always more effective, time efficient and cost efficient than treating the wounded victims. A tree care consultant that is experienced in and successful at tree preservation during these activities will be worth the investment many times over. However, as with doctors, lawyers, automobile mechanics

i

Five Steps to Keeping Trees and Woodlands: Steps 1 and 2By Gary Johnson

Involvement. From the beginning, include the tree care consultant in all planning activities: locating the building pad, driveway and sidewalks. Make it clear that the consultant is as influential as any other contractor on the project. Any subcontractor activities such as utility installations, landscape lighting and pool locations should be reviewed in light of the tree preservation plan. Storage and parking areas, grade changes and potential lawn areas need to be consistent with the tree preservation plan. The purpose of this coordination is not to stop the project, only to prevent the damage. Success of the project may be as simple as relocating the building pad by 20 feet or confining all parking and storage to one benign area of the property.

Empowerment. The tree care consultant needs to have the power to stop the progress of construction if tree preservation practices are compromised. Additionally, fines levied for each offense can be very effective at stopping unfriendly tree practices. For instance,each time sub-contractors remove a tree protection fence (even temporarily) to accommodate their work, they owe the property-owner $1,000.

Voluntary compliance is a nice concept, but without empowerment and consequences, the tree care consultant is hardly effective. To be fair to all other contractors on the project, the extent of the consultant’s empowerment and the details of the consequences must be spelled out clearly and completely in all contract agreements.

Constant Contact. Modifications from the original tree preservation plan will need to be made constantly, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The general contractor, the architect, the property owner and the tree care consultant should program each others’ telephone number into their own cell phone.

If a situation arises that may affect the success of the preservation plan, it needs to be taken care of immediately.

A protocol for handling unexpected situations that affect the tree preservation plan should be developed. For instance, what type of alterations need the approval of the tree care consultant? Rerouting utility tunnels? Certainly. Activities within the footprint of the building? Probably not. Weekly meetings among the contractors are a minimum; daily meetings are not a waste of time if the project involves preserving woodlands.

Step 2: Understand the Resource.

At this point, differentiate between construction damage and development damage. Construction damage may be as obvious and simple as root loss when a trench is dug for buried utility installation. Development damage tends to be more subtle and predisposing in nature. For instance, the act of dividing a wooded property into buildable lots involves cutting in new roads and clearing building footprint sites on each property. Each time a new road (or sometimes driveway) is cut into a wooded property, the extent of the woods “edge” is


increased. Each time a building footprint is cleared, a “perforation” has been cut into the woods. As edge length increases and perforations increase, the predisposition of the woods to a slow decline in health increases.

Most damage to trees in urban areas due to house additions or street improvements is construction damage. Roots are removed during excavation, trunks and branches are wounded or broken and soils are compacted. Root loss not only affects the health of a tree but the stability of a tree. A 70 foot American elm (Ulmus americana) with two-sided root loss within 3 feet of the trunk may eventually grow new roots and recover health-wise, but the same damage to a 70 foot white oak (Quercus alba) is almost always certain death. Likewise, a large wound to the trunk of a red maple (Acer rubrum) is likely to start an extensive column of decay where the same wound to a sugar maple (Acer saccharum) will most likely be contained in a relatively small area of the trunk’s wood.

Not all trees can take it. An experienced tree care consultant will evaluate the potential tolerance of the individual trees on a site to the potential damage that could occur. Healthy and younger trees are much more tolerant of most damage than weak or older trees. Genetically, certain trees are much more tolerant of root loss or trunk wounds or soil compaction. If the potential construction damage to a tree is beyond its tolerance range, a decision must be made: alter the construction activities to avoid the damage or remove the tree. Crossing fingers and hoping for the best is not an intelligent option.

Regardless of species, trees that have been weakened by insect or disease problems are less likely to survive normal construction-related damage. Likewise, trees with extensive amounts of decay, thin or otherwise reduced canopies, unexplained die back, nutrient deficiencies that have compromised the normal green leaf colors, or dysfunctional root systems are much less likely to survive the wrath of the backhoe.

Finally, a tree that may have a chance of surviving construction damage, at least health-wise, may not be worthy of saving safety-wise. That 70 foot American elm that lost two sides of its root system will be the picture of instability for many years. It is much more likely to tip

over in a wind storm than other large trees in the same area, and if that tree is located 10 feet from a utility line or the entrance to a home or a busy street, it’s probably not worth saving unless the construction damage can be avoided. Again, an experienced tree care consultant will perform a risk assessment as well as a health and tolerance assessment on all trees before determining which trees stand a chance of surviving the construction activities.

Saving the woodland saves the trees. Minimizing development damage to woodlands takes a different perspective. First, woodland trees have lived a protected life for many years and react much more violently to changes than landscape or boulevard trees. Woodlands have been protected from winds, drying sunlight, soil moisture extremes and soil compaction problems. Every perforation, every extra foot of exposed woodland edge whittles away at that protection and predisposes both the woodland and the individual trees to other health and stability factors.

Within the woodland, the most important damage to avoid is loss of the woodland “floor.” This floor, composed of leaves, fallen branches, herbaceous plants like ferns and soil microorganisms is the lifeline of the woodland system. If it is lost, the trees are much less likely to survive. If building lots are regraded to accommodate lawns or drainage, that floor is lost and the whole system begins a long, slow decline in health. Now, even if a tree species is tolerant to a certain amount of root loss, it is less likely to survive because its overall health has been compromised by the loss of the forest floor.

An experienced tree care professional, specifi-cally one that is experienced in woodland preservation, will design in a woodland floor protection chapter of the tree preservation plan. If the client insists on having a turf grass lawn under the shade of the trees on the building lot, the consultant will evaluate and select the trees that are most likely to survive this damage. More importantly, the consultant will address the loss of soil organic matter, soil moisture and increased competition from the turf grass long before the trees become overly predisposed. Common prevention/recovery tactics include adding an organic mulch under the branch spread of the protected trees, providing supple-mental irrigation throughout the course of


development and thereafter for the life of the trees, and replanting the lost woodland floor ferns, wildflowers and shrub layers. If the client agrees to these intervention tactics, then a wider variety of tree species and sizes may tolerate the impacts of development.

Science doesn’t save trees, policies do. Tree care consultants have known how to save trees for many, many years but if there are no policies for tree preservation—whether on an individual site or a larger woodland—all attempts to save trees will be reactionary and much less effective than logical, proactive measures. Prevention of damage is almost always successful; treating damage is always a gamble and quite often, is an expensive example of “too little too late.”

For more information on preserving trees during construction and development activities:

Protecting Trees from Construction Damage: A Homeowner’s Guide. 1999 revision by Gary Johnson, University of Minnesota Extension Service. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/housingandclothing/DK6135.html

Protecting Trees during Construction. Extension fact sheet 7.420 written by C. Dennis and W.R. Jacobi, available from the Colorado State University Extension Service. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07420.html

To find an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, access their web site and begin a search for Certified Arborists in your state and community. http://www.isa-arbor.com

Road to a Thoughtful Street Tree Master PlanThis full-color, 91 page design manual will help replace many of the subjective decisions made during street tree design and plant selection with objective criteria. The manual is intended to assist communities and planners in selecting the best trees for their available planting sites, and also to use specific principles of street tree design to most effectively create public green spaces, positively affect traffic patterns, and create healthy living spaces.

The manual is available online at http://www.forestry.umn.edu/extension/urban_com/Street %20Tree%20Manual.REVISED_2008.pdf. A limited number of CDs are also available for a nominal fee. To request a CD, contact Gary Johnson at 612-625-3765 or [email protected].

Tree Owner’s Manualwww.treeownersmanual.infoLandscape trees are dying prematurely. In many cases, this is because the correct care is not given at the time of planting and throughout the tree’s life. To help remedy this issue, the U.S. Forest Service has created a Tree Owner’s Manual. Just like the manual that comes with automobiles and appliances, this booklet includes a parts diagram, instructions for installation, tips for troubleshooting common issues, recommended service, and more. And like with other manuals, hopefully those who get a copy will keep it in a familiar spot and use it as a reference over the course of the tree’s life.

To increase the likelihood of the manual getting printed and distributed in large quantity, it was designed as a small, black-and-white booklet that is inexpensive to reproduce. City foresters, arborists, landscapers, and garden centers are all welcome to print copies and hand them out to customers. To download the file, visit www.treeownersmanual.info.

If you would like to print and distribute this publication with your name, logo, and/or sales price on the cover, please contact Jill Johnson at 651-649-5253 or [email protected].

New Tech Transfer Items continued on page 16

Gary Johnson is an Extension Professor of Urban Forestry in the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.

New Tech Transfer Items:


Resources (DNR) Community Forestry Program and advise the State Forester. The DNR must have an advisory group in place to qualify for an annual grant from the U.S. Forest Service. State Forester Dave Epperly represents the DNR on the Board of Directors.

The U.S. Forest Service grant is vital in paying for the many services provided by the DNR and the University of Minnesota in support of MnSTAC and local programs statewide. The Advocate newsletter, the Tree Care Advisors and the Tree Inspector Certification programs are all dependent on this grant.

Instead of monthly business meetings, the Board of Directors will meet just twice, in March and October. These Board meetings will be preceded by full Membership meetings in February and September.

The traditional monthly gatherings are now MnSTAC Forums, held the third Thursday of each month from 10 to 11 a.m. These are educational presentations and networking opportunities. No business is conducted. Watch the web for future topics at www.MnSTAC.org, under “What’s new?” Certified arborists and Tree Inspectors earn one CEU for each Forum.

Subcommittee work: our “lifeblood”The Board of Directors will create an annual work plan and assign the various tasks to four Standing (or sub-) Committees, whose primary roles will be:

Information Transfer Committee—to encourage research initiatives, development of publications and workshops and ensure the availability of technical assistance.

Legislative-Advocacy Committee—to promote the understanding of issues by state and local officials, public funding of research, education and management programs and to mobilize public support.

Outreach Committee—to encourage local management programs, citizen participation, outreach to underserved populations and the recognition of these contributions.

Reorganized MnSTAC Seeks Activists!

Continued on next page.

MnSTAC has a brand new look, and the timing couldn’t be better. MnSTAC has a 34 year history of advocating for Minnesota’s community forests and is one of the oldest statewide organizations of its kind in the country.

As with most of the urban forestry activities in the U.S., MnSTAC was born from the need to organize in the battle to fight the “twin tree

killers” so prominent in the 1970s–Dutch elm disease and oak wilt.

Now, over three decades later, our trees face new and significant threats. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is as close as eastern Wisconsin, but could be in the next load of infected firewood. And let’s not forget Gypsy Moth, with populations building on the North Shore of Lake Superior and more recent finds in the southwest metro area. The time to redouble our efforts is at hand.

With this in mind, the previous Board of Directors set out to re-examine MnSTAC’s priorities and organizational structure. The process began with a series of brainstorming focus groups of members. The former Board of Directors then used the highest priorities identified, to overhaul MnSTAC’s structure and rewrite the constitution.

MnSTAC members voted to approve these changes and the newly organized Board of Directors met for the first time in October 2008.

Greater representation and expertiseThe new Board of Directors is larger, up from 9 to 25 members. The board members represent a wider cross-section of partners and stakeholders, including those from new categories such as citizen volunteers, tree board members, students, utilities, corporations, non-profit and professional groups.

One of MnSTAC’s official roles since 1991 has been to oversee the Department of Natural

NeWs

By Ken Holman

Ken Holman is the Community Forestry Coordinator with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. He can be reached at 651-259-5269.


Reorganized MnSTAC Seeks Activists!from page 14

Forest Health Committee—to review state and local responses to shade tree health threats, encourage agency collaboration and preparation of readiness plans.

These subcommittees have always been the “lifeblood” of MnSTAC, ensuring that the collaborative efforts of our partners continue to be strong and effective, and that they act with a common purpose.

The new MnSTAC Board of Directors and longtime active members encourage you to get involved. Look at the time and talents you have to offer. Consider how you can contribute to the committee work described above. Contact MnSTAC to sign up.

The more voices we have “speaking out for community forests,” the more likely it is that those who really need to—will hear us.


sTAC INFO & NeWs

For handy up-to-date links to Web sites of interest, be sure to visit www.mnstac.orgCalendar

EventsFebruary 20, 2009, Rochester Arborist Workshop, Rochester, Minnesota. Contact Jacob Ryg at 507-328-2515.

February 25-27, 2009, Iowa Shade Tree Short Course, Ames, Iowa. http://www.ucs.iastate.edu/mnet/shadetree/home.html

March 3, 2009, Perennials for the Local Landscape, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Contact 651-633-4987 or www.mnla.biz

March 17-18, 2009, Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course, Bethel University, Arden Hill, Minnesota. www.cce.umn.edu/conferences/shadetree/

March 26, 2009, Emerald Ash Borer First Detector Training, Crookston, Minnesota. www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.htm

March 31, 2009, Emerald Ash Borer First Detector Training, Hibbing, Minnesota. www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.htm

April 2, 2009, Emerald Ash Borer First Detector Training, Farmington, Minnesota. www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.htm

April 7, 2009, Emerald Ash Borer First Detector Training, Lamberton, Minnesota. www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestman-agement/eab.htm

May 19, 2009, New Tree Inspector Training at Cloquet Forestry Center, Cloquet, Minnesota. Contact Rebecca Koetter at 612-624-4261.

May 21, 2009, New Tree Inspector Training, St Paul, Minnesota. Contact Rebecca Koetter at 612-624-4261.

July 24-29, 2009, International Society of Arboriculture Conference and Trade Show, Providence, Rhode Island. www.isa-arbor.org

new PublicationsMinnesota’s Forests and Trees: A Primer is available free on-line at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/education/primer/index.html

Hard copies are available by contacting the DNR Information Center at 651-296-6267 or 888-646-6367 or [email protected]

About MnsTACThe Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee (MnSTAC) was established in 1974 by a group of concerned citizens to address the health and well being of community forests. MnSTAC is recognized throughout Minnesota and the country for its expertise, advice, coordination and support for community trees. It is an organization of diverse individuals who represent a broad spectrum of tree-related interests. It fosters and supports local community tree programs across the state so healthy community forests are fully integrated into community development, infrastructure, education and management.

MnSTAC BoArd of direCTorS

Katie Himanga PresidentSteven Shimek MN Dept. of Agriculture Tina Markeson MN Dept. of Transportation Alan Ek University of Minnesota Dave Epperly MN DNR Forestry Jeffrey Gillman Univ. of MN Extension Service Glen Hambleton Tree Care Advisor Vacant Local Tree Board member Don Mueller MN Society of Arboriculture Steve Roos American Society of Landscape Architects Dave Kleinhuizen MN Nursery & Landscape Assoc. Barb Spears MN Forestry Association Anne Oldakowski Soil and Water Conservation Districts Craig Johnson League of MN Cities Emily Barbeau City Forester–City of Minnetonka Kameron Kytonen City Forester–City of Andover Steve Nicholson Private consultants–S&S Tree Dave Auchter Utilities–East Central Power Deborah Karasov Non-profits–Great River Greening John Ingleman MN Corporation–Hutchinson Technologies Stephen Schott Student–University of Minnesota Vacant Citizen–DNR Region 1 James Lemmerman Citizen–DNR Region 2 Dave Moehnke Citizen–DNR Region 3 Jill Johnson US Forest Service

Emerald Ash Borer Cost CalculatorPurdue University has developed a calculator for urban foresters and arborists that can help estimate out-of-pocket expenses associated with a particular management strategy over a 25-year period for a community’s trees. The calculator can be used to compare costs of strategies that include mixtures of tree removal, replacement, and insecticide treatment. See how the calculator works at http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/treecomputer/index.php.

Managing Stormwater for Urban Sustainability Using Trees and Structural SoilsA suite of manuals, articles, and presentations describing how structural soils and urban trees can be used for stormwater management is now available at www.cnr.vt.edu/urbanforestry/stormwater. These products synthesize the research findings of a collaborative project between Virginia Tech, Cornell University, and the University of California at Davis. Research topics related to developing this technology included the root distribu-tion and tree physiological responses growing in structural soils being used as a stormwater reservoir, the effect of structural soils on water quality, the physical prop-erties of structural soils for stormwater management, the effect of tree root penetra-tion on subsoil infiltration rates, and the use of porous pavements and turf as alterna-tives to traditional pavement in this system.

Watershed Forestry Toolkit http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/This website is a central clearinghouse for all things related to urban forests and water sheds. There have been many recent efforts towards managing urban forests for watershed health that have resulted in a variety of highly useful tools and training materials. This site compiles these resources into a format that can be easily accessed and downloaded. It covers four main categories: Forest Planning and Assessment, Re ducing Runoff, Forest-Friendly Development, and Planting and Main taining Trees. Resources on the website include fact sheets, presentations, and research reports.

New Tech Transfer Items continued from page 13

Winter 2009 • ADVOCATE

Presorted Standard

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 171

St. Paul, MN

Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate

A quarterly newsletter published by the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee.

Managing Editorial Group: MnSTAC Education Committee (Emily Barbeau, James Burks, Ken Holman, Gary R. Johnson, Rebecca Koetter, Lara Newberger, Jeff Rick, Jacob Ryg, Mark Stennes, and Patrick Weicherding)

Editor-in-Chief: Judy Slater

Design: Creative Services Unit, MNDNR

Material in this newsletter is not copyrighted. Reproduction for educational purposes is encouraged. Subscriptions are free. Articles, news items, photos and videos are welcome.

This publication was produced with the support of the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area; State and Private Forestry.

Address inquiries to:Minnesota DNRDivision of Forestry500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155

Printed on recycled paperusing soy-based inks.

Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155-4044RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Winter-2009

Documents

new tree

giant paper trees

tree hugger

reading program

tree care advisor

arbor day fo

city of oakdale tree

arbor day streetscape