A Path Forward On EAB And Urban Forestry

Urban forestry and a potential plan to combat emerald ash borer are on the agenda for Tuesday’s South Milwaukee City Council meeting.

It starts with a presentation by representatives from Bluestem Forestry Consulting Inc., which has completed its South Milwaukee tree inventory and its detailed look at the health of our ash trees.

The presentation starts at 6 p.m., followed by the actual council meeting.

The urban forestry management plan to be discussed can be found here. The EAB readiness plan can be found here. They contain some interesting, and sobering, data. From the inventory document …

• A total of 4,491 trees, 97 stumps and 1,473 planting sites were inventoried (as part of the inventory of trees in the right of way and other “city-owned” trees).
• 745 trees (16.61%) are green, black or white ash and are susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer.
• 24.3% of all sites suitable for a tree are vacant. If no ash are chemically treated for preservation, another 16.6% of sites will be vacant. This would result in an extremely high tree vacancy rate.
• Presently, the city does not provide any tree maintenance for street trees and homeowners are expected to provide all care. The city does care for park trees. The city should implement an urban forestry program for risk management purposes.
• There are 336 recommended for removal for safety reasons . This is 5.5% of total inventoried population. A typical first-time inventory averages removals between 3-10%.
• 235 trees should be pruned for safety reasons (3.9% of total inventoried population). A typical inventory averages 3-7% safety prune. This is a modest removal and safety prune rate for a first time inventory and indicates maintenance has been fair to good.

So, what to do about this? The EAB report takes a closer look at several options when it comes to tree maintenance …

• Continue existing policy requiring homeowners to complete street tree maintenance;
• Fully fund a municipal forestry program;
• Partially fund street tree activities via a flat ‘subsidy’ per tree-related activity (fixed fee to abutting property owner);
• Cost share with homeowners (percentage fee to abutting property owner); and a
• Forestry fee (annual forestry fee per property)

There is lots of information and data in these reports that needs further examination. Whatever we decide, I’m glad we’re having this discussion. It needs to happen.

I believe the city has a responsibility to address this issue head-on and preserve (and enhance) our urban forest. It’s a worthy investment behind a community resource, our trees, that we probably take for granted.

Unfortunately, we’re in more of a reactive mode with EAB, like many communities. But we still have options. I look forward to discussing those — and figuring out a path forward through this forest.