Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emerald Ash Borer topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

State agencies warn emerald ash borer has widened footprint; officials urge sustained funding and new wood‑waste solutions

Environmental Quality Board · August 22, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An interagency briefing to the Environmental Quality Board described rapidly expanding emerald ash borer detections (52–53 counties), strain on municipal wood‑waste systems, and proposals for sustained funding, updated agency coordination, and new wood‑utilization markets such as biochar and milling.

State and local officials told the Environmental Quality Board on Aug. 21 that Minnesota’s response to the emerald ash borer (EAB) has shifted from early containment to managing rapidly expanding impacts across communities, infrastructure and markets.

Rebecca Rubietas Moreno, the state pollinator coordinator who led the presentation, summarized the interagency team’s background and priorities and said the item was informational. Mark Abrahamson of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture said Minnesota’s detection record has accelerated: 21 counties were known infested in 2019, and as of August 2024 52 counties were confirmed (officials said a 53rd county’s confirmation was expected imminently). Using detection‑lag assumptions agency staff described at the briefing, they said similar discovery rates could make EAB detectable in every Minnesota county by about 2029–2030.

Agencies outlined roles and near‑term needs. MDA emphasized detection and confirmation and noted a roughly five‑year lag between infestation and symptomatic discovery. The Department of Natural Resources said it has conducted early detection surveys and provided more than $25 million in grants to communities, but demand far outstrips current funds. The Minnesota Shade Tree advisory representative and other advocates urged sustained funding at a scale they described as nearer $13 million a year for multiple decades to manage and treat urban canopy at scale.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency framed EAB as a solid‑waste challenge, warning that municipal and regional wood‑waste systems are strained. Ken Smith of Evergreen Energy and Saint Paul Cogeneration described how his metropolitan woodyard has been overwhelmed this year, with periodic closures of intake (162 days year‑to‑date reported) and roughly 250,000 tons of wood‑waste handled annually; he said constrained space and rising deliveries threaten operations and that the plant’s economics depend on an extended power‑purchase agreement now awaiting a Public Utilities Commission process.

Local officials described operational responses. Hannibal Hayes, city forester for Minnetonka, said the city inventory identified ~300 sound public trees being preserved with insecticide injections, used preemptive removals for structurally unsound trees and has launched an Urban Wood Utilization program (including a portable sawmill) to convert material into lumber, slabs and other municipal uses. Officials emphasized that many low‑ and moderate‑income residents face unaffordable removal costs and that municipal crews are overburdened.

Across presentations and the question‑and‑answer period, agency and local speakers highlighted three near‑term priorities: stabilize and expand waste‑management capacity (biomass, milling, composting, biochar and other markets); fund long‑term technical assistance and community grants to preserve and treat trees where feasible; and coordinate interagency planning and data collection to track where wood is generated and where it flows. Agencies said they will continue updating the 2019 interagency recommendations based on new funds and gaps identified since then.

Board members pressed for clearer data on wood‑waste flows and asked whether leaving portions of dead trees on site could provide habitat benefits; speakers cautioned public‑safety tradeoffs where dead trees are near homes or trails. Multiple presenters pointed to models in other states — e.g., Virginia and Baltimore programs — as examples for scaling reuse and local markets.

The board did not take regulatory action during the briefing. The EAB update was presented as informational, with agency staff and partners asked to continue the interagency collaboration and to bring back refined recommendations and funding requests as needed.