SUN CITY – There are two schools of thought regarding what to do with ash trees infected by the Emerald Ash Borer.
One believes removal and replacement of all infected trees is the best method because treatments available today cannot guarantee a tree will be saved. The other believes treatments can significantly prolong the life of an infected tree, often for as long as they are used. Aesthetics are sometimes used to defend both positions.
Treatments cost only slightly more than removal and replacement, according to Sun City Landscape Supervisor Chris Leuck. The Sun City Community Association Board of Directors and staff have been wrestling with what to do about the Emerald Ash Borer, a beetle native to Asia, for the past eight years, ever since the relentless predator was first spotted in Illinois in 2006.
About 750 ash trees were planted in Sun City when the subdivision opened, before EAB was identified as a problem. About 250 of them have been removed. Many others are infected. In 2012, the association, on the advice of area arborists and the Facility Advisory Committee, began treatment of 240 infected trees. On Oct. 23, 2013, the board voted 4-3 to stop treatments and set a policy of removal and replacement.
The issue came up for discussion again at the regular board meeting on March 19. Leuck and the committee recommended that the 2013 decision be revisited and changed from removal to treatment.
There currently are two accepted methods known to arbor science – soil drenching using chemicals applied to tree roots, and a trunk-injection method involving direct application of pesticides into the tree above ground.
“The injection method is the best option for us now, because it offers higher survival rate, is only slightly more costly than removal, and it offers the best aesthetics,” Lueck said.
A motion by Board President Bonnie Bayser to put the 2013 board decision back on the table and re-evaluate it was approved by a 6-1 vote. Board member Bob Beaupre, a strong proponent of removal and replacement, voted no.
After considerable discussion about board precedents and the effectiveness of treatment options available, the board decided to postpone further discussion of the matter to the next town-hall meeting and the next regular board meeting after that.
