Government Doc: Minnesota Rules

I found a copy of the 2009 Minnesota Rules, a gargantuan, multi-volume book hosting it's own wall in the library. 


Guess what? There's a lot of rules. I searched through the index book to find the section about invasive species. Chapter 1505, in a heavy, red-bound book, hosted the information I was looking for. The amount of information in here is incredible. I'm sure it's not referenced much unless a legal case moves around these laws, or if a city legislator is drafting a new law and wants to keep their rules and regulations straight.


Here's what the table of contents looks like for Chapter 1505:

Item number 1505.1080 applies directly to my study. People in communities have concerns about the use and procedures when it comes to pesticides. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring told of many horror-story scenarios documenting the government's use of pesticides in the 1960s. In one story, a government agency was battling an invasive species in Michigan. The agency used planes to drop pellets of pesticide over neighborhoods and rural areas. The pellets were thick enough to look like a layer of snow on the ground. Shortly after, birds turned up dead in yards across the area. 


Of course, this is an extreme example from fifty years ago. Agencies (at least in Minnesota) have moved to a more biological mode of battling pests. There are tighter regulations on chemical use, especially near groundwater, and more agencies to provide oversight, such as the federal and local EPA.


Nevertheless, people still remained concerned about pesticide use. I'll share an example from my own experience. I worked at a large treecare company. They took great care with pesticide spraying and employee safety. I sprayed mostly crabapple trees, and the chemical kept a fungus at bay. After a while, I trained in a young man to do my job. We stood at the edge of the street, preparing 100 gallons of water and pesticide mix in the back tank of the spray truck. 


As the tank mixed, a woman come up from the sidewalk. She was elderly, maybe 65, short, with white curly hair. She called to me, "Hey! Hey!" her voice stern and her eyes narrowed. "I know what you're doing. I know what you're up to." She pointed her finger at my chest. "And I don't want you in my neighborhood. You come around here spraying chemicals, spraying death!" She was yelling now. She continued by telling us how her daughter died of cancer and she knew chemicals had something to do with it.


I wanted to respond somehow, to share a condolence, or reassure her we were meeting all EPA and MDA standards set for us. But I didn't. She turned and walked away. 


I didn't speak again for a while. I got back in the truck and we left for the next job. It all seemed like a movie script. The plot was getting slack, so a quick conflict was thrown in. I'll never forget that elderly women's passion and her sincerity. By all means, no EPA, MDA assurance will get that lady to accept her trees being sprayed.

Narrative: The Start of a Crisis, Crossing the Mississippi

In early April, 2009, officials confirmed some bad news for Minnesota's ash trees. The news originated in Victory, Wisconsin, just across the Mississippi River from Minnesota's Houston County. 


A stand of ash trees in Victory were dying for no apparent reason. When inspected, thousands of little tunnels were revealed under the bark of the trees. These tunnels signaled a new turn of events in the battle for many forests and urban trees near the Mississippi River.


Many small green bugs created the tunnels. As they grew from a larvae stage, the bugs chewed through the phloem, the life-veins of the trees, and emerged out of the bark as full-grown flying beetles with brilliant green wings.  During their short life span they mate and burrow back into the bark to reproduce and die. 


But while their life cycle continues, the tree they call home slowly withers, unable to get the resources needed through its phloem. Within a three years, its foliage is completely gone and its bark, dry and brittle, peels off.


So for Houston County, bordered by Iowa to the south and the Mississippi River to the east, trouble was at the doorstep. Reporters carried the broadcast to every major city in the state. People hundreds of miles north, in Ely, Grand Marais, International Falls, winced at the news. The Emerald Ash Borer had nearly arrived.


The Minnesota Department of Agriculture moved quickly to carry the messages about not moving firewood, and they set a quarantine on any logging or movement of hardwoods in Houston county. County meetings were called and the MDA discussed their future plans to search for the bug in the vicinity. But it took another full year until infected ash trees were found in the county. The MDA gave confirmation of the infestation on April 29th, 2010. 


By then, the flying bug already migrated 175 miles northwest—to the Twin Cities. 




“Forest Protection Reserve Appropriation.” Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 15 Oct. 2009. PDF. <http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/government/~/media/Files/news/govrelations/fpr-firstquarter2010.ashx>

“MDA Confirms Emerald Ash Borer Infestation In Houston County.” MDA.state.mn.us. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 29 April 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.

The Question, Whittled Down One Word at a Time

I am studying how cities communicate the human intervention needed to slow the spread of invasive species because I want to find out how to influence people's actions when the environment is in danger in order to help my reader understand how to communicate environmental concerns most effectively.

Is this a practical problem or a conceptual problem? I consider it a practical problem, because we could solve it by doing something: communicating more effectively.

The problem is humans spread emerald ash borer unwittingly. The condition is the bugs will eat many more trees. The cost is many ash trees will die.

The bugs will eat many trees. So what? The death of trees causes us to lose shade, land value, aesthetic appeal, oxygen (at a macro level), and lots of money (because they must be removed).

If it was conceptual, I could say I am studying the communication methods of public offices to the public, because I want to understand what motivates the public to act in ways that serve the interest of the environment. In order to help readers understand how to better communicate to the public.

Either way, I think this falls into the category of applied research.

Formulating the entire question would look like this:

• Topic: I am studying how to most effectively communicate the human intervention needed to slow the spread of invasive species;
• Research Question: because I want to find out how to influence people's actions when the environment is in danger;
• Potential Practical Significance: in order to help my reader understand how to effectively communicate environmental concerns.

I'm not stating who communicates though. My topic should be more specific. I can't study all the communication out there in regard to this. But I could narrow it down by state. Even then, there will be too much information to look at. Maybe I could narrow it down again and study only printed documents or web sites. Let me try the topic again:

• Topic: I am studying how the state of Minnesota communicates (with printed documents) human intervention needed to slow the spread of invasive species.

This would narrow down my search for sure. How many notices or ads has the government put out? They have probably worked with a public relations company. And aren't public relations companies doing their own research on something before they release it? I imagine their ads and fliers when through several focus groups. Maybe I'm over thinking it, but maybe I should have something to compare all this to. For instance, another state? And maybe the human intervention piece should come later. Let me try the topic one more time:

• Topic: I am studying the difference between the effectiveness of printed communication methods between the states of Minnesota and Ohio in regard to the spread of the invasive species, the Emerald Ash Borer.

Hey now ... that's pretty specific. I can see this as a possibility as well. It sure doesn't seem as interesting as studying the web documents though ... well, I'll plow on and see how it changes the rest of the question. 

• Topic: I am studying the difference between the effectiveness of printed communication methods between the states of Minnesota and Ohio in regard to the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer,
• Research Question: because I want to find out how states can communicate better when the population's environment is at stake;
• Potential Practical Significance: in order to help other states present the most effective communicate methods in regard to human intervention of environmental concerns.

Okay. I'm feeling a little better. Although ... I may have difficulty accessing all the printed documents of this type. But I do have immediate access to the websites. And I do have measures to gauge effectiveness of a website from Jakob Nielson and others who have studied website usability. I could follow their lead and look at two main state sites, or even two cities' sites. Let me try one more time, again:

• Topic: I am studying the difference between the effectiveness of website communication between the states of Minnesota and Ohio in regard to the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer,
• Research Question: because I want to find out how states can communicate better in an online environment when the population's environment is at stake;
• Potential Practical Significance: in order to help other states present the most effective communicate methods online in regard to human intervention of environmental concerns.

That allows me to study the sites immediately and not have to wait for printed documents to arrive. I'll visit them now.

The first site that comes up is the joint national site emeraldashborerinfo.net. I'm looking for a state specific site. The MNDNR has one:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/eab/index.html

So does the U of M Extension:

http://www.extension.umn.edu/issues/eab/

And so does the MDA:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/eab

Okay, now let's check Ohio.

The Ohio Department of Ag has one:

http://www.agri.ohio.gov/eab/

The Ohio University Extension has one:

http://ashalert.osu.edu/

And the Ohio DNR has one:

http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/5066/default.aspx

Wow! Three parallel sites! Perfect. 

Now, where to start. ... Well, I should start by finding some measure by which to gauge the effectiveness of a website whose purpose is to inform and act (or not act—if someone were moving wood). Then I could apply the measure to the websites, create tables to show which sites are meeting certain requirements that studies prove effective. 

I could do quantitative research as well by getting students to study the sites and gauge their effectiveness in several categories. One could be finding information about saving their ash tree. It could be timed, and a quiz could gauge amount of information gathered after the effect. Maybe I'm getting somewhere now.

To recap, I'll state my newly formed research question:

• Topic: I am studying the difference between the effectiveness six different Emerald Ash Borer websites from Minnesota and Ohio,
• Research Question: because I want to find out how states can communicate better in an online environment when the population's environment is at stake;
• Potential Practical Significance: in order to help other states present the most effective communicate methods online in regard to human intervention of environmental concerns.