The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-03-03 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road 8 East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes: a. January 20, 2009 5. New Business a. Eureka Recycling - Year-End Recycling Report 2008 6. Unfinished Business a. ENR Commission 2008 Annual Report b. Wind Turbine Ordinance c. Environmental Prot~ction Ordinance (To be continued in April) 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. Chair Mason Sherrill - Environmental Commission Mission Statement 9. Staff Presentations a. Maplewood Tree Program Report b. University of Minnesota Urban Tree Management Project c. Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION January 20, 2009 5:15 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Present Chair Ginny Yingling Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent Commissioner Bill Schreiner Staff .. ':" .' DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Shann Finwall;Environmental Planner :..' .. ,..........,......... .....",. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA . ".... Chair Yingling stated th~ joint meeting between the Parks and Environmental Commissions scheduled for January 281h was to be rescheduled. She motioned to approve the January 20 agenda. Ayes all. 4.. APPROVAL OF:f!A!NUTES a. November 6, 2008 .i'~~;phras~"!~rainance encompass": one or the other should be plural. I.e. ordinances or encofTJpis-ies. The wdtd"effects" should be "affects". Commissioner Trippler corrected a sentence to read... "stated the purpose of having protection of slopes "is to achieve". Commissioner Musgrave stated one of the sentences said she was a recipient of an award. She questioned if she was present at that meeting. She also requested the motions be recorded, and not in a story telling format. Commissioner Lynne corrected a sentence from having the word "exempted" to "removed from the ordinance". Commissioner Musgrave said there were items she had mentioned that were not included. She also thought there were visitor presentations. . . . . . 1 o Chair Yingling acknowledged she thought there were no visitor presentations. She asked if staff could verify if there were. o Commissioner Musgrave said they should be updated on visitor presentations and that it be made part of the permanent record. She suggested tabling this until they had confirmation. o Commissioner Trippler said he did not see the point of this, if there had been visitor presentations, staff could add this at a later date. o Commissioner Musgrave said this was not proper parliamentary procedure. She made a motion to table this. The motion failed for lack of a second. o Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the November 6, 2008, minutes, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill. The motion by a vote of five to one, with Commissioner Musgrave voting against. o Commissioner Musgrave said the minutes .snould be in a She received an e-mail from Shann Fin\\(~lltegarding what was She stated this was not included in thehiinutes. She wanted to than story telling. at this meeting. for the record. b. November 18, 2008 Goal Setting meeting ..............,." ....,.....,........ o Commissioner Trippler made a motiont6approve;N~Velllber 18, 2008, seconded by Johannessen..themofion passed by a vote of five to zero, with Commissioner c. December 2, 2008 o Commissioner Musgrave said some items were missing. She said there were visitor present?tj()ns. Shes?idshe received an e-mail from Ms. Finwall regarding the "open mee.li09!':law. She st~t~d she consqlted with three attorneys about this issue and she wanted\!jis part of t!j,epermanent record,' o Chair YiogliQg saidtgeyha9J9[lJ')ed adljoc committees for the purpose of finding facts aodbringlHgiitje"~~;idifie 2dmii\i~si()o,The city attorney said this was not covered by the "oP,en,lll,eeting!'la'li and was perfectlY legal. '0 ChaifYingling si~t~tj.the minutes indicated she was planning to contact the city attorney; she was:lirr~er the lmpi'e:;;sion that Shann Finwall was planning to do so. She stated they would checkii8Io this Issae. .. CommissionerJ'rippler stated one of the paragraphs ends with "I". . planner Finwalfsaid she would follow-up on the question of whether there were visitors at tb!~r:neeting; . ..... o Cl1ilirYinglfngsaid Ron Cockriel was at the meeting. o Commi~sidner Trippler made a motion to approve the December 2, 2008 minutes with corrections as noted, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of five to one, with Commissioner Musgrave voting against. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Environmental Protection Ordinance (To be continued) 6. NEW BUSINESS 2 a. Proposed Stop Gap Ordinance for South Maplewood-Zoning Code Amendment to the Rural Single Dwelling District (R-11) Director Konewko introduced Jennifer Haskamp, who was a consultant to the city. She indicated the commissioners' packets included a draft of the ordinance which was closely tied with the Comprehensive Plan process. There were six months allowed for adjacent jurisdictions to review the Comprehensive Plan. There was a six to nine month period where they would act under the existing plan document until the update was in place. In the South Maplewood area, the city council decided that the area should be guided for rural low density, which was .5 to 1.5 units per acre, and was different than the current ordinance. There was a period where they had to allow what happened "today" versus nine months from now; thus the stop gap ordinance was being proposed. Even though the council had to allow the, current 4.3 units per acre, there was a mechanism in place to allow protection of natural resources. Ti]emajority of the area in south Maplewood was zoned for 4.3 units per acre. The zoning in south MaplewBiidis R1 R, which are two acre lots; and farm zoning, which are 10,000 square foot lots. All of sout!jMi;iple.....ood warrants protection in terms of conservation principles, therefore if everything was zonedlhesame(R1R) there would be added protection, even on the farm designations. There were four objectives to this ordinance: 1. Allow for development that would reach the maximumJe"gal entitlement of 4.3 units per acre. 2. Create an ordinance that protects the natural resource,s and habitat in the area. 3. Create a list of definitions that describe the conservation principles in the ordinance. 4. Create density incentives through conservation principles;, Best conservation principles would be deteimin8'dgandin exchaRg~\y9.~ld allow additional density. They looked at a sample site which was 5.22 acres.,l\t 4,3'\y.pil?per acre,mere Gould be up to 22 units on the 4.2 acre site. The ordinance would encourageq~velopersI9,1.I.:;;e.conser\lation techniques in order to gain additional density. If not, they.'II.QI,JI.dpe entitledf<ifabas€ldehSity(jf~9acfe lots, which is R1 R. Ms. Haskamp showed a table etpl.alnlngnOlVlhey would''II()t~\toward me conservation principles, using 4.3 units per acre on a 5.22,.?"9[esite. Unde.tt!j.e currentsc~nario there would be 22 lots. They would move a developer through tOa;ci]iiive the maxinj.I.IJ)) entiUemellt,TElquiring the developer to employ seven conservation principles. Ige.city w9uJtj.~9r~tQrough the conservation principles with the Planning and Environmental and NaturaI8e:;;.Q~tce":;;\eomml~~j()n?Jodetermine what principles were best, what density range theY\\(Qql9.8~in,.and no..v:~?ny lots wOllldbe'allooated. She then explained different tiers and scenarip:;;oftfie units'pe~'.acre, antjf\y,hat conservation and natural resource principles would be put in place. She st~!edthey were tr\'ing,toprotecttpe. environment and preserve the natural resources in south Maple\\(oQd: The current ordi@ncewastiui.lton the R1R district. When they move to the new Comprehensive Plan and havii~5to 1.5 units per acre, they would have to find a new use for it. In order to do that, theYVlould add conseni'~tiQn areas into the reserve sections of the ordinance. There is a public heSting wiUrll'ie\planning commission on the re-zoning on the properties in south Maplewood after the Ehyir9hmental Commission meeting tonight and they were welcomed to stay. The intent of the ordinance ist(i'make sure the city protects this area in the nine month period. She stated the commission's comments would be recorded and brought to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said this material had already been revised for the Planning Commission. He requested Ms. Haskamp go through the changes. Ms. Haskamp replied they did make minor revisions, however the basic concept had not changed. There was a comment with respect to concerns that the Planning Commission made sure the developer understood there were discretion in the definitions. They wanted the developer to work with them. Ms. Haskamp then gave the commission the additional changes to the proposed ordinance, clarifying the definitions on trees and woodlands, historic preservation, additional shoreline buffers, slope preservation, and creating passive parks. The view shed corridor preservation item 3 was recommended to be removed because it was subjective. She also stated that the Planning Commission suggested more clarifying language for the process itself. Commissioner Trippler, referring to two paragraphs, stated he was not sure about the city staff; however the Planning Commission did not have approval rights. He said this language was used in two paragraphs in the document. He thought that within south Maplewood there was a view shed that was defined in a federal statute in the Mississippi corridor, and the view was to be protected. He suggested that they look at the statute that referred to this corridor. Commissioner Musgrave expressed deep concern that they did not have the current draft. She was concerned about non-compete clauses. She also asked who Ms. Haskamp \\(gsworking for. Chair Yingling stated Ms. Haskamp had been working for the city as a C9hsullant for more than a year. She stated the reason that the commission did not have the current draftj~ibe"ii~&~etheir scheduled meeting had been postponed. The city council had asked that Ms. Haskamp puf15jsmateri~l.tQgether for them to work on the ordinance. . . . .. . Commissioner Musgrave said they were told in the firstpilfilgfaph the city had to allowup.to 4.3 units per acre in south Maplewood. She asked if the new plan wotilp "grandfather;~iQ the plan from2QQ20f 4.3 units per acre. ,......,...... ,-"',',""",'" _,'m',,,,_ ,',.c.__"',",,._. ,',',w',,_ ,....,.___.".',."., -,',.",','._,'."','".,.,'".,, Ms. Haskamp stated the current document..w?~.~eing updated.:rhecity would have to allow 4.3 units per acre to a developer coming in currently, which is what is in place ul1lilt!je new plan is adopted. ;::<::;;,'::>::'.,:',,',:'.;'::., .,-..:,:........::_,:' Chair Yingling said the\\(!jbl~~~int oitl1i~qrdinanc~\Vas to create a bridge and provide the city with protection until the ne'.'!,00mprehensivep:lan and zoniQ9was finished. Their hope is that the CoPar development would not move forward. and that they wOlJ.ldhave this plan in the interim to meet legal requirements. .__.....__.'.'..:.'_':.:::.:.'... ..'..0'.".'......"., ..---......'.--......:....':.....::..:.':.-.:'.' -".,'",',,_,,',",-,', Commis:;;ioner Lynne aSKed if there"Were any priorities in the list of conservation tools as to what tools were more imJlortant than others: .'"" ",. -,',. .,......"..., Ms. HaSKampsaid this was o~eiO.f. the it~ffi$they discussed when they devised the plan. They wanted the developer fdp~[form a natural r~~()urces inventory on their site and then meet with staff to identify which of the principals were~est for th?~~8iJcific site. Director Konewko said:th.t1~~tcbnservation principals were above and beyond what was required, so a developer would have tdpreserve trees as required in the tree preservation ordinance, for instance, and anything they would do above and beyond would qualify as a conservation principle. Ms. Haskamp referred to section 44.128, definitions and conservations principles. She asked if it would it be helpful if they listed what those ordinances were so developers would understand that there are the existing environmental protections in place. Chair Yingling suggested this to read "city ordinances that relate to environmental protection include but are not limited to..." because there were additional ordinances. Commissioner Trippler said he did not understand the sentence regarding "enhanced wetlands". 4 Ms. Haskamp said this was referring to what would be encompassed within the Comprehensive Wetland Management plan. Commissioner Trippler referred to community values and development needs and investment with regard to wetland protection enhancement and regulation. Ms. Heskamp said the plan was a very specific one that included the investment required in a wetland and all aspects of how the community values its wetlands. This meant how the community defined the wetlands and how it preserved them. Chair Yingling suggested it would be better to say that the developer would provide a plan that follows that document, referencing where they could view it. ..... . Ms. Haskamp replied that she would place an asterisk by this item, aod'6haijge it accordingly. Commissioner Lynne said she understood the intent of the plan;however in developing today, the concept in preserving land is to encourage clustered development.$n$Jhought, however, tnatwhen there were more houses, there also was increase of impervious sUrfaces,in terms of driveways, electricity, energy needs, and city services. Ms. Haskamp said that clustering was one conservation priHCiple:d.p.tetms of infrastructures, it actually was far less impervious with clustering. Movingfp[\'l~rd, the recomii1@gation had been two acre lots, up to 1.5 units per acre. When you have larger 10ts,QQyl'\~YeRrivatized allnatyr~1 resources. In a smaller clustered subdivision, all of the natural resources were'on.puollcilland, so theriiwould be a different set of restrictions. ,".....d....... ........ Ms. Haskamp said this 'lias the definitioi1,that came out.of the Comprehensive Plan. She replied that it would be changed. '>"',':," .. :.>...":..."....:......:...:.::....,,.. ....::;;:.,.,.::..:...:::...:.:.:,.,.<::.;:. '::':';f_:::::;-;'-.:i":'i\'i',, '''::,:X-:.,,::'i-::' .,.....<:-.:-:' Commissioner Musgrave:said there were items that needed to be more specific or measurable. She mentioned the dedicatioN 015.0.% open space credit and historical analysis. She thought that this analysis should:inelude input from ther8i~torical Preservation Commission. Ms. Haskaiiipsaid there had to'He'reasoning behind creating an area, such as prairie grass restoration, otherwise it would not succeed. In terms of open space, it was already protected, that was why only 50% of the area could be counted as credit. Chair Yingling stated sl'\e'agreed with what Commissioner Musgrave said. She said it should state that 50% of the developable/buildable land be set aside as open space. This should not include areas that were already protected. If the developer wanted credit beyond that, it should be land that they could have developed but were not developing, which would not include wetlands. Commissioner Musgrave asked about prairie restoration and that there was no reference to the Historical Preservation Commission. She thought they should have reference to the commission that exists. She also asked about the siopes, which she had great concerns about development on and the construction that was allowed in tearing up the land, and the amount of soil loss. 5 Chair Yingling said they would have to abide by that ordinance, but the slope ordinance does not allow for structures in the buffers, so why would they give them credit for not putting a structure in a buffer. This would be revisited as a possible credit for the developers. Director Konewko suggested that staff make the revisions and bring this item back to the commission during their next meeting in February. Chair Yingling asked if there was time to bring it back to the commission. Director Konewko said yes, and they would bring recommendations to the council on February 91h, Chair Yingling said if this was acceptable, they would table this for discussiQO~nhe February 3rd meeting, Commissioner Musgrave made a motion to table this motion, seconge:tj~\;:Q'qmmissioner Trippler. The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0,' "..... .. Director Konewko said he would provide a copy of the recq(ll,ij1.eifdations and would'gi$t[ibute in the next week. .. ,. ..,.............. ......... Ms, Haskamp said this document was posted on the inlernetunder the january 20, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. It would not include changes that 0(;6Qftedt6~tRight; however there would be revisions forthcoming. .. b, ENR Commission 2008 Annual Report . ........., .....'...'.A"..',.....'. ",-',.., ,....-,.........."... Environmental Planner Finwall saidth.e Environmental and NatunllResources Commission ordinance did not have a requirement to present,a report to the tit)l:c~uncil, howeve1:~taff found that the annual report would be a means of relayiNg'importa'hl information 10 the city council, as well as deliver feedback on 2009 goals. There were two examples she recommended for tonight as feedback on what they would like to see in their annual report, and'she would graft something for their review in February. ......,...'..... .....,.,.....,.............,.,..,'......',.,.,..... --" .....................'.-,....,..,.,.,... Commissioner Trippler said me Planning Commission'annual report talked about issues they have had, what actions have beeQ taken and whether they approved or denied issues. It also included the city council actions on iSsues and a list of thingsithil.l)'iere projected for the next year. n..,.....:._.n.. ',.._::;'. '_":"::";'::_"':.. Commissioner Musgrave said guidance from the city council would be in order. It would be good to be consistent across all commissioNs: ,_...,......... ",_,_,,"'v .,....."..,. .".,',.,.,'" ..,',-....,.- ....".-....- Chair Yingling s~ggg~ted e:l11~iljng Environmental Planner Finwall any thoughts that should be in the report and the chair could W6tkj'iitbSthe commission on a format. Each commission should adapt their report to the work they are doing: .' 7. Visitor Presentations Carolyn Peterson, 1821 Gervais Ave., Maplewood, MN. Her comment was on the view shed definition in the R1 R ordinance. She suggested using the word vista, because vista was defined as a scenic panoramic view. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 N. Clarence St., Maplewood, MN. She brought information on a complaint investigation. Environmental Planner Finwall said she would hand the material out to the commission, Ms. 6 Sletten said they should have received this information before the meeting began, She stated the microphone was not on during the presentations, so the citizens were unable to hear. 8. Commission Presentations Commissioner Trippler said the first item on the agenda for the planning commission is the code amendment for R1 R. 9. Staff Presentations: a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Chair Yingling stated that according to commission rules, anyone who wistrEiBto run for office could make that known either at a previous meeting or a current meeting. She st?!~Q:thel"'IIould do a vote by secret ballot. She opened the position for Chair, stating she would not ruriXtl1isyear.12rivironmental Planner Finwall stated that Bill Schreiner, who is absent tonight, indic<ltedhewould not beronning. Commissioner Musgrave nominated Commissioner Mason Sherrill, who si3i~[~l1e would be willing lo:?G.c.ept the nomination. Commissioner Trippler also nominated himself. Chair Yi[lmi[lg stated they had two candld.i3tes. The Commissioner voted by secret ballot. Environmental fll.aooer Finwall cQunted the ballots and found that five commissioners voted for Commissioner Mason Sherrill'andone commiSSibner voted for Commissioner Trippler. Commissioner Mason Sherrill is the 2009 chair. Chair Yingling opened nominations for Vice~haii.JI~.e Vice Chaifw()yld be the acting Chair in the absence of the Chair. Commissioner Trippler nominat~g,hirjjself'Gn~ir YingliriQ'i3sked if they could accomplish the vote by a public vote. The commissioners voted[fQr Comml:;;:;;ipner Tripplerto be the 2009 Vice Chair by a vote of 5 to 1, with CommissioI!~rrY1.y~grave votir\g.i3gaif1~t:.i . b. Envirorll11ental andN~tural Resource Commission Meeting Dates Environmental Planner Finwall said theJcommission reqlje:3ted alternative dates and times for meetings at their last meeting, The alternative? VidUli:lbe the first Thursday of the month, or two meetings on the first and third Tuesdays. They would be able to keep their meetings on the first Tuesday of the month, 5:15 to 7:00 p,m;; or unlimited.time on Thursdays. It was decided to keep the first Tuesday of the month as their meeting date. . c. Community' Eltlvelopmeht and Parks Department Reorganization "~'_""_""'. w.",'.._ ,....,.......,., ~.".".". ,.,.,...,........, ",'.,'" Director Kon~\\)kQSi3id an orgi3r1i~a\ional chart was included in the commission's packets tonight regarding the reorganizatiorFoftne sta!f;"t1e indicated that he was the director of the newly organized Community Development and PafKS[)~p'artment. d. Nature Center Programs Environmental Planner Finwall indicated programs for January and February were the Snowshoe Frolic that will be held on January 31st, and a Tracking Safari, where children could go out and discover different animal tracks. Another program, Who Loves Owls, was held on Valentine's Day. In addition there was adult programming on the schedule, one of which was working with the Audubon Society. It was the Adult Beginning Bird Identification, which was a series that would be held in February through April. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p,m. 7 A e()d~ -.It-.{i~ 5.ct February 19, 2009 Carol Sherrill Mason Environmental and Natural Resource Commission Chair City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Environmental Commission Members: Eureka Recycling is pleased to present the 2008 report on Maplewood's recycling program. As a nonprofit organization with a mission to demonstrate that waste is preventable, not inevitable, we value our partnership with the City of Maplewood and are proud to be part of the City's efforts to continually improve its recycling program. In 2008, Maplewood and Eureka Recycling took major strides to improve the City's recycling program. At the curb, Eureka Recycling worked with recyclers to increase their knowledge about what is recyclable and what is not and continued education on the addition of milk cartons and juice boxes to the curbside program. Eureka Recycling also focused extensively on growing the new multifurrily building (apartment) recycling program and increasing the number of residents participating in the curbside recycling program. This work resulted in significant increases in the number of residents participating in Maplewood's recycling program and a significant revenue share back to the city. Here are the highlights of 2008's accomplishments: Increase in Participation In 2008, the number of residents participating in both the curbside and multifamily recycling programs increased. Participation in the curbside program was 72%, representing an amazing 5% increase. The number of apartment units with access to the multifamily program is up 12%. Multifamily Recycling Program Eureka Recycling worked closely with Maplewood staff to gather current contact information for every multifamily building and contacted each building. Having this communication allowed Eureka Recycling to work directly with the buildings to adjust service levels and work with building managers to identifY and solve any probrems. Improving the current buildings and adding 3 new complexes (representing nearly 341 households) resulted in a significant 28% increase in tons from Maplewood's multifamily recycling program. 2828 Kennedy Street NE \ Minneapolis, MN 55413 \ (651) 222-7878 \ Fax (812) 623-3277 \ www.eurekarecycllng.org Eureka Recycling is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. It is Ollr policy to hire without discrimination based on race, creed, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual or affectlonal orientation, ancestry, famlllal status, age, dlsabHlty, marftal status or status with regard to publiC assistance, Increased Revenue Share In 2008, Maplewood saw a substantial increase in its revenue share for recycled material, with $98,089 going back to the City this year! Iu the first three quarters of2008, market values soared to new and unfortunately unsustainable heights. These high market values allowed Maplewood to benefit from increased revenue share in 2008. However, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the markets began a rather steep correction with the prices paid for recycled material dropping siguificandy. Even in the current economy there is a bright spot for Maplewood's recycling program. Because of the quality of material generated in Maplewood's dual-stream collection program, while at these low prices when other programs are having trouble finding any buyers to take their material and are warehousing it, Maplewood's material continues to find buyers. Because of the quality of our material and the deep relationships we have nurtured with our end markets, Eureka Recycling is still able to find buyers for materials collected in Maplewood and our other partner cities. This assures that even in a time of recession in the broader economy, Maplewood's material continues to be recycled to the highest and best use possible. In addition to these key higWights, Eureka Recycling continues to provide the City of Maplewood with detailed tracking and reporting to help the City meet the goals of its recycling program. This data allows us to measure progress as we move forward and ideutifY the areas to prioritize as part of our annual work plan. From our close interaction with city staff, attendance at neighborhood events, aud hundreds of conversations with Maplewood residents, we can see that Maplewood is strongly committed to increasing the environmental aud economic benefits of their recycling program. We believe the city is now well positioned to impkment our recommendations for the 2009 work plan and further improve Maplewood's recycling program in 2009. We look forward to working together with Maplewood as we work toward a waste-free tomorrow. If you have any questions, please contact us at (651) 222-7678. Sincerely, ~~ ~/// ,~ Susan Hubbard CEO and Co-President Tim Brownell COO and Co-President CC: DuWayne Konewko City of Maplewood Year-End Recycling Report 2008 Overview This report includes some highlights from Maplewood's recycling program in 2008. Maplewood continues to be a strong recycling community. In 2008, Maplewood's decisions to protect the quality of their recycling materials, to add new materials to its program, and continue to educate recyclers about the environmental and economic benefits of recycling have paid off. Just like many industries, the recycling industry has been hit hard by the slumping global economy, making the markets for recyclable more competitive. In these times, markets are looking to Eureka Recycling's high quality materials to make new, albeit fewer, products. Furthermore, despite what's happening in the recycling industry, the movement of recycling remains strong, especially in Maplewood. More people are recycling than ever before. The environmental, economic, and social benefits of recycling have never been more in demand. Tonnage Summary Despite a downturn in the state and national economies the tons of material recycled in 2008 is holding relatively steady. With purchasing going down in most or all sectors of the economy the tons recycled in 2008 was up just over 2% over the amount recycled in 2006 and down less that 1% from the boom consumer buying year of 2007. Monda 514.46 470.01 447.29 Tuesda 299.25 297.7 272.98 Wednesda 517.07 493.87 469.92 Thursda 397.29 376.08 368.33 Frida 577 .87 562.73 481.43 CurbsideTotal 2305.94 2200.39 2,039.95 Multifumil Total 308.32 489.1 628.11 Ma lewood Total 2614.26 2689.49 2,668.06 Maplewood's steady rate suggests that residents understand the importance of recycling both for the environment and the economy. This can be attributed to the continued connmtment of the city to educate and inform its residents about recycling aud waste reduction issues. Multi-Family Building Recycling The multi-family recycling program in Maplewood continues to grow. This year the number of multi-family units with access to Maplewood's recycling program increased by 12%. The number of tons recycled by multi-family residents is also up an incredible 30% showing that Maplewood continues to playa role in the metropolitan area as a leader in establishing successful multi-family recycling programs for its residents. Annual Participation and Set-Out Rate Studies More people are recycling in Maplewood. The number of residents who participate in Maplewood's recycling program in 2008 is an impressive 72%. Because of an increase in the number of people recycling in Maplewood, the overall amount of material recycled has remained relatively steady over the last two years despite the fact that the overall economy and purchasing habits of consumers has declined. Participation Rate 69% 67% 2006 2007 Set Out Rate 43% 41% Eureka Recycling conducted the annual participation and set-ont rate study from October 20 to November 14, 2008. (See Appendix C for the definitions and methodologies of the participation and set- out rate studies.) Maplewood's participation rate can be attributed to the consistent and high quality education and information that Maplewood provides to it's residents. This information both informs them of new materials like milk cartons, juice boxes and wet strength packaging, but also inspires them with information about the economic and environmental benefits of recycling. This infonnation gives the residents the tools they need to participate and the motivation to take the steps in their own households to help reduce waste. In addition, staff from Eureka Recycling and the City of Maplewood coordinated two successful recycling bin distribution events in 2008. The first was during National Night Out on August 5th, when three teams made up of Eureka Recycling staff, city staff and members of Maple wood's Environmental and Natural Recourses Commission visited with residents at many of the block parties going on around the city. Residents were able to ask questions about their recycling program and receive a recycling bin if they didn.t have one. The second bin distribution event happened on October 9-11. Eureka Recycling and city staff organized several days of extended hours at the Public Works Building where residents could stop by after hours and pick-up recycling bins. That same Saturday, October 11 'h, Eureka Staff also attended the Green Products Fair at the Maplewood Home Depot to distribute recycling bins to Maplewood residents and answer recycling questions. All these efforts as well as the other waste reduction education that were undertaken by Eureka Recycling and the City of Maplewood in 2008 yielded significant increases in both set-out and overall participation numbers for the year. Annual Composition Study In this year's composition analysis, condncted in February of 2008, Eureka Recycling collected 44,462 pounds of material. This material was run through Eureka Recycling's sorting facility separate from all other materials to breakdown Maplewood's recycling into different types (see chart below). Eureka Recycling conducted an annual composition study of Maple wood's materials over a six-week period collecting 16,865 pounds of containers (bottles and Calli) and 44,462 pounds of mixed fibers (papers & cardboard) from participating households News Mix 61.52% 62.69% 65.10% Cardboard 6.45% 10.13% 4.40% Boxhoard 2.28% 2.09% 2.50% Wet Strength 0.35% 0.35% 0.50% Phone Books 1.28% 0.27% 0.10% Textiles 0.39% 0.05% 0% Residual 0.23% 0.03% .5% TOTAL 72.50% 75.61% 73.10% Total Glass 16.09% 15.08% 14.90% 3.07% 2.66% 3.10% 1.78% 1.46% 1.40% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 5.71% 4.79% 6.10% 0.84% 0.38% 1.50% TOTAL 27.50% 24.37% 26.9% 1.07% 0.41% 1.9% Steel Cans Aluminum Cans Aluminum Foil Total Plastics Residual Total Residual For more information on the methodology of the composition analysis done by Eureka Recycling please see Appendix B There are several important and interesting things to note about this year's composition as compared to previous years. · The percentage of papers in the stream as compared to containers has shifted. Closer examination of this shows that cardboard as a percentage of the paper stream is significantly down (nearly 6%). Cardboard recycling in a household is generally a result oflarge purchases of durable goods or electronics. As the sale of these items dropped in 2008 so to did the resulting tons of cardboard being recycled. Conversely, as more people stayed home rather than dining out the percentage of containers showed an increase. Additionally the amount of Wet Strength material has seen a significant increase. This is the packaging material that beer and pop bottles and other (non-freezer) food items are packaged in. . New materials make a difference. Maplewood is one of the few communities to ensure the pop & beer boxes collected in its curbside recycling program are actually recycled. At Eureka Recycling's facility, pop and beer boxes are separated from all other papers and sold to mills that can use the material to make new products. Pop and beer boxes contain an additive called wetstrength, which make them incompatible with other types of paper Qike cardboard, newsprint or office paper) in the pulping process. By collecting and separating out these boxes, nearly 10 tons of material that was recycled in this community would have been wasted in other cities. Milk cartons and juice boxes and cloths and linens are the newest materials to be added to the recycling program in Maplewood. These materials did not register in a sample study and are listed as negligible on the composition chart above because the percentage of this material is small compared to well-established items that people have been recycling for decades. Just like it took years to establish paper, bottles, and cans in recycling programs in the 1980s, it takes many years to fully communicate a new material as recyclable in a community. Overall, Eureka Recycling and its partner cities together have made strides to increase this material. In 2008, Eureka Recycling collected and recycled 59 tons of Milk Cartons and Juice Boxes and 100 tons of Clothes and Linens all of which would have been unnecessarily wasted in most other cities. Revenue Share Summary and Markets Update The amount of revenue that the City of Maplewood received in 2008 was 12% higher than in 2007 and over 66% higher than in 2006. The total amount of revenue in 2008 was much higher than projected at the onset of the contract with Eureka Recycling. When Maplewood entered into a recycling service conttact with Eureka Recycling in 2006, the city began receiving revenue share from the sale of the materials collected in their recycling program for the first time. Since 2006, Maplewood has received $244,145.70 in reveuue from recycling to continue to invest in the city's recycling or other environmental programs. 1st $14,647.95 $19,115.55 $22,551.57 uarter $16,323.23 $20,175.79 $27,164.93 3rd $15,330.31 $22,836.87 $35,463.07 4th $12,451.14 $25,175.76 $12,909.53 Total $58,752.63 $87,303.97 $98,089.10 2008 Market Review The values of recyclable materials were at historic highs for the first three quarters of 2008. However, significant changes to the global economy took effect in the last quarter of 2008. Beginning in October 2008 and continuing through the beginning of 2009, Eureka Recycling began to see the impact the troubled economy was having on the prices being paid for recycled material. Worldwide demand for recycled cOlmnodities has decreased by at least one-third and the value 'of recycled commodities has decreased by about two-thirds across the board. A convergence of weak ecouomies, damaged financial institutions, and an expected market correction led to the price downturn in the last quarter of 2008 which continues in 2009. When and to what extent the recycling markets will recover is difficult to predict. Industry experts do expect that the recovery will be slow as it mirrors the economy. Furthermore, commodities are not expected to rebound to as high as levels reached in October 2008 because recycling commodity prices were at unsustainable highs at that time and were already trending downward to more sustainable levels. The current state of recycling is not an issue about the viability of recycling. It is a much bigger issue about the economy. The current recycling economic downturn parallels those of nearly every other industry worldwide including auto manufacturing, housing, construction, publishing, and consumer products. In the late 1980s and again in the 1990s the recycling industry suffered a different kind of economic downturn that lasted a year or less and market demand rebounded. These previous downturns were caused more because the recycling industry had not grown to the point where it was fully integrated into the larger manufacturing market. In those cases, gluts in the amount of material waiting to be recycled caused sharp and sudden price drops even though the overall economy was stable. Since that time we have all done work together to build recycling into a massive grassroots movement, particularly here in Minnesota where over 75% of the people participate. Manufacturers are also much more on board and recognize the benefits of using recycled material in their process. What we are experiencing in 2008 and early 2009 is an across the board, massive global slowdown in manufacturing and consumption which is temporarily driving down the demand for the recyclable materials collected right along with all other materials and products thronghout the economy. Rather than rising and falling on a separate trend from the rest of the economy, recycling is now a full participant in the global economic market. This actually strengthens the recycling industry as it shows this indnstry is now depended on by other larger manufacturing bases. Maplewood's quality materials make a big difference in this economy. The challenge for recyclers in this economy is to continue to move materials to market. There are still plenty of markets out there that need quality material-i.e. mills that make the newspaper and magazines you still buy, mills that make the cereal box you used this morning, and aluminum plants that are producing the soda can that sits on your table. These mills want to keep the supply system viable. Although the prices currently being paid for recycled material during the global economic downturn are lower, recycling in Minnesota is still a $3.48 billion dollar industry that creates over 20,000 green collar jobs. It is a fact that companies still need our recyclables and there is still a tremendous environmental impact from our efforts. Eureka Recycling and the City of Maplewood have carefully and thoughtfully designed the recycling program to share the risk and help weather these storms. Eureka Recycling has built strong partnerships with the end markets where all of the recyclable commodities are sold for manufacture into new products. During these economic times, these markets have acknowledged the superior quality of materials collected in Maplewood and other Eureka Recycling partner cities, and have rewarded this continued commitment to quality that is a hallmark of Maplewood's recycling program. Because the materials are of the highest quality available, Eureka Recycling is able to continue selling these materials to be recycled for their highest and best use. As partners dedicated to eliminating waste, the City of Maplewood and Eureka Recycling can guarantee that the positive enviromnental and economic impacts of recycling will continue. For years, there has been a profit to be made from the materials we sell to recycling markets. If there is not a financial profit to be made from recycling, or even if we must start to pay a little to recycle, recycling is still cheaper than disposal and the enviromnental benefits are extraordinary. Recycling is one of the easiest, cheapest, and quickest ways to reduce our energy use. For example, making a new aluminum can from old cans results in 90-97% energy savings compared to making a new can from bauxite and other raw materials. The recycling industry also contributes in important ways to the economy and is already a leader in the national movement to create new green jobs. Economic Benefits of Recycling According to the National Recycling Coalition, the largest national nonprofit organization with members that span all aspects of waste rednction, reuse and recycling in North America, recycling in the U.S. is a $236 billion a year industry. More than 56,000 recycling and rense enterprises employ 1.1 million workers nationwide. In Minnesota alone, the Minnesota Pollntion Control Agency reports that the recycling industry creates 8,700 jobs directly but it is also responsible indirectly (as the "ripple effect") for an additional 19,000 jobs. The industry brings in $93 million in state tax revenue and creates $3.48 billion in gross estimated economic activity every year! The recycling industry provides green jobs which stimulate economic growth while caring for the environment. Eureka Recycling has created over 100 quality green collar jobs in the Twin Cities. Every employee of Eureka Recycling earns a living wage while making it possible for all of us to live a greener lifestyle in our community. As a Twin Cities company, Eureka Recycling reinvests all ofits proceeds back into the local economy of this community. Since 2001, we have given nearly five million dollars to the communities we serve and continne to set the standard in Minnesota for giving back revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. The Environmental Benefits of Maplewood's Recycling Program in 2008 There are many ways to calculate the benefits of recycling. To better explain these benefits in cormnonly understood terms, government agencies, research scientists and economists have created several "calculators" to translate the amounts of recycled materials collected and processed into equivalent positive societal and enviromnenta1 benefits. Most recently, it has become imperative to measure waste reduction (and all our activities) in tenns of its impact on climate change. This allows us to speak in a common language, understand the impact of our choices, and help us prioritize the personal and policy actions that we take. Many cities around the country work with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to quantifY and now register the climate change impacts of their city. It is also important to calculate the carbon impact of waste reduction as the global effort continues to enact a carbon "cap and trade" system. In addition to climate change mitigation, there are other enviromnenta1 benefits to recycling, including saving energy and protecting air quality, water quality, natural resources, natural beauty, habitat and human health. Some of these human health benefits are quantified in the Jeffrey Morris Calculator below. The benefits of recycling and composting In 2008, Eureka Recycling completed the report Recycling, Composting and Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Minnesota to calculate and explain the significant reductions in greenhouse gases through a zero waste approach. (See Appeudix F) "Recycling, composting, and producer responsibility are poweiful tools to reduce waste and therifore, our greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically in Minnesota, reducing our waste has a greenhouse gas reduction impact equivalent to shutting down 20% of our state's coal power plants, or redudng every car usage in the state by two-thirds, or using 75% less electridty in our own homes." Page 2. These calculations were added to the Minnesota Euergy Challenge, a website designed for people to calculate their carbon footprint and learn how to save money and energy at home. Now, residents can calculate and see just how beneficial their household waste reduction activities are in addressing climate change. These same calculations can be applied to Maplewood.s citywide program to demonstrate the programs benefits to the environment in te= of climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WARM Calculator The equations used in environmental calculations try to take into account the "full life cycle" of each material... everything from off-setting the demand for more virgin materials (tree harvesting, mining, etc.) to preventing the pollution that would have occurred if that material were disposed of (burned or buried). Different calculators may include some or all of the many factors that contribute to the "full life cycle," so results from calculator to calculator will vary. While there are many models emerging to calculate greenhouse gas reductions, the most recognized and standard model is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's WARM model. The Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was designed to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. The WARM model was last updated in August of 2008 and recognizes 34 material types. 2006 2614.26 tons Maplewood 2007 2689.49 tons 2008 2668.49 tons *MTCE (Metric tons of carbon equivalent), MTC02E (Metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions) are figures commonly used when discussing greenhouse gas emissions. What do all these numbers mean? The numbers above help municipalities calculate and track their environmental footprint. For more information about the process of measuring the environmeutal benefits of waste reduction, visit: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wvcd/waste/ measureghg.html#click. These numbers, however, don't make much sense to the average person. To help recyclers understand the significance of their actions, the EP A has also developed tools to translate these numbers into equivalent examples that people can more easily understand. . For example, using the figures above, the EP A estimates that Maplewood would have had to remove a total of 1201 cars from the road for one year to have had the same environmental impact in 2008 as they did recycling. To achieve this, approximately 9 % of Maplewood's households would have had to give up one car for a year. . Another example of how these efforts can be translated into energy savings can be found in the EP A calculator. It shows that the energy saving gained by the recycling efforts of Maple wood's residents in 2008 could power the homes of just over 400 of their neighbors for one year. Although WARM is the most widely peer-reviewed and accepted model, it is considered to have several flaws. Many believe the use of this calculator is conservative and understates the real impact of waste reduction efforts. However, despite these flaws, WARM is a well- recognized, published calculator. Until a better calculator is peer reviewed and accepted, WARM gives us a conservative starting place to measure these impacts and work towards our goals. Even with WARM, as you will see, the impacts are quite significant. (httr:/ / era.gov / climatechange/wvcd/waste/ calculators/W :UTIl Fonn.html) Jeffrey Morris Calculator J efliey Morris, Ph.D. Economist at Sound Resource Management in Seattle has developed a calculator that begins with the EP A's calculator and expounds upon it to gather information on not just Carbon and C02 but also several other important environmental and human health indicators. Although new and not yet widely-used, this calculator shows the significant benefits that WARM does not consider. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Reductiou 7,135.9 7,329 7291.5 (MTC02E) metric tons metric tons metric tons Human Health - 3,626 tons 3,702 tons 3552.4 tons Non-Carcinogen Toxins Reduction HU11un Health - 21.2 tons 21.0 tons 20.9 tons Acidification (502) Reduction Human Health - 3.8 3.9 3.1 metric tons Particulates Reduction metric tons metric tons Human Health - 1.5 1.5 1.5 Carcinogens Reduction metric tons ll1etric tons metric tons For more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction, visit htt;p:/ / epa.gov/ climatechanve/wvcd/waste/mcasurep-ho-.html#click Use ofBiodiesel in Recycling Trucks in Maplewood In addition to the figures noted above, Eureka Recycling runs their trucks in Map1ewood on a 20% biodiesel blend, which further reduces greenhouse gas emissions. For more information, see the enclosed "Benefiting From Biodiesel" Fact Sheet (Appendix D). 2008 Curbside Campaign for New Materials Background on Our Partnerships In 2007, Eureka Recycling entered into a new partnership with Tetra Pak to make it possible for residents to recycle their juice boxes and milk, soy, and broth cartons at the curb. Tetra Pak received a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 2006 to ensure their packaging gets recycled in Minnesota. Tetra Pak partnered with Eureka Recycling to collect this material from its curbside progr= in Lauderdale, Maplewood, Roseville, and Saint Paul and to process those materials at its facility. In 2001, Eureka Recycling entered into a similar partnership with U'SAgain, a textile recycling company. Eureka Recycling sells the clothing to U'SAgain. According to the most recent numbers from the US Environmental Protection Agency (2005), more than 9 million tons of usable clothing is discarded each year. That's more than 70 pounds each year from every person in the United States! By adding them to the curbside recycling program, Eureka Recycling has made it possible for residents to help reduce the amount of usable clothing that is thrown in the trash. In 2008, Eureka Recycling. with our partners Tetra Pak and U'SAgain, continued to work closely on market development and education. Don't Let Snow Be The Only Thing On Your Curb Tbis WInter. , DOn'tforgat,:OurJ1'CYCliIl9Pr<:lgr;;Irn ls1cluq~ Iterns thatcan't.b.e recyCJed.lt)ti,!hei' I" Summary of 2007 Campaign The 2007 campaign launch for Milk Cartons &Juice Boxes and Clothes & Linens included a press conference, education tags, ads in community newspapers, notices in grocery stores, an emai1 alert, and the distribution of brochures to libraries, coffee shops, etc. This campaign proved effective at introducing people to these new materials. When residents received education, they recycled more. · In every case when outreach was applied, there were clear increases in the amount of materials collected at the curb. · As with any new materials, the amount of material collected grows steadily over time. It takes years of sustained education to reach mature levels of collection for new materials. 2008 Education Eureka Recycling, Tetra Pak and U'SAgain continued an education campaign in 2008 that built on the momentum of the 2007 campaign and the success of the 2008 Guide to 2828 Kennedy Street NE \ Minneapolis, MN 55413 \ (651) 222-7678 \ Fax (612) 623-3277 \ www.eurekarecycling.org Eureka Recycling Is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. It is our policy to hire without discrimination based on race, creed, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual Of affecijoIlal orientation. ancestry, famlUal status, age, dlsablllty, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. Recycling, which highlighted milk cartons and juice boxes with clothes and linens, and resulted in another increase in the recycling of this material. Summary of 2008 Campaign In the 2008 Guide to Recycling, Eureka Recycling combined two unusual items to highlight the unique nature of the recycling program. Eureka Recycling has collected clothes and linens for nearly 10 years, but it is still a new and unique material for many residents. By combining these unusual items in a humorous way, we accomplished three important goals. · Highlight the Uniqueness of the Entire Recycling Program: When highlighting new materials (like milk cartons and jnice boxes or clothes and linens) it is important to link the items to the whole recycling program. Historically, recycling education campaigns that promote the entire program-not just one item at a time---have proven to be more effective at increasing the amount of targeted materials and recycling overall. A key message of this campaign was to promote the overall recycling program. · Grab People's Attention: We worked to reach two audiences with this message: to grab the attention of current recyclers to recycle more and create intrigue about the program for new recyclers. . Avoid the Look of Advertising: A campaign that higWights specific materials must avoid looking like advertising for the product or it does not have the desired affect: recycling in the bin. An unusual approach, counected to recycling, was designed to make people look twice. Recommended Strategies In addition to the Guide to Recycling, Eureka Recycling carefully chose education methods to meet these additional goals: . Reach every resident, not just those who are currently recycling. The 2007 campaign was geared toward the recyclers and the general public. The 2008 campaign was targeted toward people who are not recycling these materials. · Effective at increasing recycling. These methods are heavily weighted toward direct contact and people to people interaction, which are more effective than passive media coverage. · Provide the opportunity for Tetra Park product distribution. One goal of this campaign was to promote the recyclability of Tetra Pak's products. . Create more "hype" and repetition around the campaign. We know people need the repetition of seeing a postcard in their mailbox, an education tag in their recycling bin, an ad in the paper, and in-depth information about the recycling program. Education must be diverse and constant. Expansion to new cities In 2008, Eureka Recycling began curbside collection services in The City of Arden Hills in March and The City of Saint Louis Park in October. Also, through a partnership with the cities of Lakeland and Lake1and Shores and a local hauler, Eureka Recycling began processing materials and providing direct education to these new cities in July 2007, while the hauler collected the materials at the curb. In a similar arrangement with The City of White Bear Lake and another hauler, Eureka Recycling began processing materials from 2 The City of White Bear Lake in September 2008 and will begin educating these residents in 2009. The 2008 campaign worked to bring initial education about recycling Milk Cartons & Juice Boxes, as well as Clothes & Linens to these communities. Summary of Specific Strategies 1. Direct mail postcards Direct mail is the most efficient, cost-effective way to reach every household, not just residents who are recycling. We created a direct mail postcard that: . was printed on 100% postconsumer recycled content paper processed without the use of chlorine to minimize the amount of paper and environmental impact, and . was mailed after Labor Day, when people return from summer vacations and when fumilies return to school routines, and . contained an attention grabbing message that distinguished it from generic public information and advertising. Welc<lme to the family! r..t~inlrlXll1<~),<!"""",h'1'",,~,,!=h"'.;rY"...-"'ofdl~ o/'!-lJ';Ul{. 'r.",iIl'.;~M;I'~i:N.j!ltt~~:o.~~I~!t.e><I<ll!II~ ~ l~W,ll"Wi!.j("h() 2. Articles and website Eureka Recycling wrote newsletter articles for the communities we serve about milk cartons and juice boxes as well as clothes and linens. These were released for newsletter and website distribution. This information provides the critical background and information that recyclers request on a daily basis via our hotline. 03/08 03/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 05/08 05/08 09/08 3 Eureka Recycling npdated its recycling pages on our website to include information about milk cartons and jnice boxes and clothes and linens: ht1:p:/ /www.eurekarecycling.org/new materials.cfm. 3. Translations Eureka Recycling serves a diverse community. Other than English, the three most-spoken languages in our region are Spanish, Hmong and Somali. To reach a broader audience, Eureka Recycling commissioned accurate translations of information about how to recycle milk cartons and juice boxes. This information was highlighted in recycling fliers in Spanish, Hmong and Somali that are posted on the website, mailed to people who call our hotline requesting this information, and are used during outreach. ht1:p:/ /www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/Spanishcurbside.pdf http://www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/Hmong curbside.pdf ht1:p:/ /www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/Hmong curbside.pdf 4. Door-to-door Outreach Door-to-door canvassing, with bin delivery, has the most impact in engaging new recyclers. It provides an opportunity to reach every resident by either having a one-on-one interaction with them about the recycling program or leaving information behind on a door-hanger. It was also very convenient for residents because the bin is delivered directly to their home. This method had an added benefit for Tetra Pak, because sample products were distributed with the recycling bins, creating a direct and powerful image about the recyclability of their products. Tetra Pak provided sample products for outreach and events. Eureka Recycling used its door-to-door training program to teach community group leaders and volunteers how to implement door-to-door recycling outreach. This model program not only engages residents, but empowers community and youth groups to become environmental educators in their own neighborhoods. This outreach method is time-consmning, so it was targeted at communities with lower participation. From June to November 2008, Eureka Recycling focused an education campaign in the neighborhoods identified in Saint Paul Mayor Coleman's Invest Saint Paul initiative. Invest Saint Paul is a collaborative effort to address the full quality of life in Saint Paul neighborhoods that have been challenged by recent econonllc and social downturnB and persistent disinvestment. These neighborhoods include Saint Paul's Dayton's Bluff, Eastside, Frogtown, and North End. Eureka Recycling provided recruitment, training, and one-site supervision for volunteers to distribute bins, sample Tetra Pak products, and printed materials including translations in Spanish, Hmong and Somali. 4 5. Events Eureka Recycling is frequently asked by communities to participate in summer community festivals and annual. National Night Out gatherings in August. Eureka Recycling targeted events to maximize exposure and to support door-to-door outreach. Throughout the summer, Eureka Recycling attended nine events for this outreach effort, including gatherings held in each of the Invest Saint Paul neighborhoods, to promote recycling, distribute bins and Tetra Pak products, answer questions and encourage recycling. Eureka Recycling provided staffing at the events to distribute recycling bins, sample products, and printed materials including translatiolli in Spanish, Hmong and Somali. Tetra Pak provided sample products for outreach and events. Eureka Recycling worked with several volunteer groups to assist with the door-to-door outreach. The events were staffed by Eureka Recycling trained customer relations staff and interns. These included teenage volunteers from Y outhCARE, the YMCA and college-aged groups from Macalester College. Eureka Recycling has worked with several of these organizatiolli in the past on door-to- door outreach. The Minnesota Conservation Corps and Arts-Us volunteers also assisted with outreach efforts. Schedule of door-to-door and event outreach July 8, 2008 July 15, 2008 July 21, 2008 July 24, 2008 July 18, 2008 July 30, 2008 August 5, 2008 August 26, 2008 October 2, 2008 October 9, 2008 Y QuthCARE volunteers in Rondo neighborhood of Saint Paul (480 households YouthCARE volunteers in Rondo neighborhood of Saint Paul (260 households YouthCARE volunteers in Rondo neighborhood of Saint Paul (571 households) YMCA volunteers in Payne-Phalen neighborhood of Saint Paul (115 households Outreach with Arts-Us students in the Rondo Neighborhood of Saint Paul 130 households YMCA volunteers in North End neighborhood of Saint Paul (231 households Maplewood National Night Out 950 households Outreach with Macalester College students in Thomas-Dale nei hborhood of Saint Paul 710 households Minnesota Conservation Corps volunteers (119 households Minnesota Conservation Corps volunteers 148 households June 25, 2008 Ice Cream Social 965 Payne Ave Pa e-Phalen Nei hborhood, Saint Paul 5 (attendance: 200) July 26, 2008 Rice Street Festival/Art Fair/Family Fest Lawson Ave at Kent St North End Neighborhood, Saint Paul (attendance: 200) Angust 16, 2008 Lauderdale parade (attendance: 5001 Angust 23, 2008 Frogtown Health Fair & Football Tournament West Minnehaha Recreation Center Thomas-Dale Neighborhood, Saint Paul (attendance: 200) September 10, 2008 Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood, Saint Paul Fire Station 4 505 Payne Avenue East, Saint Paul (attendance: 20m September 13, 2008 Dayton's Bluffneighborhood cleanup (attendance, 30m September 13, 2008 North End and Thomas-Dale neighborhood cleanup (attendance, 300) October 18, 2008 Payne-Phalen neighborhood cleanup (attendance: 250) 6 Evaluation & Documentation Eureka Recycling tracked the following evaluation measures: 1. Tonnage The following are the total post consumer bales of Milk Cartons & Juice Boxes and Clothes & Linens, and the corresponding outreach. January 2007 Guide to Recycling 0 12 Februa 2 7 March 4 6 Aril 2 9 Ma 3 10 une Launch Press Conference 5 8 ul 2 5 Au st 3 10 Se tember "Start Seein Rec din "Carn ai 5 6 October "Start Seein Re din "Carn ai 4 8 November 0 8 December 5 7 2007 Total 35 96 January 2008 Guide to Recycling 7 8 with feature ane! of new materials 7 6 March newsletter articles 3 6 A ril/Ma newsletter articles 6 9 Ma / une newsletter articles 0 8 5 11 Door to Door Outreach/Events 4 7 Door to Door Outreach/Events 5 7 Door to Door Outreach/Events 6 10 Direct Mail Postcard Se tember newsletter articles October Door to Door Outreach 0 12 November 7 9 December 2009 Guide to Rec clin 9 7 2008 Total 59 100 7 Households served via curbside recycling St. Paul 84,800 Lauderdale 600 Ma lewood 10,500 Roseville 9,500 Lakeland/Lakeland Shore 900 Arden Hills March 2008 2,500 St. Louis Park October 2008 12,165 Total 120,965 *The Cit}l of White Bear Lake (approximatel}' 10,000 households) will be added in 2009. 2. Results from Outreach Through door-to-door outreach and events, Eureka Recycling reached 4,489 households. 2,533 households were included in door-to-door outreach and 1,956 individual residents were reached through community events. Eureka Recycling distributed a total of 1,050 recycling bins and 2,743 Guides to Recycling, with special focus on recycling milk cartons and juice boxes and clothes and linens. We also distributed tranSlated materials in Spanish (22), Hmong (44) and Somali (2) and our entire stock of Tetra Pak product (1,800 juice boxes). 3. Set-out and Participation Data To examine the results of our door-to-door efforts, we collected data from 1,696 households in four neighborhood sections. Staff visited each neighborhood on their recycling day to record households that were participating in recycling that day. Data was gathered over a month period. We then calculated the set-out rate for each week and the participation rate for each neighborhood. We compared set-out rates before outreach occurred, after outreach occurred, and after recycling bins were delivered. We identified a control neighborhood where no outreach occurred. This neighborhood was adjacent to a neighborhood where outreach occurred to control for demographics. We compared set- out rates and participation rates of the neighborhoods that received outreach with the neighborhood that did not receive any door-to-door outreach. Set-out rate results: The set-out rate is the average number of households that set out materials for recycling collection on a given day. . The set-out rate increased significantly in all neighborhoods after outreach occurred and bins were delivered. This increase ranged from a 36% to 47% in number of set-outs. . The set-out rate did not increase in the control neighborhood for the same period of time. It remained essentially the same. 8 # of households Set out rate before outreach Set out rate after outreach Mter bin delivery % increase in set-out Neighborhood #1 Neighborhood #2 Neighborhood #3 Control: Neighborhood #4 (no outreach) Neighborhood #3 and #4 are adjacent and have the same demographics. 162 825 294 415 19% 19% 17% 17% 20% 21% 24% 17% (no outreach) 28% 26% 24% 15% (no bin delivery) 47% 36% 41% - 11% Participation rate results: The participation rate is the number of households who set out materials for recycling collection at least once over a period of time, in this case one month. The participation rate was higher in the neighborhoods that received outreach versus the control neighborhood that did not receive outreach. Partici ation rate Neighborhood #1 43% Neighborhood #2 44% Neighborhood #3 45% Control: Neighborhood #4 (no outreach) 36% Neighborhood #3 and #4 are adjacent and have the same demographics. New Materials Education Recommendations for 2009 For decades, the aluminum, steel, newspaper, and plastics industries heavily supported recycling education efforts. Today, paper, bottles and cans are considered "traditional" recycling items by every recycler and are the most common items you will find in recycling bim across the county. These industries laid the foundation for recycling in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, with a commitment to education, new materials can be added to well-established recycling programs. Any new product or material that is added to a recycling program must play catch-up in order for recyclers to understand what to recycle, how to recycle it, and to incorporate this "new" material into their typical recycling routine. A long-term investment in education is required to build the knowledge that a new material can be recycled. Tetra Pak has shown a commitment in two major areas that are essential for building milk carton and juice box recycling: market development to ensure their product can be used by paper mills to make new products and education to ensure recyclers put these materials at the curb. Over the past two years. Tetra Pak has begun the essential and necessary education that will be needed to make milk cartom and juice boxes common items to recycle. Eureka Recycling has identified areas where Tetra Pak can focus its future education efforts to most efficiently and cost-effectively increase mille carton and juice box recycling. 9 U'SAgain has also shown a commitment to continue to educate residents about the availability of weekly curbside recycling of clothes and linens. They have supported efforts to keep residents informed about how the materials are distributed, reused and recycled. The option of recycling clothes and linens is not sometlllng that is new to most residents. However, the availability of curbside collection of these materials as part of their regular recycling program is something that many residents are not yet aware of 1. Increase previous education efforts." In every case where education was applied, there was an increase in either recycling milk cartons and juice boxes, clothes and linens, or recycling as a whole; however, we know there are even more materials to capture at the curb. But in order to sustain current levels and ensure steady growth, more of the same education is needed: direct mail reminders, inclusion of new materials in all recycling education matelial, newsletter features, reminders in recycling bins, advertisements, etc. In 2008, we took to the streets to provide one-on-one education via door-to-door outreach and attendance at events. The results were impressive and substantial. In the future, it is clear that taking this effort to every street, every block, in every community (or at least choose more neighborhoods to target with this effective education strategy) would prove successful. 2. Provide education to new communities. While education has been ongoing in Saint Paul, Roseville, Map1ewood, and Lauderdale, many communities Eureka Recycling serves through its curbside program have only received one or two pieces of education about recycling milk cartons and juice boxes and clothes and linens. As we continue to add new cities, education to new households must be introduced and sustained. The proven education strategies and messages are the same, but more of it is required. Eureka Recycling also works with third-party haulers who collect materials in other cities and would be able to offer collection of milk cartons and juice boxes, as well as clothes and linens to their customers. They need support to conduct initial and ongoing education that is necessary to inform their residents about the new materials. With support, Eureka Recycling can provide these haulers with the education materials and strategies they need to successfully communicate with their customers so they can recycle more. 3. Add milk cartons and juice boxes to recycling programs beyond the cnrb. To date, Eureka Recycling, Tetra Pak and U'SAgain have focused on curbside recycling; however, there are other places that recycling is collected. Just like curbside recycling programs, other recycling programs require comprehensive education plans to incorporate new materials. For example, while curbside programs reach a large portion of the residential recyclers, many people live in apartment buildings, condominiums and town- homes. Eureka Recycling serves over 50,000 households through its apartment recycling programs. Recycling milk cartons and juice boxes can also be incorporated in restaurant and other commercial recycling programs as well as emerging public space recycling prograrru designed to capture beverage containers that people want to recycle on-the-go. 10 Appendix A Maplewood Multifamily Recycling Report by Building 2008 1860 McMenemv Street McMenemv Street, 1860 12 8,665 14,501 17,521 Beaver Creek Condos Femdale Avenue, 1215 60 15,491 36,030 35,717 Hellwood Aoartments Arcade Street, 1915 27 - 3,294 15,818 Birch Glen Aoartments(Maolewood) Arie! Street, 3100 60 4,908 11,539 14,344 Cardinal Paiute Hazelwood Street, 3003 108 34,155 34,393 33,462 Carefree Cottap"es Gervais Avenue, 1801 254 - - 80,797 CentUlv Rid~e Century Avenue North, 89 75 25,960 33,943 32,351 Cobblestone Court Anartments ConwavAvenue,2585 74 6,371 7,764 9,844 Concordia Arms Lvdia Avenue East, 2030 125 23,334 56,733 54,121 Connemara I Londin Lane, 2465 96 - 38,063 64,831 Connemara II Londin Lane, 2445 96 47,755 59,721 Ed~etron Hi~hlands Skilhnan Avenue East, 479 225 24,908 46,629 49,317 Eno-lish Manor Anartm.ents English Street, 1809 37 10,162 16,447 16941 Gervais Court Senior Anartments Gervais Court, 1807 60 12,912 17,378 15,222 Golden Star Aoartments Larnenteur Avenue East, 321 109 4,929 10,160 15,919 Greeurrate Aoartments Furness Street, 1829 108 - 22,398 31,379 HeritaQ"e Sauare Condos Conntv Road D East, 1240 18 - 9,092 10,711 Homestead at Maolewood Sherren Avenue, 1890 62 44,395 38,567 36,895 Lakeview Commons Lakewood Drive North, 1200 98 13,581 15,412 17,366 Manle Knoll Townhomes Mesabi Avenne, 1800-1926 57 9,125 9,851 14,919 Manlewood Mobile Homes En~lish Street, 1876 17 - - 3,274 Manle Ridge Aoartments Countv Road D East, 1695 100 - 19,189 32,249 Manlewood Anartments Laroenteur Avenue E, 2343 240 47,530 65,242 83,012 Maolewood Citv Hall Conntv Road B, 1830 1 12,063 13,254 13,388 Maolewood Community Center White Bear Avenue, 2100 1 9,839 14,399 15,202 Maolewood Nature Center Seventh Street East, 2659 1 5,050 3,204 3,947 Manlewood Public Warks Countv Road B, 1902 1 6,926 9,649 13,161 Manlewood Townhomes Arie! Street North, 2451 31 4,099 6,091 3,709 McKni~ht Townhomes McKnight Road, 370 190 105,076 110,089 156,522 Park Edrre Aoartments Ide Street, 2025 51 - 7,003 12,837 Parkview Court Apartments East Shore Drive, 1880 72 20,099 32,104 30,969 Pondview Apartments Ivv Avenne East, 2565/2575/2585 180 42,967 56,379 71,055 Rosato Villa on Roselawn Desoto Street, 1901 70 - - 9,778 Appendix A Saint Paul's Monastery and Benedictine Center Sible Cove A artments La enteur Avenue, 2675 Coun Road D, 1996 Town and Coun Mobile Home Park Hi hwa 61,2557 Villa e on W oodl nn Woodl Avenue, 2122 Outreach and Education Summary 2008 In 2008, Eureka Recycling and Maplewood focused curbside education efforts on communicating with current recyclers about their recycling program. This included the continued promotion of the addition of milk cartons and jnice boxes to Maplewood's program as well as information on the economic, social and environmental benefits of recycling. In addition Eureka Recycling and Maplewood staff worked together to coordinate extra recycling bin distribution events and to reinvigorate the recycling programs in city buildings. Recycling Hotline In 2008, Eureka Recycling's hotline staff had over 587 conversations with residents about the curbside recycling program and answered more than 43 calls about multifamily recycling in Maplewood. This year even greater numbers of Maplewood's residents are familiar with the curbside program and Eureka Recycling as their recycling partner. fu in 2007, the addition of milk carton and juice boxes generated some calls and presented opportunities to explain the environmental benefits of recycling and how new materials can be added to a recycling program. Hotline Calls Curbside Calls 800 327 587 Mu1tifamil Calls 56 50 40 Total Calls 856 422 627 Requests for Printed Materials Curbside 125 81 100 In 2008 the hotline staff also answered 40 calls from building contacts and residents participating in the multifamily recycling program that were calling with standard service questions. Eureka worked with these callers to help them manage their multifamily recycling set-ups, add carts or pick-ups, provide them with education material for their residents, and to work in many other ways to help improve their service. Throughout the year Eureka Recycling mailed specific curbside recycling schedules and sorting information to 100 Map1ewood residents in response to their questions and calls. The increase from 81 requests in 2007 can be attributed to a significant increase in the number of residents participating in Maplewood's recycling program. The number of participants was up 5%. That is an estimate of over 520 new recyclers in Map1ewood. I Curbside Guide to Recycling All Maplewood residents in the curbside recycling program received the 2008 Guide to Recycling through direct mail. In addition to the basic instructions for how recycling should be set out, the guide included information about the economic, social and environmental benefits of recycling. Requests for Printed Education Materials Throughout the year, we mailed specific recycling schedules and sorting information to over 100 Maplewood residents in response to questions and special requests. Direct Education Driver Ta Postcards Personalized Letters 11,660 850 12 11,360 472 5 8,075 222 o Eureka Recycling drivers educate residents at the curb using educational tags for specific prob1ellli. In 2008 drivers left approximately 8,075 educational tags in recycler's bins. When there were no bins available to leave a tag, drivers reported any issues on a separate fonn, and in order to communicate with these recyclers directly, we sent out 222 educational postcards. Personalized letters with detailed information and instructions to residents about setting out recycling are used when the usual tags and postcards have not been successful in correcting repeated problems. In 2008, the level of understanding Maplewood's residents had about their recycling showed great improvement resulting in zero personalized letters being needed. As in previous years, the most common issues for residents that required direct education were confusion about plastics (what types of plastic are recyclable), proper sorting. I1iIlclW~Hi>> "h:OI,...~ 'fMliitlliilOOl$llf~fp,l'WI m~~~~fdt.., NEEII ANOTIIEIt RECvtLING RIN? ~)IA'~~ 2 Special Pickup Addresses To ensure that every resident has the opportunity to recycle, Eureka Recycling offers to collect recycling from locations other than the curb for residents who request special pickup service due to short- or long-term physical limitations. This service is provided free of charge. Currently, this service is extended to almost 26 Maplewood residents. Multifamily The City of Maplewood has a very organized multifamily recycling program. This year 3 new acconnts were brought on to the city program once their old service contracts expired and are now serviced by Eureka Recycling. Each building was visited by Eureka Recycling staff to determine the proper setup and distribute educational materials to help the management ensure participation in the program. We have now a total of 34 multifamily complexes, 127 residential buildings, 5 city buildings, and 3,117 residential units being serviced on Maplewood's program. Multifamily Education Materials and Customer Service Overall, from 2008 to 2009 the number of units recycling in Maplewood's multifamily program increased by 12% with tonnage increasing by over 30%. This represents a doubling of tons recycled in the multifamily since 2006. Eureka Recycling continues to monitor the performance at each account on an ongoing basis in order to improve participation. Our drivers track issues and staff are able to follow up immediately by offering suggestions that address the specific needs of the building and providing more education materials for residents. Eureka Recycling provided almost 1,045 pieces of recycling education (instructional posters and brochures) to the building management and residents of the newly established and existing multifamily accounts in 2008. Eureka Recycling continues to monitor the performance and service issues at each account in order to adjust service levels on an ongoing basis. Capacity for storage is an issue that gets addressed through our attentive drivers and involved on-site contacts so that more carts get added as residents recycle more. In 2008 an additional35 carts were added to buildings where increased recycling capacity was necessary to service the increased recycling needs of the residents. 3 Special Education and Outreach 1.) Milk Cartons and Juice Boxes In 2007 Eureka Recycling entered into a new partnership with Tetra Pak to make it possible for residents to recycle their juice boxes and milk, soy, and broth cartons at the curb. Tetra Pak received a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 2006 to ensure their packaging gets recycled in Minnesota. Tetra Pak partnered with Eureka Recycling to collect this material from its curbside programs in Lauderdale, Maplewood, Roseville, Arden Hills, St Louis Park and Saint Paul and to process those materials at its facility. Please see Appendix E for more information on the milk carton and juice box recycling education efforts in 2008 and the impact they are having on the amonnt of this material that is being recycled. 2.) Reinvigorating Recycling at Maplewood City Hall In 2008 Eureka Recycling worked to assist Maplewood's new Green Team in reinvigorating the recycling programs at city buildings and offices. By starting with the city hall, Eureka Recycling shared the process and developed a model that the city's Green Team could then take to other city buildings. Eureka Recycling staff worked with the Green Team and students from the University of Minnesota to complete three phases of the project: · Phase One: City Hall Waste Sort, · Phase Two: Walk Through Assessment of current recycling infrastructure at Map1ewood's City Hall, · Phase Three: Develop W orkplan Recommendations for improvement of City Hall recycling systert} Phase One: City Hall Waste Sort Maplewood City Hall averages 7 yards of trash per week. On Friday, October 10, 2008 Eureka Recycling staff, along with volunteers from the city green team and U of M students, sorted through 2.5 yards of trash that had been generated that week. Volunteers sorted trash into four primary categories: Recyclable, Reusable, Compostab1e, and Garbage. Waste Sort Results and Recommendations Summary More than 25% of materials found in the trash were easily recyclable material such as office paper, envelopes, bottles, cans, and milk cartons. Non-recyclable and non-compostable trash comprised of 34% of the garbage. More than half of this amount consisted of one- time-use food containers. This indicates a considerable waste reduction opportunity through encouraging staff to bring no-waste lunches or eat out at restaurants (using real dishes). Forty percent of material found in the trash was compostab1e. Most of this consisted of paper towels from the bathrooms followed by paper-based food packaging and uneaten food. Although this was the largest category of materials found in the trash we recommend that Maplewood first focus on maximizing recycling rates before moving on to collection of a new material. Maplewood has the opportunity to reduce their trash by: 4 . Increasing recycling to full potentia1- 26% . Reducing one-time use food containers - 18% . Reducing paper towel use and/or implementing composting - 40% Based on the waste sort and Map1ewood's standard recycling volumes, City Hall's current recycling rate by volume is 19%, which represents an opportunity to increase recycliug to its full potential of26%. Phase Two: Walk Through Assessment of City Hall's Recycling Infrastructure The Green Team, U of M students and Eureka Recycling walked through city hall and the police department on Tuesday, September 30, 2008. The goal was to get a general sense of the existing recycling program infrastructure in order to determine the recommended areas and tasks for improvement. The following were the assessment team's recommendations. Recycling/Trash container ratio too low One of the major criteria used to rate recycling infrastructure is how many recycling bins there are in a building compared to trash bins. City Hall had about 42 recycling bins compared to 73 trash caus overall. To make recycling just as accessible as trash, many of the trash cans can be removed. Especially at desk spaces, we recommend that there be a large bin for paper recycling with a small trash bin. Visibility and accessibility Labeling recycling and trash bins clearly is another major criterion for successful recycling. We found that trash and recycling containers were not labeled and many different colors and sizes of bins were being used. We recommend labeling everything and using consistent language and colors. Some bins were tucked back in corners and not easily seen or accessible so we recommend placing in prominent locations for easy access. Recommendations Updating the recycling infrastructure is the main priority to improving the recycling program at city hall. When bins are easy to use and readily available, sorting guidelines are understood, and a consistent recycling program is put in place the city of Maplewood will surely see results and reach the 26% potential to divert recyclables away from the trash. The first step is to create a more uniform and easily understandable recycling system throughout the building. Posters outlining sorting guidelines should be placed near all common area recycling stations. Educational labels should be applied to all bins. Applying these labels to new or existing recycling containers will: 1. Reduce contamination (trash ending up in recycling containers). 2. Serve as great reminders that the city of Maplewood recycles. 3. Help everyone understand how to sort their materials. 4. Increase recycling and decrease waste. Shred-It: Paper Shredding Vendor Recommendations In assessing the existing recycling infrastructure, it was found that the city utilizes a shredding company for confidential documents. A large number of staff, especially in police 5 area, use the Shred-It bins for all of their paper. We recommeuded that the Green Team should confirm the city policy regarding shredding documents and eliminate unnecessary shredding since the service is paid for by the hour and since the city receives revenue share back from Eureka Recycling for all papers. Phase Three: Reinvigorating Recycling Work Plan Eureka Recycling provided Maplewood's Green Team with a detailed report of findings from the waste sort and recycling assessment with the basic steps outlined below. Stepl: Create Consistent Recycling Setups Standardize recycling set-ups by utilizing the same signage, sorting instructions, and bin appearance to maximize the level of understanding employees and visitors have about the recycling program. Step 2: Implementation Inventory how many existing bins can be re-purposed for recycling and how many additional recycling bins are needed to be purchased. Eureka Recycling provided resources and pricing for the Green Team to purchase containers and education materials. Step 3: Servicing ofIntemal Containers The Green Team was advised to identifY a site lead, such as the building maintenance supervisor, to develop and oversee a system for the internal containers to be emptied into the Eureka Recycling carts for pickup. Larry Farr had many ideas about how to promote recycling to staff through continued education done by maintenance staff. Step 4: Promotion of Recycling Itnprovements Work to communicate that the pn?gram is important and that recycling is a priority for the City of Map1ewood. Once the recycling setups are updated and in place, it is important to then promote recycling through various forms of communication and education to ensure proper placement of recyclables by both office and custodial staff Step 5: Tracking and Follow-Up Eureka Recycling will continue to track volume and tonnage information and will work with the Green Team to report increases in recycling and analyze education and improvement efforts through 2009. 6 ecycling's cks are green in more ways than one! Since our tm pend much of their time driving through metro area neighborhoods, we chose a 20 percent biodiesel blend to fuel our trucks. Biodiesel is a cleaner fuel made from soybeans that produces much 1 pollution than regular diesel fuel, which is better for the health of ou employees and the famili e serve. Even though it's more expensive (by only half of a cent pe sehold per month), we are able to fund this initiative through the p ds from the community's recycling pro manage a waste-free lorn by demonslratirlll Is preventable, nl)! Inevitable. Appendix F Recycling, Composting and Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Minnesota 1. Introduction: What is Waste? In 2006 in Minnesota, 3.6 million tons of municipal solid waste (the trash we generate every day) were buried in landfills or burned in incinerators, while 2.5 million tons of our discards were captured for recycling. That means Minnesota has achieved a 41 % recycling rate, an impressive rate that is matched by only a handful of states and just 20 years ago was thought impossible. Our recycling efforts prevent nearly half of the products and packaging we use from being wasted. However, most of what is still being wasted every day in Minnesota can be recycled and composted with just a little improvement to our current systems. Over 50% of what we still throw in the garbage can be recycled through curbside collection. An additional 25% of our trash is comprised of food wastes and other materials that could be composted. The little bit of garbage that remains after we recycle and compost can be thoughtfully addressed through a zero-waste approach (which includes extended producer responsibility) to prevent waste altogether. In other words, there really is no waste. Waste, and our choice to reduce waste, has a significant impact on the environment. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) reports that the greenhouse gas emissions emitted directly from our waste being burned in an incinerator or buried in a landfill account for about 3% of the total greenhouse gas emitted in the U.S. each year. (2005 report) (Platt et aI., 2008. pg 24). While 3% alone is a significant number, the impact of trashing these materials instead of recycling or composting them is actually much greater. Citation for Image - (Coordinating Board (SWMCB). 2000). Page 1 When you take into account the fulllifecycle of the products we use every day and the increased energy needed to make replacement products from virgin, raw materials, the actual impact of all this waste grows significantly. Accounting for the connections between waste in many sectors, including mining, deforestation, industrial agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and electricity, our wasting actually represents 36.7% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (platt et a!., 2008. pg 24). Recycling, composting, and producer responsibility are powerful tools to reduce waste and therefore, our greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically in Minnesota, reducing our waste has a greenhouse gas reduction impact equivalent to shutting down 20% of our state's coal power plants, or reducing every car usage in the state by two-thirds, or using 75% less electricity in our own homes. Through a zero-waste approach across our whole country, we could achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to closing 21 % of all U.S. coal-fired power plants (Platt et a!., 2008. pg 50). 2. Climate Change Impacts of Waste Waste in incinerators and landfills create greenhouse gas emissions. When trash is bumed, incinerators emit carbon dioxide (CO,) and nitrous oxide (N,O), a greenhouse gas 310 times more powerful in atmospheric warming than carbon dioxide. On average in the U.S., incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour than coal- fired, natural-gas fired, or oil-fired power plants (Hartwell, 2007). Many people believe that throwing food scraps and paper products into a landfill is hannless because they biodegrade. However, most people are surprised to learn that when these materials break down in a landfill, they become powerful contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Compostable materials such as food waste and paper decompose anaerobicly (without oxygen) in a landfill, producing methane (CHj which has 23-71 times greater heat trapping capabilities than carbon dioxide. Landfills are the single largest direct human source of methane (Platt et a!., 2008. pg 7). Creating energy from waste Methane from landfills and the BTUs generated from incinerators are sometimes captured and converted into energy. However, energy from waste is inefficient and does not eliminate the pollution created by landfills and incinerators, including the emissions of greenhouse gases. Even when a landfill is capturing some methane gas for energy production, many studies have shown that most of the methane gas is released before landfills even begin to capture it. This fact results in landfill capture rates being overstated, in some models dramatically (Anderson, 2006). Page 2 Calculating Methane Recovery from Landfills For landfills capturing methane for energy, the EP A assnmes a 75% methane instantaneons captnre rate for the year in which the calcnlation is made. The conversion of methane's impact to carbon's impact (calcnlated by the EPA to be 21 times the impact of carbon) is based on a 100 year time frame (U.S. EPA Warm Model, November 2008) For onr calculations, we reluctantly used the WARM model's default landfill captnre rates based on the proportions ofIandfills with landfill gas control in 2004, because they are widely accepted. Using this national average, the result is a 44% capture rate as a national average based on EP A calculations. However, several people have pointed ont significant problems with these calcnlations. First, the landfill gas captnre rate should be calculated over a period of time, not an instantaneous rate. Over a realistic time frame based on the life of a landfill, the methane captnred may be as low as 20%, not the 75% as stated in the assnmptions used by WARM (U.S. EP A, 2008) (Anderson, 2006). This means that more methane gas is released from landfills, which are already the largest source of methane from humans even by conservative calculations, than is reported in WARM. Secondly, there is an nrgency to rednce our greenhouse gas emissions that is not reflected in the EPA's choice to use a 100- year time frame. Over a 20-year time frame, methane is 71 times as potent as carbon as a green honse gas. not 21 times as stated in WARM assumptions. Because methane only stays in the atmosphere for around 12 years, its impacts are far greater in the short term. Over a 100-year time frame, methane is 25 times more potent than CO,. However, methane is 72 times more potent than CO, over 20 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses greenhouse gas emission over three time frames-20, 100, and 500 years. The choice of which time frame to use is a policy-based decision, not one based on science (Platt et a1., 2008. pg 7). Calculating methane emissions over 20-years instead of 100-years There is a general consensus among scientists that if we do not rednce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to below 350 parts per million by 2012, we may never be able to reverse the impacts of global warming (350.org, About Us/Science Page). In other words, there is an urgency of action reqnired to fight the effects of global wanning. A 20-year time frame for measnring the impact of methane illustrates the short-term effect of methane on the environment, which, when acknowledged highlights the urgent need-and the potential-to reduce methane emission. Dr. Ed J. D1ngokencky, a global methane expert at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, emphasizes the benefits of reducing emissions. Page 3 Added benefits of reducing methane emission are that many reductions come with little or no cost, reductions lower ozone concentrations near Earth's surface, and methane emissions can be reduced immediately while it will take time before the world's carbon-based energy infrastructure can make meaningful reductions in net carbon emissions (Platt et aI., 2008. pg7). Regardless of how much methane is captured from a landfill or how many BTUs are generated from an incinerator, waste does not generate nearly as much energy as recycling conserves. Overall, recycling produces a net reduction in energy 3.6 times larger than the amount of energy generated by incineration and 11 times larger than the energy generated by methane recovery at a landfill (Choate, 2005). You simply cannot capture enough energy from landfills or incinerators to offset the energy required to make new products from natural resources to replace those we waste. 3. A Better Choice: Climate Change Benefits of Recycling & Composting --:, ;I"~' .~, '~,.li.T' Recycling is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gases. When we recycle, we avoid the greenhouse gas emissions from landfills and incinerators. We also reduce the need to extract new resources from the earth and replace logging, drilling, and mining of virgin materials with recycled materials that we no longer want. This greatly reduces the energy it takes to process and manufacture new goods. About 94% of the materials extracted for use in manufacturing durable products become waste before the product is manufactured...80% of what we make is thrown away within six months of production. For every rubbish bag placed at the curb, the equivalent of.71 rubbish bags worth of waste is created in mining, logging, agriculture, oil and gas exploration, and the industrial processes used to convert raw materials into finished products and packaging. This doesn't even include the extra energy nsage and climate change impacts resulting from resource extraction and processing (Hawken, A. Lovins, L.H. Lovins, 1999). Every product we use has embedded energy, which is the energy it took to extract, transport, and transform the materials needed to produce the product. Every single item we recycle results in significant energy savings because recycling takes advantage of this embedded energy. For some itellli, like an aluminum can, the energy savings are tremendous. Making a new aluminum can from old cans results in 90-97% energy savings compared to making a new can from bauxite and other raw materials, according to (Choate, 2005). Similarly, it takes 30% less energy to make a glass bottle from recycled glass than from silica, sand, soda ash, limestone, and feldspar. Recycling paper results in a 44% energy savings (Choate, 2005). Virtually every recycled material uses less energy than its virgin component. Page 4 Composring is an effecrive way to reduce greenhouse gases. A compost process is either aerobic or anaerobic. Anaerobic composting is when organic materials-or compostables-break down by bacteria without the presence of oxygen. This process, which happens m landfills, produces methane, carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Aerobic composting is when organic material breaks down by bacteria m the presence of oxygen. The end byproducts in aerobic composting are mainly carbon dioxide and water, and nutrient-packed soil of finished compost. By composting these materials, the generation of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, is avoided. Backyard composting and well-run mdustrial compost operations will produce negligible greenhouse gas emissions (mosdy from the operation of tractors and other equipment). Composting also has "upstream" benefits, which further conserve our resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When this compost is used ou fields it displaces synthetic chemical fertilizers. Fertilizer production requires intensive fossil fuel energy and seriously impacts human and environmental health (Pimental, et al., 2005). By usmg compost: o The greenhouse gas emissions related to fertilizer production are avoided o There is significant reduction m the use of pesticides (avoiding emissions associated with their production) o Improves health and workability of soils, resu1tmg m less fuel consumption to till the soil o Helps soils hold or sequester carbon dioxide In addition to these emission reductions, compost replenishes and revitalizes exhausted farm soils by replacing trace minerals and organic material, reduces soil erosion and helps prevent storm water runoff. In fact, a smgle 40-pound bag contains the equivalent of2.5 gallons of gasoline. In addition to their oil base, synthetic fertilizers are spiked with concentrated foTITIS of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are harder for plants to absorb than their naturally occurring counterparts. The excess phosphorus and nitrogen, not absorbed by plants, runs off into storm drams that feed into rivers and streams, contributing to algae blooms that deprive waterways of oxygen and kill off aquatic life (National Geographic Society, 2008). What about the environmental costs to collect and process recycling and composring? Recycling and compostmg do require transportation and processing. The environmental costs from trucks and equipment to process the materials are real; however they are small compared to the energy savings and environmental benefits from recycling and composting materials. For mstance, Page 5 in Saint Paul, the greenhouse gas reductions achieved from recycling are over 100 times greater than the greenhouse gas emission caused by collection. Managing trash has similar transportation and processing requirements; however, trash provides little benefit and wastes the embedded energy in materials, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and pollutes the environment. 4. Measuring our impact in Minnesota To quantifY our climate impact from wasting in Minnesota, we need to have an in-depth understanding of what we currently discard and what we do with those discards. Using two studies, outlined below, we are able to compile an accurate picture of Minnesota's total waste stream. Dividing the total waste stream by our population, we can understand our individual impact. What do Minnesotans Currently Waste and Recycle? Since 1990, the State of Minnesota has produced a SCORE Report, an annual report on recycling and waste management prog= in Minnesota. The report is currently compiled by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA): SCORE is an annual examination of Minnesota programs and data. The figures are gathered through a formal survey of connty solid waste officers. Analysis and evaluation of this data helps the MPCA report on: * Statewide recycling rates. * Waste reduction efforts. * Waste generation figures. * Waste processing and disposal. * SCORE finance and administration (MPCA, 2008). Table 1 shows the total amount of reported municipal solid waste (MSW) for the year 2006 (most recent available data) and the amount of reported recycling. Currently, Minnesota reports about a 41% diversion rate. MSW estimates how much waste residents generate throughout their daily routines. It includes waste generated in their homes as well as waste generated at work places and commercial locations, such as restaurants, retail stores, and other businesses. It does not include industrial, hazardous, or construction waste. Dis osa1 Total Incinerated 1,200,000 19.7% Total Landfilled 2,200,000 36.1% Other onsite ills osal, etc. 200,000 3.3% Total Disposed 3,600,000 59% Total Recycled 2,500,000 41% Total MSW 6,100,000 Page 6 Using US Census data, Table 2 shows us .our individual impact. Population for Minnesota Total amount of discards recycled or disposed of annually Discard generation/person/year Discards/ ersonl day 5,200,000 people 6,100,000 tons 2346.15 pounds 6.43 ouuds Table 3 shows a further breakdown of recycling by type, as reported in the SCORE data. Eureka Recycling created six main diversion categories (described in the Calculating Diversion section) which are used in to calculate the state-wide potential for recycling and composting (in Table 5). Banned Antifreeze 0.06% 1,406 avoided Electronics 0.41% 10,386 computers Fluorescent & HID lamps 0.02% 510 avoided HHW 0.03% 812 avoided Latex paint 0.08% 2,011 avoided Major appliances 1.59% 40,193 scrap metal Used oil 0.40% 10,125 avoided Used oil filters 0.11% 2,688 avoided Vehicle batteries 1.34% 33,792 avoided Waste tires 0.74% 18,646 tires Glass Food & beverage 3.16% 79,772 gl", Other glass 1.68% 42,502 avoided Metal Aluminum 1.33% 33.564 aluminum Co-mingled alum/steel/tin Estimated aluminum 0.58% 14,968 aluminum Estimated till/steel 1.00% 25,659 tin Other ferrous & non-ferrous 14.50% 365,977 scrap metal Steel/tin cans 0.98% 24,778 tin Organic Food to livestock 6.62% 166,966 compost food Food to people 0.18% 4,427 compost food Source-separated organics 0.30% 7,650 compost food Other Mattresses & box springs 0.01% 267 wood 0.01% 267 scrap metal Pallets 4.11% 103,837 wood Unspecified or Other 21.22% 535,626 avoided Paper Computer paper 0.06% 1,600 mix Corrugated 14.32% 361,375 cardboard Magazine/catalog 1.44% 36,375 news Mixed paper 10.03% 253,186 mix Newsprint 7.08% 178,625 news Office paper 2.83% 71,399 mix Other paper 1.13% 28,480 mix Phone book 0.06% 1,462 mix Page 7 Plastic Film plastic 0.17% 4,227 ldpe HDPE 0.13% 3,311 hdpe Mixed plastic 1.37% Estimated HDPE 43.48% 15067 hdpe Estimated PET 56.52% 19586 pet atherpJastic 0.07% 1,688 other plastic PET 0.14% 3,605 pet Polystyrene 0.01% 361 avoided -Textiles_ Carpet 0.01% 216 carpet Textiles 0.64% 16,244 te~tiles Minnesota Total 100% 2,523,636 What is in our waste? The 2006 SCORE data shows that after recycling, there are still 3,600,000 tons of discards being disposed of annually. To understand what is in this waste, we can look to a study by the State of Minnesota in 2000 on the composition of our waste. The Statewide MSW Composition Study (March 2000) is a detailed examination of what Minnesotans throwaway as garbage. By sorting waste samples at eight locations around the state, the study offers a comprehensive look at the materials that are going to landfills, MSW composting operations, and incinerators. The study has also worked to differentiate between waste from residential and commercial/industrial sources (Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, 2000). . Table 4 shows the percentage results from the 2000 composition study applied to the 2006 SCORE numbers to estimate what is being disposed off in detail by material. These discards are currently either buried in landfills or incinerated. To determine how much can be diverted from the trash, we applied the composition study numbers to the most current trash weights from 2006. Again, Eureka Recycling created six main diversion categories (described in the Calculating Diversion section) which are used in to calculate the state-wide potential for recycling and composting (in Table 5). Recyclable PAPER news (GNP) 4.10% 147600 news high grade office 3.10% 111600 mix mag/cat 2.50% 90000 news GCC recycable 6.20% 223200 cardboard coated acc 0.20% 7200 cardboard boxboard 2.50% 90000 cardboard mix paper recyclable 6.00% 216000 news Compostable Paper acc nQnrecyclable 0.50% 18000 compost paper mix paper nonrecyclable 9.20% 331200 compost paper PLASTICS PET Bottles 0.60% 21600 pet ather PET 0.10% 3600 pet HDPE Nat 0.30% 10800 hdpe HDPE col 0.20% 7200 h e Page 8 rve 0.10% 3600 t=h Ploystyrene 0.80% 28800 =h Film-transport packaging 0.30% 10800 ldpe other film 3.50% 126000 ldpe other containers 0.50% 18000 other plastics other non-containers 4.90% 176400 trash METALS aluminum cans 0.70% 25200 aluminum other aluminum 0.50% 18000 aluminum ferrous containers 0.90% 32400 tin other ferrous 2.90% 104400 tin other non-ferous 0.10% 3600 scrap metal GLASS Clear Containers 1.30% 46800 glass Green Containers 0.30% 10800 glass Brown Containers 0.40% 14400 glass Other Glass 0.70% 25200 avoided ORGANIC MATERIALS Yard Waste-grass/leaves 2.10% 75600 compost yard yard waste 0.20% 7200 compost yard food waste 12.40% 446400 compost food wood pallets 2.60% 93600 wood treated wood 3.00% 108000 avoided untreated wood 1.90% 68400 wood daipers 2.10% 75600 t~m other organic material 1.40% 50400 compost food PROBLEM MATERIAL computer equipmem/perihperals 0.20% 7200 computers electric and electronic product~ 1.60% 57600 computers batteries 0.10% 3600 avoided hhw/HW 0.60% 21600 avoided other waste Textiles 2.70% 97200 textiles Carpet 2.4OU/o 86400 carpet Sharps and Infectious Waste O.lOU/o 3600 trash Rubber 0.80% 28800 tires Construction and Demo 2.80% 100800 t=h Bulky Items 3.40% 122400 trnh Empty HHW /HW containers 0.40% 14400 =h Misc 5.80% 208800 trash total MSW (dispos~d' 100% 3.600.000 Calculating Diversion To calculate the maximum state-wide diversion potential, we can use the amount of materials that are currendy recycled (Table 3) combined with the amount of materials in the trash that we can divert (Table 4). By combining SCORE report and MPCA's composition study categories into six main categories we created to simplifY this report, we can calculate the state-wide potential for recycling and composting. The six categories are: 1. Curbside recyclables. This category includes the typical papers, botdes, and cans that most people in the state can recycle at the curb. 2. Drop off recyclables. This category includes recyclables that currendy have drop-off options in Minnesota such as carpet, textiles, and plastic bags. 3. Compostables. This category includes food scraps, yard waste that is currendy in the MSW stream, and non-recyclable paper. These numbers do not include the yard waste currendy being handled as compost as these numbers are not currendy tracked by these state reports. 4. Wood/Tires/Electronics. This includes any wood waste currendy in the MSW. Electronics includes computers, peripherals and other items labeled "electronics." Tires include used tires and items labeled "rubber." Page 9 5. Avoided Disposal. This category includes items that are currently diverted from the waste stream, but do not currently have quantified upstream benefits. There certainly is an environmental benefit to handling these materials properly, but many of these benefits are associated with toxics reductions and less directly related to climate change. These items include batteries, household hazardous waste and other "banned" items such as oils and paint. This category also includes" other glass" since glass not going back into glass bottles does not result in the same upstream benefits. 6. Extended Producer Responsibility. This category includes the remaining waste that is not currently recyclable or compostable in Minnesota and could be addressed through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and other prevention design and management strategies. For instance, in the European Union, producers are required to either use packaging that fits into a current recovery option (recycling or composting) or provide a mechanism to take the product packaging back at their cost. Table 5: By combining SCORE report and composition study categories into six main categories, Eureka Recycling calculated the state-wide potential for recycling and composting. 1. Curbside Recycling news 215,000 453,600 668,600 10.9% mixed paper 356,127 111,600 467,727 7.6% cardboard 361,375 320,400 681775 11.1% PET containers 23,191 25,200 48,391 0.8% HDPE containers 18,378 18,000 36,378 0.6% other plastic containers 1,688 18,000 19,688 0.3% Aluminum 48532 43,200 91,732 1.5% Tin 50437 136,800 187,237 3.1% Other Scrap Metal 406437 3,600 410,037 6.7% Glass 79772 72,000 151,772 2.5% Subtotal: 1,560,937 1,202,400 2,763,337 45.1% 2. Drop Off Recycling PJasticFilm/Bags 4,227 136,800 141,027 2.3% textiles 16,244 97,200 113,444 1.9% carpet 216 86,400 86,616 1.4% Subtotal: 20,687 320,400 341,087 5.6% 3. Compost Food scraps 179,043 496,800 675,843 11.0% yard waste 0 82,800 82,800 1.4% non recyclable paper 0 349,200 349,200 5.7% Subtotal: 179,043 928800 110,7843 18.1% 4. Wood/Tires/Electronics Wood 104,104 162,000 266,104 4.3% Tires 18,646 28,800 47,446 0.8% Electronics 10,386 64.800 75.186 1.2% Subtotal: 133,136 255,600 388.736 6.3% 5. Avoided Disposal 629,833 158,400 788,233 12.9% 6. Extended Producer Responsibility 3,600,000 734.400 734.400 12.0% TOTAL 6,123,636 3.600,000 6,123,636 100.0% % of waste diversion 41% 80% 88% Page 10 Calculating scenarios for diversion For ease of comparison and understanding, we have chosen to evaluate the impacts of three scenarios over the same baseline. Baseline: The baseline reflects no recycling or composting. We used the state's average of 35% waste-to-energy incineration and 65% landfill as the potential energy generation from waste. We used the national averages for distance to landfill and national average landfill gas capture rates of 44%, which are increasingly questioned as the rate is predicted to be much too high. Current Average Scenario (using 2006 data): The current average scenario uses the charts and reports from SCORE to give a snap shot of the greenhouse gas reductions achieved by participating in recycling and composting at the average Minnesota level: ~ 41% recycling and 3% composting MCCAG 2012 Goal Scenario (future): For a mid-range scenario we used the State of Minnesota goals for recovery efforts. The Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG), a governor appointed body of public, private, and nonprofit groups, convened in 2007 with the purpose of presenting a climate change mitigation plan to the legislature. They looked at issues across all sectors inclnding waste. The goals they set for waste reduction are: ~ 50% recycling and 10% composting by 2012 ~ 60% recycling and 15% composting by 2025. The middle scenario uses the 2012 goals of achieving a 50% recycling rate and 10% composting rate. To calculate the additional diversion needed to reach these goals, start with the average scenario (what is currently being done, 41% recycling and 3% composting) and ac\d tonnage based upon what is left in the garbage. It will require capturing 40% of the additional recyclables in the garbage to meet the 50% overall recycling goal and 50% of the compostables in the garbage to meet the 10% composting goal. Zero-Waste Scenario (maximum): The zero-waste scenario measures the impact of capturing virtually everything currently recyclable or compostable. Using the current diversion nunlbers and adding in all the potential recycling and composting identified through the 2000 waste composition study: ~ 100% recycling and 100% composting This result is approximately an overall 88% diversion rate (see Total Potential column in Table 5). The remaining 12% of the waste stream is currently not recyclable or compostable. In a true zero-waste model, this 12% would be source reduced or redesigned to be recyclable or compostab1e. Page 11 5. Calculating the greenhouse gas impact of waste reduction efforts in Minnesota Carbon Equivalents The final step in quantifYing Minnesota's climate impact of waste is to convert the tons of waste diversion into a measurement that shows its impact au global wanning. The most common way to do this is to state the impact in carbon equivalents. Since waste reduction results in the reduction of several types of greenhouse gases, the conversion to a standard carbon equivalent (CO, E) measurement allows for a total quantification of the impact. It also provides a standard language for people to compare these actions to other's such as transportation and energy conservation efforts. A carbon equivalent (C02 E) is simply the amount of CO, that would have the same global warming potential as the waste reduction impacts, when measured over a specified timescale. The international reporting standard for CO2 emissions is in metric tons, so you will often see carbon dioxide amounts reported as MTC02 E, which stands for metric tons of carbon equivalent. Conversion Models While there are many models emerging to calculate greenhouse gas reductions, the most recognized and standard model is the EP A's WARM model. Produced by the EP A, the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was designed to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. The WARM model was last updated in Augnst of2008 and recognizes 34 material types (U.S. EPA, 2008). Credibility of WARM WARM has been in development for over 10 years and relies on information from leading scientists and technical experts. The methodology and data has been peer reviewed at several stages; including a lengthy review process that included public comments and responses (U.S. EPA, 2008). The field oflife-cycle analysis has expanded dramatically since WARM was originally developed and interest in life cycle studies and supply chain impacts is at an all-time high. For that reason, EP A is in the process of updating many of the emission factors and assumptions embedded in WARM. As new updates and improvements become available, EPA will post new versions of the model and explanations of revisions. To learn more about the data sources and methodology employed in WARM, consult the latest edition ofEPA's research report: Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment ofEmissio", and Sink, online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/ waste/SWMGHGreport.html. Although WARM is the most widely peer-reviewed and accepted model, it is considered to have several flaws. Because of these flaws, the results from WARM are conservative, meaning the environnlentaJ benefit of recycling and composting are in fact understated. That said, the good news is that we know now that we can achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to closing many more than 21 % of all U.S. coal-fired power plants in the U.S. by recycling and composting. Page 12 >- WARM overstates the landfill capture rate at 44%, but it actually may be closer to 20% (Anderson, 2006). >- It does not include the upside of composting (replacing petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides). Other models consider these impacts, but are not as widely-used or accepted as the WARM model. >- It does not include all the materials we would like to see in the calculations. >- There have been questions raised, about the politically-based decision to measure methane emissions over a IOO-year life span. If you measure the emissions over a 20-year life span instead of a IOO-year life span (which is scientifically valid), methane has 70 times the impact of carbon dioxide, not 23 times as is calculated in WARM (Platt, et aI., 2008. pg 7). We believe the use of this calculator is conservative and understates the real impact of waste reduction efforts. However, despite these flaws, the WARM model is a well- recognized, published calculator. Until a better calculator is peer reviewed and accepted, WARM gives us a conservative starting place to measure these impacts and work towards our goals. Even with WARM, as you will see, the impacts are quite significant. Protocols for climate change calculations Many cities around the country, including Minneapolis and Saint Paul, work with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to quantifY the climate change impacts of their city. ICLEI has developed protocols for calculating the carbon footprint consistent with the Climate Registry. To ensure our protocol matches with the work currendy being done, we researched how our quantification fits in with current protocols. A new set of protocols for measuring greenhouse gases for cities was recendy released in a report by ICLEI. Many local governments have actively engaged in a variety of programs and activities to reduce waste going to landfills, mainly through recycling and composting activities. While it is outside of the scope of this Protocol to provide quantification methodologies to estimate the GHG reductions or benefits associated with these waste-reducing activities, we do plan to explore developing such methodologies as part of the community-level protocol process. Information about your local recycling and composting activities can be reported optionally (ICLEI, 2008, pg 85). While the community-level protocol process has not happened yet, Califomia fur and Resources recendy conducted a white paper on quantifYing greenhouse reductions from recycling and composting. This white paper states that WARM is the best practice to use right now and that it is a conservative approach. It states that it does not quantifY the full upstream benefits of composting. It stated that they were working on an update to this, but had limited resources (Moore and Edgar, 2008). We were unable to locate anything more recent. Page 13 Results Table 6 is a summary of the total MTCO,E achieved for each scenario over our baseline (35% incineration/65% landfill) by item and category. 1. Curbside Recycling: news -420,503 -775,369 -1,307,668 mixed paper -1,239,984 -1,395,414 -1.628.559 cardboard -1,119,062 -1,515,933 -2,111,239 PET containers -4,5234 -64,895 -94.387 HDPE containers -3,2080 -44,648 -63,501 other plastic containers -3,189 -16,790 -37,192 Aluminum -665,727 -902,761 -1,258,313 Tin -64,748 -134.994 -240,364 Other Scrap Metal -1,994,738 -2,001,806 -2,012,407 Glass -25,665 -34,931 -48.829 Subtotal: -5,610,930 -6,887,542 -8,802.459 2. Drop OffRecyclables Plastic Film/Bags -8,666 -120.856 -289,141 carpet and textiles -121,613 -664,219 -1,478,128 Subtotal: -130,279 -785,075 -1,767,269 3. Compost Food scraps -103,388 -105,851 -109,545 yard waste 0 538 1,345 non recyclable paper 0 -31,446 -78,615 Subtotal: -103,388 -136,759 -186,815 4. Wood/tires/computers Wood -191,567 -310,809 -489,671 computers -41,523 -62,995 -95,204 tires -19,358 -77,079 -163,660 Subtotal: -252,448 -450,883 -748,535 5. Avoided Disposal -122.082 -134,363 -152,785 6. Extended Producer Responsibility N/A N/A N/A TOTAL greenhouse gas reductions from waste diversion Efforts (6,219,127) (8,394,621) (11,657,863) (in MTC02E) Page 14 Tables 7 and 8 summarize these numbers by category and calculate the per capita impact. Table 7 calculates recycling efforts. Table 8 calculates composting efforts. The per capita impact is per person, so if there are three people in a household, the family's impact is three times greater. Also, note that a negative number means a reduction in carbon el1llSS1ons. 1. Curbside Recycling (tom) 1,560,937 2,041,897 2,763,337 2. Drop off Recycling (tons) 20,687 148,847 341,087 3. Compost (tom) N/A N/A N/A 4. Wood/computers/tires (tons) 133,136 235,376 388,736 5. Avoided Disposal (tom) 629,833 693,193 788,233 6. Extended Producer Responsibly N/A N/A N/A Total Recycling (tons) 2,344,593 3,119,313 4,281,393 % Diversion from Recycling 38% 51% 70% (of total waste) Total GHG reductions from RECYCLING efforts (6,115,739,00) (8,257,862,60) (11,471,048,00) (tons CO,E) GHG Reductions per person per year from RECYCLING efforts (2,352.21) (3,176.10) (4,411.94) (ponnds CO,E) 3. Composting (tons) 179,043 643,443 1,107,843 % Diversion from Composting 3% 11% 18% (of total waste) Total GHG reductions from COMPO STING efforts (103,388.00) (161,786.90) (186,815.00) (tons CO,E) GHG reductions per person per year from COMPOSTING efforts (39.76) (62.23) (71.85) (pounds CO,E) Page 15 6. Why measure waste reduction in terms of climate change? Efforts are needed across all the sectors of our lives to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Leading scientists have indicated that 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide is the upper limit for us to continue life on this planet as we know it (350.org. About Us/Science page. December 2008). We're currently at 385 ppm (and just 200 years ago we were at 275 ppm). As we work to lower to 350 ppm as soon as possible, we need to employ every strategy we can-including waste reduction strategies-to reduce our emissions. While many strategies require large purchases (i.e. new heaters, coolers, cars, ete.) recycling and composting require little or no investment and in most cases some systems are already in place. What are needed are requirements and incentives for manufacturers to use recycled content and to design for recycling and composting. Measuring the climate change impact of waste reduction actions allows us to speak in a common language, understand the impact of our choices, and help us prioritize the personal and policy actions that we take. Consider these facts: · Recycling and composting all our municipal solid waste in Minnesota would have the same impact as shutting down 19.2% of all the coal-fired power plants in Minnesota (American Coal Foundation, 2007). · Recycling and composting all are municipal solid waste would have the same impact as removing 2,135,140 passenger vehicles from the road. That is equal to over two-thirds of all the cars on the road today in Minnesota 0J ennewitz, 1998). · Recycling and composting all of our municipal solid waste would reduce carbon emissions enough to equal the carbon emissions from 1,544,088 households every year. That's almost 75% of the total in Minnesota (Minnesota Population Estimates December (website) 1112008). While actions such as shutting down 20% of our coal power plants, or reducing our car usage by two-thirds, or using 75% less electricity in our own homes may seem daunting, recycling and composting are accessible and easy actions we can do right now, every day, to make a difference. Translating recycling and composting into climate change impact reminds us that these actions are not trivial or passe. They are a powerful and significant part of the solution: Indeed, a zero waste approach would achieve 7% of the cuts in U.S. emission needed to put us on the path to climate stability by 2050 (platt, et aI., 2008. pg 6). It is also important to calculate the carbon impact of waste reduction as the global effort continues to enact a carbon "cap and trade" system. This system would create financial incentives to reduce green gas emissions, incentives that could benefit new recycling and composting efforts to expand our current infrastructure. We must weigh this against any further subsidies for landfilling and incineration as supposed "renewable" technologies. Page 16 7. Can we really recycle and compost this much? For over 150 years, our worldwide manufacturing, distribution, and disposal systems have developed under the illusion that our natural resources are manageable and expendable and that any amount of pollution can be absorbed or diluted by the land and water. Today, we know this is not true: the cost of maintaining and expanding landfills continues to rise, incinerators have been proven to decrease our air quality and impact our health, and our once "endless" natural resources are showing obvious signs of depletion. Our waste is.in fact very valuable, despite the current paradigm that tells us that it is no so. We have the technology, and we can have the foresight to cost-effectively adapt this old system of using and disposing to a new system of conserving, reusing, recycling, and composting our resources. This will allow us to reinvest more of the "output" of our waste stream, rather than burying it in a landfill or burning it in an incinerator. Not only will our environment and our health improve, but so will our economy. On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclab1es alone sustains ten times more jobs than 1andfilling or incineration. [...] Each recycling step a community takes locally means more jobs, more business expenditures on supplies and services, and more money circulating in the local economy through spending and tax payments (Platt and Seldman, 2000). By adopting zero waste as our goal right now, we shift job creation to reuse, recycling, and composting industries that transform discarded materials into resources. Many people left out of the current economy will be able to find interesting and fulfilling work in these efficient and inventive businesses. We can change our economic measurements to support an abundant economy that rewards creativity, efficiency, community, healthy families and envirornnental protection. Communities and businesses currently in the process of adopting zero-waste goals look to examples of ecological systems, where the output of one system becomes the input for another system, the way decomposition and decay form the basis of nourishment for new organisms. In nature, there is no waste, and we can mimic this as we interact with nature. Zero-waste initiatives are being adopted and implemented all over the globe, in big and small ways, including in Seattle, Washington; San Francisco and Del Norte, California; New Zealand; Canberra, Australia; Denmark; Edmonton, Alberta; Ottawa, Ontario; and Nova Scotia. Businesses like Hewlett Packard, the EPA green building program, and Mad River Brewing have achieved 95% and higher diversion rates. Zero Waste is being incorporated into the business functions of many organizations including Xerox, Sony, Mitsubishi, Interface Flooring Systems, The Beer Store, IBM, DuPont, Honda and Toyota, 3M, Anderson Windows, Aveda, and Pillsbury. The Stop Trashing the Climate reports makes a case for a zero waste approach as one of the "fastest, cheapest, and most effective strategies for mitigating climate change in the short and long-term" and reports on several communities that are putting these zero waste strategies in place: Zero waste goals or plans have now been adopted by dozens of communities and businesses in the U.S. and thereby the entire state of California. In addition, in 2005, mayors representing 103 cities worldwide signed onto the Urban Page 17 Envrronmental Accords, which call for sending zero waste to landfills and incinerators by the year 2040, and for reducing per capita solid waste disposal in landfills and incinerators by 20% within seven years (Platt, et a!., 2008. pg 15). In 2005, Eureka Recycling convened the Saint Paul Envrronmental Roundtable. The work of the Roundtable. made up of residents from throughout Saint Paul, culminated in the passage of a resolution to set Saint Paul's policy direction on six environmental issues: zero waste, food systems, cleaner energy, green building, open space and water stewardship. In 2006, as a result of the roundtable recommendations, the City of Saint Paul adopted the goal of being a zero waste city by 2020 (http://www. eurekarecycling. or!!:/ enviromnentalroundtable / index. din). In 2008, the City ofBurnsville (http://www.ci.burnsville.mn.us) began working with a consortium of nonprofits and businesses to create the first ever full municipal sustainability plan in Minnesota. Recognizing the need to provide all communities clear and concise examples for crafting zero-waste policies and strategic plans to achieve zero waste, Eureka Recycling compiled a Zero Waste Ordinance Resource Guide with nearly 70 examples from communities that are leading the way. This Resource Guide was first presented at the Alliance For Sustainability's "Local Government Sustainability Workshop - Using Model Sustainability Ordinances to Implement your City's Sustainability Goals'. in Saint Paul, MN, in Apri12008 (http://www.stpaul.gov). In order to reach these goa],;, it will take an investment in our current recycling and composting infrastructure. If we continue to invest in wasting by putting the significant capital investments required to build incinerators and landfills, our zero-waste efforts will be bankrupt. Cnrrently wasting competes for the dollars that could be used to preserve and expand recycling and composting efforts such as these: . Invest in a composting infrastructure. · Provide more drop-off opportunities for hard-to-recycle items. . Maximize our curbside work by investing in education, adding new materials, and ensuring that the materials collected actually get recycled. . Find solutions to deal with mixed plastics and additional metals, since they have a large carbon footprint and are under-recycled. · Focus on eliminating a small percent of waste that is left using extended producer responsibility, reuse, and reduction strategies. Page 18 9. References American Coal Foundation. What is your state's role in coal? 2007. <http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/states/nm.html> (November 2008). Anderson, Peter. The Landfill Gas Energy Recovery Hoax Abstract for Landfill Methane Outreach Conference, 2006. <www.epa.gov/lmop/conf/9th/Abstracts/anderson_abs.prf> Bogner, J. et al. Waste Management in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and NY) 2007. <liup: / /www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ assessment-report/ ar4/ wg3 / ar4-wg3-spm. pdf> Choate, Anne, et al. Waste Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the Numbers. Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. <http://yosemite.epa.gov / OAR/ globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/TMAL6GDR3 K/$File/Energy''1020Savings. pdf > Hartwell, Sara. Air Emissions. November 15, 2007. <http://www.epa.gov / clean energy / energy-and-you/ affect/ air- emissions.html#footnotes> (November 2008). Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1999. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Local Government Operations Protocol: For the Ouantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories. September 2008. California Air Resource Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). SCORE Report. January 2008. <http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/ oea/lc/score.cfm> (November 2008). Minnesota Population Estimates: Number and Characteristics of the Current Population. December 11, 2008. Department of Administration/Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis/Land Management Information Center. <http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/estimate/menu.plip> Moore, Rick and Evan W.R. Edgar. Proposed Recycling and Waste Diversion Reporting Proiect Protocol. 28 January 2008. <http://www.arb.ca.gov / cc/ etaac/meetings/012508pubmeet/ comments_received_since_ 12-12-07/ edgar2-recycling.,protocol_ vec2. pdf> (November 2008). National Geographic Society. Fertilizers and Plant Food. 2008 <http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/print_pr.mhtml?id=308> (November 2008). Page 19 Pimentel, David, Hepperly, Paul, Hanson, James, Douds, David and Seidel, Rita. Environmental. Energetic and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. BioSdnece. July 2005/V olume 55, #7 Platt, Brenda, et al. Stop Trashing the Climate. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. June 2008. Platt, Brenda, and Neil Se1dman. Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000 Athens, GA: GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), 2000.Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB). Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota. March 2000. <http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/policy/wastesort.cfin> (November 2008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). WAste Reduction Model (WARM). August 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/wycd/waste/ calculators/ Warm_home.html> (November 2008). Vennewitz, Amy. Transportation Funding and Minnesota's Vehicle Registration Tax. 20 January 20,1998. Minnesota Senate Council and Research Report. <http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/report/tramfund.htm> (November 2008). 350 - Global Warming Global Action Global Future. About Us/Science page, December 11, 2008. Global Warming. Global Action. Global Future. <http://www.350.org> Page 20 10. Background on Organizations and Resources Eureka Recycling www.eurekarecvcling.org Composting website: www.makedirtnotwaste.org A nonprofit that demonstrates that waste is preventable, not inevitable. 350.org www.350.org A nonprofit of youth from throughout the world, working with renowned author and environmentalist Bill McKibben, to build a movement to stop global warming. Climate Registry www.climateregistrv . org A nonprofit organization working that establishes consistent, transparent standards throughout North America for businesses and governments to calculate, verifY and publicly report their carbon footprints in a single, unified registry ICLEI - Local Govemments for Sustainability www.iclei.org An international association ofloca1 governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) www.mncIilnatechang-e.us A advisory group convened in 2007 with the purpose of presenting a climate change mitigation plan to the legislature, including issues across all sectors including waste. SCORE Report hup: / /proteus. pca.state.mn.us/ oea/lc/ score.cfin An annual report on recycling and waste management programs in Minnesota. The report is currently compiled by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Stop Trashing the Climate www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org A report by issued in June 2008 by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the Global Anti- Incineration Alliance and Eco-Cycle. Page 21 Agenda Item 6.a. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner 2008 Environmental and Natural Resources Annual Report February 26, 2009 for the March 3 ENR Meeting INTRODUCTION Most city commission ordinances require the submittal of an annual report to the city council. The annual report outlines the actions and activities .laken by the commission during the preceding year, recommendations needed to existing ordinances or policies based on past reviews, and goals envisioned for the upcoming year. These reports are reviewed and approved by the city council. The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission ordinance does not have an annual report requirement Regardless, staff recommends that the commission begin submitting annual reports to the city council to report on accomplishments and obtain feedback on proposed goals. Following is proposed content for the ENR Commission's first annual report which will update the city council on the commission's actions for the 2008 calendar year. PROPOSED ANNUAL REPORT CONTENT Following is a proposed forma.l for the ENR's annual report. Content includes comments received from one commissioner to date. Introduction The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission is charged with pro.lecting, preserving and enhancing the environmen.l of the City of Maplewood. Members The ENR Commission consists of seven members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for three years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The curren.l membership is as follows: Board Member Membership Beaan Term Expires Carole Lynne Carol Mason Sherrill Ginny Yingling Dale Trippler Frederica Musgrave Bill Schreiner Judith Johannesen 11/27/06 11/27/06 11/30/06 02/25/08 06/25/07 06/09/08 07/14/08 12/31/09 12/31/09 12/31/09 12/31/09 12/31/09 12/31/10 12/31/10 MeetinQs The ENR Commission's regularly scheduled meetings are the first Tuesday of every month at 5:15 p.m. In 2008, .lhe ENR Commission held 15 meetings. 2008 Attendance Board Member Carole Lynne Carol Mason Sherrill Ginny Yingling Dale Trippler Frederica Musgrave Bill Schreiner Judith Johannesen Attendance 13 of 15 14 of 15 12 of 15 13 of 13 11 of 15 7 of 8 7 of? Reviews and Accornplishments 1. Wetland Ordinance: Recommended approval of a draft wetland ordinance in October after several years of review by the wetland committee and ENR Commission. Expect adoption of wetland ordinance by city council in 2009. 2. Maplewood Comprehensive Plan: Reviewed three chapters of the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan including: a. Natural Resources Chapter b. Sustainability Chapter c. Surface Water Management Chapter Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan was forwarded to adjacent governmental agencies in December. Expect adoption of plan by city council in 2009. 3. U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement: Recommended approval of the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreemefl.l that commits the city to reducing emissions and trash in the community. 4. Rules of Procedures: Drafted the ENR's Rules of Procedure to help facilitate meetings. 5. Silver Lake Improvement Association Request for Herbicide Treatment Funding: Recommended approval of funding the Silver Lake herbicide treatment for the removal of curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian Water Milfoil. 6. University of Minnesota Sustainable Maplewood Project: Worked with the University of Minnesota professors and students on their Sustainable Maplewood project. 7. New Member Orientation: Held orientation for two new commissioners in the fall of 2008. 8. Capitol Region Watershed District 2010 Watershed Management Plan: Representatives of the Capitol Region Watershed District presented the process for review of their 2010 watershed management plan. Commissioner Schreiner volunteered to sit on the advisory committee. 2 9. St. Paul Regional Water Services Zebra Mussel Management Plan: Recommended the St. Paul Regional Water Service ensure protection of Maplewood lakes from zebra mussels and other invasive species which may be spread from the water service operations. 10. Eureka Recycling 2007 Report: Review Eureka Recycling's 2007 report and gave recommendations for the 2008 work plan. 11. Wind Turbine Ordinance: Began reviewing proposed wind turbine regulations for the Ci.ly of Maplewood. 12. Environmental Protection Ordinance (Slopes and Mississippi Corridor Critical Area): Began reviewing the city environmental and protection ordinance for possible amendments to the slope and Mississippi Critical area regulations. 13. Goal Setting: Held a goal setting meeting to determine top .lhree goals which could be accomplished by the ENR Commission in 2009. Outside Ac.livi.lies 1. Waterfest 2. National Night Out Recycling Bin Distribution 3. Collaborative Joy Park Buckthorn Removal Project 4. Spring and Fall Clean Up Goals During the ENR Commission's November 18, 2008, Goal Setting Meeting, the commission came up with three main goals the commission would like to focus on in 2009 including: 1. Storm Water 2. Greenways 3. Trash Hauling During .lhe Goal Setting Meeting, the commission agreed to break up into subcommittees to do research and work outside of the full commission. The subcommittees will bring back reports to the full commission for review and recommendations. Conclusion The ENR Commission will continue to carry out the mission of the commission which is: 1. Establish environmental priorities for the city. 2. Make recommendations on policies, procedures and ordinances that control, protect, preserve, and enhance the city's environmental assets. 3. Participate in the mission and goal of the Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves. 4. Promote greater use and appreciation of the city's environmental assets. 5. Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace, or restore neglected or deteriorating environmental assets of the city. 3 6. Develop educational programs that foster the mission of the commission. 7. Develop and promote sustainable practices for city policies and procedures. RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed ENR Commission 2008 Annual Report content and be prepared to discuss during the March 3, 2009, meeting. 4 Agenda Item 6.b. To: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission From: Felicia Szott, Environmentat Law Intern cc: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Date: February 26, 2009 Re: Wind Turbine Ordinance Legal Research Project I am fourth-year undergraduate student at Hamline University studying legal and environmental studies. As part of my degree requirements I am completing an internship with the City of Maplewood. During my internship I will be working on a research project invotving multiple aspects of wind energy as follows: . Research wind energy including how it works and the costs and benefits of this source of energy. . Research other wind turbine ordinances. . Write a brief describing the benefits and irnpacts of wind turbines and a summary of the differences between wind turbine ordinances reviewed. . Propose recommendations for the regulation of wind turbines in the City of Maplewood. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Sustainability. "The city recognizes the sensitive interface between the natural and built environments and as such will promote balanced and sustainable practices in the community in order to accommodate the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. " Implementation Strategies: City Policies. Ordinances. and Proqrams. Modify the city's policies, ordinances, or programs to implement feasible sustainability strategies that: . Encourage developments to utilize renewable energy sources including solar, wind, geothermal, hyrdo, and biomass. Presentations To understand wind turbine regulations it is necessary to understand what aspects of the environment and society that could potentially be affected by wind energy. As part of my project I will be conducting three presentations to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. The first presentation will provide background information on wind energy, how it is captured, and the benefits. In addition the presentation will provide you with critical information about the environmental impacts of harvesting energy from the wind. Contact If you have any questions or concerns I encourage you to contact me at szott.felicia@qmail.com. I would be happy to answer questions, provide additional information, or direct you to a resource where you can obtain more knowledge on this issue. I look forward to meeting with the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission next Tuesday. A5ef1QcJ;i!((\ ~CL MAPLEWOOD CODE ~. DIVISION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Sec. 18.180. Established The city council establishes for the city an environmental and natural resources commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. SS 462.351-462.365. (Code 1982, S 25-17) Sec. 18-181. Advisory body; exceptions All actions of the advisory environmental and natural resources commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, S 25-18) State law reference- City environmental and natural resources agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. S 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 18.182. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms (a) The environmental and natural resources commission shall have seven members appointed by the council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the environmental and natural resources commission for three-year terms. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part ofthe vacated terms. (Code 1982, S 25-19) Sec. 18.183. Chairperson and vice-chairperson. The environmental and natural resources commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the first environmental and natural resources commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. Ifthe chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the environmental and natural resources commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the environmental and natural resources commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code 1982 S 25-20) 1 Sec. 18.184. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of an environmental and natural resources commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend three meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, S 25-21) Sec. 18.185. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The environmental and natural resources commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the environmental and natural resources commission shall be open to the public and published on the city's website. (Code 1982, S 25-22) Sec. 18.186. Duties and responsibilities. In order to protect, preserve and enhance the environment of the City of Maple wood, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission will: (1) Establish environmental priorities for the city in partnership with the City Council. (2) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council changes necessary to existing policies, operating procedures and ordinances that control, protect, preserve and enhance the city's environmental assets. (3) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council new policies, operating procedures and ordinances that control, protect, preserve and enhance the city's environmental assets. (4) Actively participate in and support the mission and goals of the Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves by promoting environmental awareness through educational programs, communications and co-sponsored activities. 2 (5) Pro-actively promote greater use and appreciations of the city's environmental assets. (6) Review the role of other city groups and how they might assist, support and advise the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. (7) Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace or restore neglected or deteriorating environmental assets of the city. (8) Develop educational programs and materials that foster the mission to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. (9) Develop and promote the use of "sustainable practices" for city policies and procedures. (Code 1982, S 25-23) Sec. 18.187. Compensation; expenses. All members of the environmental and natural resources commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the environmental and natural resources commission shall be paid from available city funds. Sec. 18.188. Responsibilities ofthe Environmental Manager. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the environmental and natural resources commission and its chairperson, the environmental manager who reports to the city engineer shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, S 25-25) Sec. 18.189. Duties of city engineer, city attorney and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the environmental and natural resources commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city engineering department employees and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the environmental and natural resources commission and make them self available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, S 25-26) 3 This ordinance shall be effective on October L 2006. Passed bv the City Council of the City of Map1ewood on this 11th dav of September. 2006. Diana Longrie, Mayor ATTEST: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 4 Agenda Item 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Cornrnission Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator Ann Hutchinson, Lead Naturalist 2008 Report on Tree Program February 20, 2009 for the March 3 ENR Cornmission Meeting Maplewood's Tree Prograrn helps protect and rnanage trees and woodlots in the city. New initiatives and prograrn highlights for 2008 included launching the .lree planting rebate prograrn and planting 100 trees on city land. 2008 program details and accornplishrnents are outlined below. Disease Tree Program. Maplewood contracts a part-tirne arborist to inspect trees throughout the ci.ly for Dutch elrn disease and oak wilt. The table below shows the number of trees marked with Dutch elrn disease and oak wilt over the past few years. The city requires rernoval of all condemned elrn trees, and rernoval of trees with oak wilt that have potential to produce spores in spring. 2008 2007 2006 Dutch elrn disease 68 210 177 Oak wilt 49 47 130 Managing Trees and Woodlan.ds. Parks and public works crews rnaintain trees in boulevards and on city lands. Natural resources staff helps manage trees in woodlands. Maintenance includes watering newly planted tress and removal or trirnrning trees that are hazardous. Some additional pruning is done. Staff does rnuch of this work but contractors are hired to trirn or rernove trees that require specialized equipment or skills. Buckthorn Removal Program. Maplewood's buckthorn rernoval program includes: 1) curbside pick up in selected neighborhoods, 2) buckthorn drop-off sites, 3) rernoval on public land, 4) education, and 5) weed-wrench loan program. In 2008, 16 truck loads (12 cubic yards each) of the invasive, non-native buckthorn were rernoved as part of the city-wide neighborhood removal. In 2008, we initiated a pilot program for volunteers to lead rernoval initiatives on city land. Joe Walton, a resident and planning comrnissioner with experience rernoving buckthorn, was given permission to lead volunteers in buckthorn rernoval at Sunset Ridge Park. He and his scout troop removed three truckloads of buckthorn. In addition, nature center staff, with the help of National Honor students and Century College volunteers, removed one truckload frorn Vista Hills Park. Buckthorn was also removed frorn the nature center. The nature center loaned 26 weed wrenches to Maplewood citizens last year, as part of its free loan program. There were nurnerous calls returned frorn the buckthorn hotline, and several hundred postcards rnailed out.lo residents alerting thern about buckthorn. Tree Preservation. Staff reviewed development plans submitted in 2008 to ensure cornpliance with the city's tree preservation ordinance. Tree Planting Rebates. Nature center staff launched the city's new Tree Planting Rebate Program in 2008. The purchase price of a shade tree was reimbursed by the city at a cost-share of 50%, up to $100 per tree. Citizens could receive rebates for up to two trees per household (maximurn $200). A total of 107 trees were purchased by Maplewood citizens through this prograrn at a cost to the city of $6,357. The rnost comrnon trees planted were rnaples, river birches, apples, and oaks. Citizens were very appreciative of this opportunity. Tree Planting on Public Land. In 2008, staff and volunteers planted 100 trees on city land. The trees were purchased from Ramsey County Corrections at a cost of $4,144. Century College student volunteers planted 50 of the trees at the public work's building; Woodbury high school students planted 38 trees at McMenerny Fire Station; and staff planted an additional 12 trees at parks and preserves. Tree Education. Citizens were educated by one-on-one contact with the city's tree disease inspector while out on inspection. In addition, several well attended educational seminars on trees were conducted by nature center staff for the general public: . Native Trees and Shrubs . Elm Disease Workshop . Oak Wilt Workshop · Buckthorn Identification and Rernoval. (2 seminars) · After Buckthorn - Restore your Oaks · Oak Restoration and Inventory (1 for public and 1 for century college) · Acorn Collecting and Identification-Priory Neighborhood Preserve Inforrnational brochures on trees were available at the nature center, as well as information on emerald ash borer, control of buckthorn, and other tree pests. The city created a new tree web page with a lis.l of resources about tree care, how to plant trees, tree disease, and identifying trees. In addition, volunteers began developing a video on the value of trees with financial assistance frorn a cable grant The video is in the editing process and should be finished by late spring. Heritage Trees. The nature center has received four norninations for heritage trees. Volunteers have been going out to parks to look for large, old trees to record. We hope to generate rnore publicity for this program at the Arbor Day prograrn May 2 at the nature center. This is a fledgling program that is still growing, and research will be done with other cities to see how they organize it 2 Tree City USA. In 2006, Maplewood applied for certification as a Tree City USA. This program recognizes communities that value trees and comrnit resources to trees. To qualify, the city rnust rneet four criteria, including spending at least $2 per capita annually on tree programs. Our state forester is our liaison with Tree City USA. Our contact recently inforrned us that he had never properly submitted our application and that we would need to resubrnit our application retroactively. Staff is pursuing this. This prograrn requires we reapply for certification each year. 2008 Costs for Tree Program. Staff frorn several departments support the Maplewood Tree Prograrn. 2008 costs are listed below, but do not include costs for city staff or for buckthorn rernoval. $25,751 $12,021 $15,000 $6,357 $4,144 $63,273 Tree trirnrning and rernoval on city land Removal of diseased elm and oak on city land Tree inspection Tree Planting Rebates to residents Tree planting on public land TOTAL 2009 Tree Projects and Program Changes In 2009, the city will continue all existing tree prograrns. Below are some of the changes and special projects planned. 1. Tree Disease Program. Staff will be hiring an independent contractor or a tree cornpany to do disease tree inspections. We are rnaking changes in the oak wilt prograrn to sirnplify it for residents and decrease the number of times each tree is inspected. . 2. Heritage Trees. 2009 goals include increasing the nurnber of registry entries and putting the registry on-line. 3. Arbor Day Celebration. "Celebrate Heritage Trees" program at the nature center will be offered to farnilies and adults. Tree seedlings will be given away, and tree care advice offered to residents. Citizens will be rnade aware of the city's Heritage Tree Program. 4. Education. Educational seminars on tree disease will be held, as well as "Native Trees and Shrubs" by Jirn Calkins from the University of Minnesota. We hope to continue our buckthorn education and oak restoration programs this fall. A "Red Carpet" event will be planned for the premier of the "Value of Trees" video. A Proiect LearninQ Tree training seminar for preschool teachers will be held this year, where teachers learn about educational tree activities they can teach their 3 students. The nature center is encouraging teachers and youth group leaders to use the self-guiding activities available such as the "tree quest" treasure hunt, shrub identification brochure, and other activities developed for the nature center by volunteer master naturalists. 5. Trees in the Right-of-Way. Staff is working with University of Minnesota Professor Gary Johnson's class on a project studying the issues associated with planting trees in the right-of-way. Students will develop information to help the city determine whether we should change our ordinance that prohibits tree planting in the right-of-way. Students will present their work to the Environmental Commission and the Cornrnunity Design Review Board in Spring 2009. 6. Tree Planting Rebate. Staff will continue this prograrn with minor changes. 7. Tree Planting. Staff plans to have one planting project on public land in 2009, but has not yet determined the site. Trees will also be planted at the nature center this year as part of the sustainable yard irnprovements. 4