Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Environmental Quality Committee Packet 01-10-2018
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA January 10, 2018 WHERE: MEDICINE LAKE ROOM A Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Environmental Quality Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Committee member, or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on theagenda. 1. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC FORUM — Individuals may address the Committee about any item not contained in the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum. 3. 7:20 P.M APPROVAL OF AGENDA - EQC members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The EQC will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 4. 7:25 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA* A. Approve November 8, 2017 EQC Meeting Minutes (Asche) 5. 7:30 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Approve Adopt -a -Street Collection Day for April 6. REPORTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A. Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Summary 2015-2017 B. BioCycle Article — "Residential Food Waste Collection access in the U.S." C. Plymouth Parks & Forestry Buckthorn Bust Guidelines D. Letter to Leonard and Judy Luedke dated 11/2 7/ i 7 regarding drainage 7. FUTURE MEETINGS: February 14, 2018 • EQC Refresher • Elect Chair/Vice Chair • Recycling Contract 8. 8:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT Minutes Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) November 8, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marky Williamson, Committee Members Paul Semie, Dick Kobussen, Andy Polzin, Kathy Osborne, Marita Prokop, Clay Hoes MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Jim Prom STAFF PRESENT: Water Resources Manager Derek Asche 1. Call to Order - 7:00 P.M. 2. Public Forum Jim Lauer, a resident in the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC), gave an update on the recent discovery of zebra mussels in the southeast portion of Medicine Lake. He said that the DNR was contacted and is investigating the problem and the association was waiting for information on their findings. Water Resources Manager Asche shared that the City, Three Rivers Park District and the Bassett Creek Watershed District all have been notified of the situation and were also waiting for infonnation from the DNR. He said the DNR and Three Rivers inspected several docks on the lake and were using that information to determine the extent of infestation and what could be done about it. He expected the DNR's report to be announced very quickly. Judy Leudke, resident at 17910 County Road 47, expressed concerns about drainage on her property. She feels there has been an increasing amount of water on her property due to a new housing development to the west. She is looking for assistance from the city and reached out to the EQC. After listening to her concerns, the EQC explained that they are a standing committee and have no jurisdiction in a situation like this. It was suggested that she attend the Planning Commission meeting or the City Council public forum to address her concerns, and the EQC will ask staff to keep the committee posted on how her situation will be addressed. 3. Approval of Agenda Motion by Committee Member Osborne, seconded by Committee Member Senne, recommending approval of the November 8, 2017 Environmental Quality Committee meetingeg nda. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. 4. Consent Agenda A. Approve September 13, 2017 EQC Meeting Minutes B. Approve October 11, 2017 EQC Meeting Minutes Committee member Kobussen pointed out that Water Resources Manager Asche was listed as an absent Member in the September 13, 2017 minutes and his name should be listed under Staff. Motion by Committee Member Kobussen, seconded by Committee Member Hoes recommending, approval of the Consent Agenda as amended. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Environmental Quality Committee Minutes November 8, 2017 Page 2 5. General Business A. Approve Organics Recycling Framework Water Resources Manager Asche gave an overview of the staff report of the EQC's recommendation of an organics recycling program to the City Council. The EQC discussed the bullet points in the recominendation and made suggestions to amend them. • The EQC recommends implementing an organics recycling program beginning in 2018. • The EQC recommends the program be voluntary for residents. • The EQC recommends residents contract for organics collection through their trash hauler. • The EQC recommends trash haulers voluntarily offer organics collection and that trash haulers have the freedom to choose how to implement organics collection rather than snake organics collection a condition of the trash hauler license through the City. The EQC recommends against additional trucks for this service. • The EQC recommends funding education, outreach, and promotions. The EQC recommends extra funding be credited to residential organics customers/participants. • The EQC recommends annually reviewing the progress of the organics recycling program, in particular information on truck usage for organics collection Motion by Committee Member Osborne seconded by Committee Member Polzin recommendin approval of the bullet points as amended. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Water Resources Manager Asche will put the EQC's recommendation of an organics recycling program in the City Council Information Memorandum for the City Council to review. B. Approve 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan Water Resources Manager Asche presented the second draft of the 2017Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan. Chair Williamson suggested adding an update of the Organics Recycling Program later in 2018 in addition to the update in the 2017 Solid Waste Annual Report that is presented in the spring of 2018. Asche added it to the November meeting. Motion by Committee Member Hoes, seconded by Committee Member Kobussenrecommendi approval of the 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. 6. Reports and Staff Recommendations 7. Future Meetings - January 10, 2018 8. Adjournment Environmental Quality Committee adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Agenda Number CITY OF PLYMOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 3, 2018 for the EQC Meeting of January 10, 2018 TO: Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) FROM: Derek Asche, Water Resources Manager SUBJECT: ADOPT -A -STREET PROGRAM ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Saturday April 14, 2018 at 12pm as the first Adopt -a -Street Collection Day in 2018. BACKGROUND: The Adopt -a -Street program is a vehicle for local groups, organizations and individuals to adopt a city street in Plymouth. The Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) had pledged to clean up the area along Dunkirk Lane between County Road 6 and County Road 24. This includes picking up cans, bottles and other litter as well as cleaning off storm sewer grates and reporting graffiti or hazardous items. Litter and recyclable materials are placed in bags for collection by City of Plymouth crews. Applicants assume all liability for volunteers participating in the cleanup events. The City of Plymouth provides safety vests, trash bags, bags for recyclables, bag pickup and disposal. The City of Plymouth has installed a sign in a safe location with the EQC's name as recognition of participation in the program. Contact with the City needs to be 5-7 days in advance of the cleanup to make arrangements for supplies. Staff will coordinate the event. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact for setting April 14, 2018 at 12pm as the first Adopt - a -Street pick-up day in 2018. Attachments: Map O:\Utilities\Ston Sewer and Water ResourcesTrivironmental Quality Commlttee�Agenda Reports\201 g\Adopt-a-Street April.doex Adopt -a -Street Dunkirk Lane between County Road 6 and County Road 24 9N, 40TII AVE E' w y LIY VThp F o -9Y �. r �y g 39T [�-- 39 TN cern . n39T�AV .! F ll� R❑ 3�,V i• •. 39TH AVE J 38TH AV _ '� F- o� FIA 37TH AVE }�F 0 36TH' Y O w Jl O ` yg AVE �} o'; � ❑� � < iTHAV- a m�- = m it j ® 9�NDALE LA q P Y B sy I BO J` 36T u �6 Jgr NIERS _ AV99. i� } A }� •. � `il O � � � � 35TH A 'D Z�w JO 'f 34SH AV R '�f O m g `.7 A VIr 32 f'L 3Z}y9p'� Q'tu* O Dunkirk Lane g 33RD E c7 IIS'l,4 y w N 32 0. z w �t,Q �r�i-NO AP j 32ND AVEC 0 e�� W ALF -7 a m Y 5 A 319TAV. G CO D LAS EVJ�'73 VE �U MEOr 31 STAVE A JW.Tii VE 2 Of HPL 30THp C Q E,_ �• G, 9j �l E E AIV29 AVPV �g 1}�y �fq..Lu Y J a I+.t Yy�l l �c a 0 m �O c � N1ER A o 29 A � )� --�$ m 0 �P p. z ?W'H AV �} .� 28TH V m m 28TH VE p F } 2 q .h E A 0 IT. L k` z PL qT a O 9 �d� m 0 I UPLA C n A 7Ak y m •�' F F!A Q L 27T AV*, `. r T r� 27TH.19 f`.`y. m 27TH AVEC cYi %m 2T� x A m �1 26TH A E n rf ~ aY. S F a r' G �. _ .u� A4E 25TH A E 1" A ! 0 4ARLANDLA KVP A00 1 },p-zai}'LA,VE -� ?4T/y '{p {.. 0 q o O ,ye TKAVO y1) fi b. tiFy LA4. u 1 � 23RD A Q�STQCy55 2� ..r 9y _ 2. -ti - 2 R o Q Ute' yv Sa \�•a Ty. �U' 21ST Q g � 2 AVE o , 21 ST A 0`j Aar OR 2151 ALS A 19TH A 0 y,� E z z d 19TH VE 19TH = G1 el w A A LA m NRAGE V 7 A !yT .- R J o D r x ZA01 , J r w~ N 8TM D U M1.L�,y -,.44K P r t9t zi ~O 7 a` --- r "� a m w �$ G} o y.. i1HTY1_ �- 11tHa m raft} JP__ lA r f$ 18T %C `m 11�• p- < C9 z cn I T, Z/ 16•j�N SEK A` �� X•' -(l�Rq' O d g17THq q,CK�p? 0GO fo �A _r t` P �9r ,I ~�s z A it9.'.Ctl'14TH AVE tP—•m5 14� w _ 14TH AVE u [I LA 13TH AV 13TH AV �3iliA � � � w �w -� • .o w-- q m f y w m 12TH AVE 4 z THA �•:' xPRGH � • > a IIx p�p.ra g m {� 11TH AVE �1v 11TH AVE 3 g 1 a $ O w TH VE 10TH AVEC' IVy2$ w b U ry a9TH AVE - 'GF kAVV �V� � Q - 8TH AVE . _ R+ �[H .-.�_ - ... w 0 g 8TH A E -- L�� <9 w 8TH AVE R J x p il�4 Ak�} o OLLY Lq�� `�gp�' J �._...r.• '6g, 7TH AVE z = S UEEN 1 w • ' {t1•.AV';,_ a U IfJ Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Summary 2015-2017 Z, r - c -I O N LO O N A L cv E E N C ra (Ln V U i v U W L cu U O U C: cv IsO Q O L N I a ■ Z J aha f1 ' �{,n 5FA U a� rs o���'s' � °ATO 110 �u m oQy �o O !a N u d �a Ln > t E L E N ■ a ,�` laa G L a7 }, o'J e"0 J o � 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 ��❑o 0 H ■ L Ql 0 0 u 0 L Q 0 4- M -+M LXO L L ■ L- 0 0 M qzt m rn 0 r- 0 N Ln I I C C Q CB c O V c� a--+ I Li ■ N O F— �J 0 910 O � d 4� �j110 c CB �O� v 1/0 O yx YO o r'4 ■I1 ��� o E 0E 4- OLn ® �' L U C � Z a 04 DC7 a, 7�5/ LU Aa . U O ,i Sold u a �� +° CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r -I O 00 1. Ct rl N N O F— �J 0 r - c -I O N Ln rH O N i m E E Ln /Ln V U Q) U W L Q) U C O U c co O 0- 0 L C n v u U U a-1 cN C Q) Q X L L 0 r) C6 rL V f'a I (10 m O i ■ Ln 910 Q;��4 0� �a>� �O 0 o � � o� o a .�r i ro a) y a E n L-- _ ,i /l),��`? EX C) C0 %l, °o � N ih -U 1 -S w V 4+ L r /L V _ O Q U C � V W _ aJ O m L U O U C m o oO O _ 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 o O O �, N O 00 1p a) v 0 -22 0 L 0 U c 0 an 'L A a c 0 to L m L- (3) M v t 0 910 Q;��4 0� �a>� �O 0 o� o a .�r l ) /X y a 00A L-- _ ,i /l),��`? 56 C) C0 %l, °o � N ih -U 1 v 0 -22 0 L 0 U c 0 an 'L A a c 0 to L m L- (3) M v t 0 r - O N Il'1 c -I O N A L E E Ln c co (L V U c QJ U W L Q) ru �U C O U O m O Q O L Q) QJ � U O > (1) 0 L Q) Q Q) Q L V) O Q1 4-+O U � 7 Q) U i 4J C a--+ -a U + Q — Q 0 O C 4� Z5 broA U L 4-= L — QJ G Q) L U Q) > L M L Q) N Q QJ 4 4, O L U C7 O O O O O O O O Ln O Lr) O Lr) O Ill 4A - Ln N O r- Lr) N r I c I r -j V'J- th ih ih th r - r -I O N c -I O N L E E S V) +1 C: c� /Ln V U C N U EF LU L fu U C O U c co t, O Q O L 4J J +a 0 L N 0 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l0 N O 00 lD N ri r -i r -i r -i +a 0 L N 0 M r - c -I O N LA l' --i O N A L E E S (0 V U Ss W L -j U C O U c co O Q O L W. m v 0 O U C: O C6 bA L 0�0 r -i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -V� if)- V)- 4j-� tr - qj-� -V� W BioCycle Article — "Residential Food Waste Collection access in the U.S." DECEM9ER BibCy' le.net LA ORGAN,,Ics lk'E'C' Y C L I N: -G A U T H 0 R 1. T Yt :ev WIDE BIOCULE SURVEY f�.} 4 d - :sem-` _ �,y, ' _ entiai ' -c • A 3, (ille a n - t ov LJ ri- 9F A A BIOCYCLE SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE 1[' NATIONWIDE BIOCYCLE SURVEY Figure i. U.S, communities with curbside food waste collection 146 Programs reporting Austin, TX, the newest program included 35D in this year'ssurvey, ust roiled out curbside service to 52,000 householjs at the beginning of October, app and plans to expand to all households by 2020. 250 Survey of residential food waste collection 200 programs across the countrzj from June to 150 November 2017 ultimately identified 148 100 curbside collection and 67 drop-off programs. 50 0 Virginia Streeter and Brenda Platt IOCYCLE and the Institute for Local Self -Reliance (ILSR) un- dertook a survey of residential food waste collection programs across the U.S. from June to No- vember 2017. BioCycle contracted with ILSR to conduct the 2017 BioCycle Res- idential Food Waste Collection. Access Study, which was last updated in 2014 (see "Residential Food Waste Collection In The U S.," January 2015). This year's study — the eighth since BioCycle be- gan the national survey in 2005 — in- cludes residential food waste drop-off programs for the first time. The 2017 survey is utilizing the term "access," defined as number of house- holds able to participate in a given pro- gram, regardless of actual participation. Therefore the number of households with access does not necessarily equal the number of households partaking in the service — not all households in ser- *"I,ti°°° ti°°1 ti°°° °�� °�N >,41 °�1 do do vice areas will choose to participate. these programs are outside the scope of BioCycle intentionally avoided refer- this report. ring to these programs as "composting" This frill report of the 2017 BioCy- programs. While the majority of pro- cle Residential Food Waste Collection grams in this study are sending their Access Study includes individual pro - collected materials to composting facili- gram information, along with data on ties, a few are using anaerobic digestion types and sizes of curbside containers, to process their food waste — such as in collection service providers, types of South Portland, Maine, where collected drop-off programs, drop-off site staff - food scraps go to Exeter Agri -Energy. ing, which programs collect food waste The 2017 BioCycle Resi- with yard trimmings, and dential Food Waste Collec ced this more. Table 1 is a complete Study y tion Access Stud only in-ErepoTt tured on d listing of all communities gcludes programs that are_28. in the U.S. with residen- actively offered or support -tial food waste collection ed by local government. It access via curbside and/or does not cover private haulers offer- drop-off programs. It includes details ing subscription service for food waste on program start date, households with collection independent of the govern- access to curbside and/or drop-off col- ment's involvement. A number of pri- lection, and processing facility for col- vate collection programs offer residen- lected organics. tial services, providing another means BioCycle thanks all the residential of access to numerous communities, but food waste collection program manag- 2 , Residential Food Waste CcIlection Access in The U.S. • GopynghUD2017 byThe ,lG Press, Inc (BioGycle.og) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCUNG AUTHORITY. . pie OL 4• Figure 2. U.S. communities with access to curbside food waste collection by state 148 Programs reporting Go\10ao r 14 \\\N0 f 24 4 2 1011 Sys 10 §ate° 0 2 a . \oo°So\a 52 ,etsa� 3 IN° yoty 3 pn i u OteA 1 4°t'o $tas 2 24 vet�o� \ora 1 40 \00 69 ��Soo 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 let) - Anoka County, MN has two year- round drop-ofF locations at county yard trimmings sites. Each site has separate drop-off containers for food waste/ soiled paper/compostable plastics, yard trimmings and tree waste. ers, state organics recycling agencies and many others for their participation in the 2017 BioCycle Residential Food Waste Collection Access Study. BioCy- cle also thanks the Foodservice Pack- aging Institute and the Biodegradable Products Institute for their underwrit- ing of this study. CURBSIDE PROGRAMS The number of curbside collection programs has increased 87 percent from 2014 to 2017, from 79 to 148. As many programs are administered by counties or solid waste districts, not individual cities, the number of com- munities being serviced is also count- ed. For example, Costa Mesa Sanitary District in California has just one pro- gram, but since the sanitary district includes the City of Costa Mesa, parts of Newport Beach, and unincorporated Orange County, it is considered three communities. "Communities" are de- fined as incorporated cities or towns, which is why New York City (NYC) is considered only one community, de- spite its large size. In the case of county programs that are also serving the un- incorporated areas of the county, the entire unincorporated area is counted as one community (as seen with unin- corporated Orange County in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District example). In 2017, residents of 326 communi- ties have access to curbside food waste collection (Figure 1), up from 198 at the time of the last study (a 65% in- crease). California, Washington, and Minnesota have programs serving the Residential Food Waste Collection Access In�TheU..O4 3 Figure 3. U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection 148 Programs reporting 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Amu l�� �� ■ 4 ti°°° most number of communities (Figure 2). Table 2 compares national data be- tween the 2014 and 2017 curbside ac- cess studies. There are curbside programs in 20 states; three of those states (Virginia, Idaho, and Maine) added programs since 2014, and thus are totally new to this study. Two states (Kentucky and Connecticut) were included in the last study, but had very small pilot programs which have since ended — although Connecticut now has five drop-off programs, including the one community that had a curbside pilot in 2014 (Bridgewater). Finally, 5.1 million households have access to curbside col- lection, a growth of 2.4 million since the last study (Figure 3). California, Wash- ington, and New York provide access to the largest number of households (Figure 4). Type and Scale of Curbside Curbside program types are classi- fied as either standard offering, opt -in, or mandatory. Of 77 programs report- ing data for this question, 47 are "stan- dard," meaning organics collection is offered alongside trash and recycling, with no extra steps needed for resi- dents to participate (Table 3, Figure 5). "Opt -in" programs, which represent 21 of the 77, require residents to sign up to receive food waste collection ser- vice. Often, these programs are serv- ing only a small portion of households with access. For example, in Belling- ham, Washington, 19,000 households have access to curbside collection, but only 5,000 have signed up to partici- pate. Finally, there are the mandatory programs, where all residents must Cambridge, MA (above) is in the midst of expanding curbside collection access from 5,OOfl to 25,000 households. Falls Church, VA;above right) started a curbside program in June, operated by Compost Crew, a local hauler. The city was able to keep costs low through an innovative cost-sharing program. Figure 4. U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection by state 148 Programs reporting r ' ' �aao 293 Colo - 174 \�aro 0.4 148 188 Qeo `ora r .84 e+Y �aoe 1 ANN 18 els 45 47 �'ofeSo10 22 188 850 981 j 1,740 In thousands I 600 800 1AW 1,200 1A00 1,800 1,800 2A00 4 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright®2017 byThe JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) BIOCiYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCUNG AUTHORnY _00 0.4 O�Aoo 188 Qeo E 403 e+Y co`oo� �Q 120 �j�rA�o`a 3 .010 10�ooso ri 23 0 200 400 850 981 j 1,740 In thousands I 600 800 1AW 1,200 1A00 1,800 1,800 2A00 4 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright®2017 byThe JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) BIOCiYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCUNG AUTHORnY Figure 5. U.S. curbside program types 77 Programs reporting The Department of Public Works in Washington, DC, launched a drop-off program Earth Day 2017. Local partner Compost Cab is contracted to operate the Saturday drop-off sites at a farmers market (top) in each of the city's eight wards. Compost Cab also drops off food scraps at several sites that are part of the DC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Community Compost Cooperative Network. DPR operates 50 compost cooperatives at community gardens throughout the city, giving local residents the opportunity to drop off their own food scraps and participate in the composting process (above). s�- 1 JW) i UP i)Jll•ill Standard Mandatary Figure 6. Scale of U.S. curbside programs 74 Programs reporting 43 12 12 P119 7 0 0 Pilar Partial Full-scale Full-scale single family all dwelling Chittenden County, VT has operated a drop-off program for 16 years. There are currently eight sites, open to residents year round. participate. There are 9 mandatory programs, 5 of which are in Califor- nia (Davis, Fremont, Oakland, Palo Alto and San Francisco). The other 4 mandatory programs are Seattle, WA; North Barrington, IL; North Liberty, IA; and Wenham, MA. Davis, CA is fair- ly unique in that service is mandatory for everyone in the city: single-family households, multifamily households, and businesses alike. Programs are also classified by their scale of service — either a pilot, par- tial, full-scale single-family dwellings, or fill -scale all (Table 3). Out of the 74 programs reporting this data, 11 are pilots, serving a relatively small num- ber of households (Figure 6). Seven programs are partially rolled out, with plans to expand service. The majority of programs are full-scale single-family dwellings, meaning all single-family households receive service. (This may include small multifamily dwellings in cities that provide trash service.) Full- scale "all" means every single house- hold has access to service, including multifamily dwellings. Only 12 cities have reached this scale of service. Another way of classifying programs is through the service provider; ei- ther the government (such as the De- partment of Public Works) is directly providing the service, or curbside col- lection is contracted out to a private hauler. The vast majority of curbside programs (Table 3) contract out service — 61 of 81 programs reporting. Sev- enteen programs are government ser- vices, and six are either a combination of the two or private haulers provide service under franchise agreement or exclusive ordinance. Curbside Materials Accepted This year, the access study delved further into what materials each pro- gram accepts. All 148 programs take fruit and vegetable scraps, and over 90 percent of programs accept meat, fish, and dairy, but after that there is quite a lot of variation (Table 4). The major- ity of programs (101 of 148 and 105 of 148, respectively) also take paper bags and uncoated food -soiled paper. Most programs (71%) are cocollecting yard trimmings with food waste (Figure 7). For communities already collecting yard trimmings, "ride -along programs, where residents are allowed to put food waste in with the yard trimmings al- ready being set out for collection, are a fairly easy and low-cost way to begin food waste collection. From the last sur- vey to this one, Illinois grew from one program to 24; much of that growth is directly attributable to the popularity of ride -along programs in Lake County. Less than half of programs are ac- cepting any compostable plastic prod- BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright ®2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle-net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 5 Fig tire 7. U.S. curbside programs co -collecting food waste and yard trimmings 146 Programs reporting Collects food waste without yard trimmings Collects food waste with yard trimmings Cambridge, MA uses rear-loadingg semi -automated trucks for its curbside collection program. Figure 8. BPI certification requirements, U.S. curbside programs 46 125 Programs reporting 63 14 2 mi 0 L IS For all For some Not Hot prouducts products applicable required Communities utilizing Organix Solutions in Minnesota have just one collection container per household, where trash, recyclables, and organic waste are all placed. The color -coded bags are later separated by Organix Solutions. acts, such as compostable plastic bags, compostable plastic -coated paper prod- ucts, and compostable plastic packag- ing and foodservice items. Molded fiber containers and food -soiled paper coated with conventional plastic are the least commonly accepted feedstocks — less than a quarter of all cuurbside programs accept molded fiber containers, and only 10 of 148 programs will take the conventional plastic -coated paper. Of 125 programs responding to the question on whether Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) certification is required for the compostable plastics accepted, 63 don't accept any composta- ble plastics (Figure 8), so the question is not applicable to them. Fourteen of the programs do not require BPI certi- fication, and the remaining programs do. Although the BioCycle survey spe- cifically asked about BPI certification, some communities in Washington State also require a second certification to meet the stipulations of their compost- ing service provider, Cedar Grove. The composting company has an extensive list of tested and approved composta- ble products, so many of the programs in the Seattle/King County region in Washington also want compostable plastic products it accepts to be BPI cer- tified and Cedar Grove -approved. Collection Containers, Vehicles Of 60 programs reporting on collec- tion container size, the majority (33) are using containers between 10 and 19 gallons. (Note: programs may have more than one bucket size.) Nineteen of these 33 programs are actually `Blue Bag" programs, so the "container" in these programs is actually a 13 -gallon compostable plastic bag. The next most common sizes are 30-39 gallons (21 pro- grams), 60-69 gallons (19 programs), and 90-99 gallons (15 programs). For the most part, curbside programs .- rden a�.ap - tyc11.1 OurUo In order to encourage participation, the drop-off program in Scarsdale, NY provides residents with a starter kit of collection container, compostable plastic bags, and a written guide to the program. are collecting trash, recycling, and food waste once a week, with few exceptions. Interestingly, Mountain View, Califor- nia, tested diversion rates with every week trash collection versus every oth- er week trash collection, and found that food waste diversion rates were higher with every other week trash collec- tion (and weekly food waste collection). However, the city decided to stick with every week trash collection when roll- ing out its permanent program, and to Typically, each waste stream has its own collection container for residents to put at the curb, as seen with these Portland, OR containers. Davis, CA clearly labels its curbside bins with what materials are and are not accepted, 6 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. copyright© 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle-net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORRY Figure 9. Reasons for successful U.S. curbside programs 5O Programs reporting Meeting diversion goals Cost effective Customer satisfaction Participation rates Avoided disposal costs — Reduced trash frequency _ revisit the idea of every other week at a later time. The 2017 access study collected data on the kinds of trucks used for curbside collection. Based on responses from 64 of the curbside programs, side -loading trucks are the most popular at 39, fol- lowed by rear -loading (37) and auto- mated (34). It should be noted that some programs may use more than one style of truck, and some trucks may fall into multiple categories. Success of Curbside Programs Fifty-four out of 71 survey respon- dents reporting for their programs con- sider their program successful. Fifty of those programs provided reasons for success (Figure 9). Meeting diversion goals was by far the most prevalent reason (41 of 50), followed by cost ef- fectiveness (26 of 50) and avoided dis- posal costs (25 of 50). Only five out of 71 consider their program unsuccess- ful. Survey respondents for Morgan Hill, CA, Brooklyn Center, MN, Maple Plain, MN, and New Hope, MN believe that participation levels are too low for the program to be successful, and the respondent for Elk River, MIN believes Cambridge, MA does not accept yard waste wlth food scraps; containers emphasize "Food Scraps Only.- that the program is too expensive for residents. All four of the Minnesota programs are part of the `Blue Bag" program through Organix Solutions. Trash, recycling, and organics are col- lected in the same curbside bin, using different bag colors depending on the material, and then bags are sorted at the processing facility. Twelve of 71 survey respondents re- porting for their programs weren't sure whether their programs are successful. Most commonly, this was due to the newness of the program. Five of the programs are still in the pilot phase, and four had just started or were still in the process of rolling out at the time of the survey. The other three programs deemed they did not have the necessary tools to measure success. Case Study: Falls Church, VA Falls Church, Virginia began its very successful drop-off program in 2016. The City contracted with a local hauler, Veteran Compost, to collect food waste from a drop-off site at the farmers mar- ket. The program proved to be so suc- cessful — receiving 100 to 125 gallons of food scraps every week — that the City created a permanent drop-off site by City Hall. Since creating the perma- nent site, the drop-off program collects 325 to 390 gallons weekly. Due to the success of the drop-off pro- gram, the City of Falls Church decided to start a curbside collection program in 2017. The program in Falls Church is especially innovative due to its "cost- sharing" arrangement. Residents pay only $6/month to participate, or $66 a year, and the City pays the rest. Costs decrease for the City as more residents sign up, so to incentivize participation, the City paid $15,000 upfront, in order to give the first 600 participants six months of free service. Compost Crew, a small and local organics hauler, was Residents using the drop-off program in Chittenden County, VT cover their food scraps with wood chips to provide carbon and to avoid odors and flies. This also helps when unloadnng food scraps. Figure 10. Start date of U.S. dropoff programs 52 Programs reporting 29 1s 4 3 M Before 2000- 2005- 2010- 2015- 2000 2004 2009 2014 2017 Years BIoCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright @ 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioLycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. :1 WARE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAOEMENT CONVENIENCE CENTER 11cgv"Tjpyl �vwc.iii`,�';.iwi,'�"...«„ ugAQOZEYAUkE.MdiLWA%N •ov.a cw.nm.n . -..� •�`'w�,^��+".�'.+.-+`�w .tl4o.Ce Nn1.Ua .KW 1�111� Wake County, NC operates 11 multi - material recycling "convenience" centers. Four sites offer drop-off for food scraps (up from 2 in 2015), almost 2 tons/month of food scraps are collected. Paid staff operate the centers, open 7 days/week. 1W or ' C, . �k9 id - Most drop-off programs provide clear outreach materials, like DC's above, explaining how to participate and which materials are accepted. 0.606 Mklli tv ce°l o°oe to 0• 0 Vs VNO h'�assac eso�a a�`QsN10 Oe 06111&0, 10* \%\"r- NOa Figure 11. U.S. food waste dropoff programs by state 67 Programs reporting 1 5 10 15 20 25 given the contract to run the program. The cost-sharing model has allowed the City to keep costs relatively low. Leveraging the existing resources of a small-scale hauler (such as Compost Crew's customer service portal) has also kept costs low. In addition to the $15,000 for subscriptions, the City paid approxi- mately $4,000 for bins and marketing. Going forward, it estimates that the to- tal cost for the program will be $20,000 annually. Falls Church's program has a 15 percent participation rate of resi- dents living in single-family homes. Starting household food waste collec- tion with a drop-off program was key to the City's success in creating a curbside program. Program director Chris Mc- Gough notes that even if growth in par- ticipation is modest, investing in the curbside program will still be worth- while given the powerful momentum that created at the outset. DROP-OFF PROGRAMS As noted, the 2017 BioCycle Residen- tial Food Waste Collection Access Study includes data on drop-off programs — a growing phenomenon — for the first time. While no historic data is available for comparison, according to survey par- ticipants, 29 of 52 drop-off programs re - 8 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright 0 2017 by The A Press, Inc. (gioCycle.net) porting this data have started in the past three years — more than any other time period (Figure 10). Table 5 summarizes the national drop-off program data. In total, 67 drop-off programs are in- cluded in 15 states — five of which have no curbside programs, demonstrating the value of drop-off programs in in- troducing food waste collection to new areas (Table 6). In some areas, such as in the Falls Church example discussed above, drop-off programs have become the basis of future curbside expansion. Drop-off programs can also be a valu- able method of education and outreach for curbside programs; New York City (NYC) has drop-off sites in all 5 bor- oughs of the city, including at heavily - trafficked locations like subway stops, which has helped NYC raise awareness of its curbside program, which is being rolled out to households in phases. In terms of number of drop-off pro- grams, Massachusetts and Minnesota far outstrip all other states (Figure 11). The drop-off programs included in the 2017 study serve 318 conununities; 6.7 million households have access. (Note: due to NYC's extensive drop-off pro- gram, all residents are considered to have access, meaning that NYC accounts for 3.9 million households of the 6.7 mil- BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Alexandria's (VA) "resource recovery stations" are located at several farmers markets around the city. IIT IF IT GROWS, IT GOES! Jiqqf` Minneapolis, MN hosts drop-off containers at city parks. lion.) Like with curbside, programs run by counties or solid waste districts are counted as multiple communities. Drop-off programs have an advan- tage over curbside in being relatively easy to start-up and maintain. They also have the ability to address chal- lenges that may be presented by a curbside program. For instance, in Du- luth, Nlinnesota, one of the larger cit- ies serviced by the Western Lake Su- perior Sanitary District (vVLSSD), the steep, narrow streets and large student population would make a curbside col- lection program fairly difficult to run. Thus, WLSSD began a drop-off pro- gram in 2003 — one of the first in the country. Centralized, permanent drop- �� moo Carne, pescado, preductos Metaos P-,#7ont" y sresniba y o Tea✓tas y.—Alots da papal Nwtas + [+wr NWduos y rYt— d• tori Ww de popel sin n duras y ",dws Cain d• utt6n pan pita Psm, Pan. 0—ales y erre: Bowts do td Plato, ds papal sin ntaAMW"nto n�,pespLke Papsl Llpepda in'•:.v con rasid.ot b irroir� hsw, malas y holt abrMJanle P4ntas d• rasa {x mr.He.1 wdas con prw Rams ;^enos Ce The drop-off bins in South Portland, ME have clear signage to explain accepted items. off locations help avoid the challenges of collecting curbside within Duluth, and allow the city to serve a constantly transient population of students. Drop -Off program Types, Locations, Staffing The types of drop-off programs are varied, from round-the-clock access to weekly availability at farmers mar- kets. Programs vary widely in where their drop-off sites are hosted (Table 7). Some are located at transfer sta- tions or recycling depots, where resi- dents can bring their food waste along with household recyclables. New York City has been operating drop-off sites at more than 50 farmers markets for f o es v 4 pu'g j Seattle, WA has posters of materials accepted available in 18 languages. Figure 12. U.S. dropoff programs co -collecting food waste and yard trimmings 67 Programs reporting Collects food waste without yard trimmings Collects food waste with yard trimmings BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copynght 02017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 9 w..tpr�tlllx�a!'fos too _t■sero" �,�' Outreach efforts around the drop-off program in Scarborough, ME include signage at local grocery stores. a number of years. Host locations are categorized into farmers markets, com- munity gardens, city parks, multimate- rial recycling drop-off centers, transfer stations, and municipal buildings, such as a Department of Public Works of- fice building (Table 7). Of 67 drop-off programs reporting locations, the larg- est number (32) use multimaterial re- cycling drop-off centers. Twenty of the programs use transfer stations, six use fanners markets, seven use municipal buildings, five use city parks, four use the composting/yard trimmings facility, and two use community gardens. Seven of the 67 programs utilize "other" loca- tions, such as schools or grocery stores. Looking at the number of programs using each type of site is a little mis- leading, however, in determining what type of sites are most prevalent. For in- stance, only 1VYC and Washington, DC host their drop-off programs at commu- nity gardens, but NYC has a network of around 100 community gardens with drop-off programs, and DC has 50. On the other hand, the 32 programs us- ing multimaterial recycling centers as drop-offs generally just have the one drop-off site. Of 67 programs reporting on their drop-off locations, 33 staff all drop-off sites, four staff some, and nine do not staff (Table 6). Thirty-four of the 37 programs staffing all or some sites re- ported additional data on their staff — 31 pay all staff, two pay some, and only one program is solely volunteer. Like curbside programs, drop-offpro- gramservice is provided by either gov- ernment or contracted private entities. Drop-off programs are the reverse of curbside, though, with the vast major- ity being serviced directly by govern- ment, and relatively few being operated by contracted private organizations (Table 6). Of 63 programs reporting, 48 have drop-off sites run by governuuent, 10 contract with private enterprises, and five have a nus of both. Drop -Off Materials Accepted Like the curbside programs, all drop- off programs accept fruit and vegetable scraps, and the vast majority also take meat, fish, and dairy (Table 8). Other feedstocks that the majority accept in- clude uncoated food -soiled paper, pa- per bags, and compostable plastic bags. Yard trimmings is accepted by less than half of drop-off programs (Figure 12). All compostable plastic items other than compostable plastic bags are ac- cepted by less than half of drop-off pro- grams. Of those accepting compostable five of the 30 programs were labeled a success. Among the 25 successful programs, the most commonly cited reasons were meeting diversion goals and avoided disposal costs, which were also two of the top three reasons seen in curbside programs (Figure 13). Ev- ery other potential reason had fewer than 10 programs, with participation rates coming in last, as only two of the 25 programs considered that a reason for success. Five of 30 respondents to this success question weren't sure if their programs could be counted as a success. Of these, two believed it is too soon to tell, as the programs are very new. The other three expressed concerns over participation rates and contamination levels. Case Study: Washington, DC Two agencies in the District of Co- lumbia support drop-off collection of food waste. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) created a com- munity composting cooperative net- work at community gardens through- out the city, which has been operating Figure 13. Reasons for successful U.S. dropoff programs 25 Programs reporting f41eeting diversion goals �y Cost effective Customer satisfaction Participation rates Avoided disposal costs Reduced trash frequency Education & awareness plastics, the majority do require BPI certification. Again, molded fiber con- tainers and conventional plastic -coated food -soiled paper were the least com- mon items accepted, with only about a quarter of programs allowing inclusion of molded fiber containers, and only four allowing conventional plastic -coat- ed paper. Success of Drop-off Programs Of 30 survey respondents reporting on the success of their drop-off pro- grams, not a single one considers their program to be unsuccessful. Twenty- Falls Church, VA also has a drop-off program run by Veteran Compost, located at City Hall. 10 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright a 2017 by The JC Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) B10CYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY successfully for several years, and the Department of Public Works (DPW) started a drop-off program at eight farmers markets in 2017, contracting out collection to Compost Cab, a local hauler. The DPR community garden sites actively engage residents in the composting process. In order to partici- pate, residents take a one-hour compost training, and volunteer at the garden for a total of nine hours a ,year. Once training is complete, members of the co- operative can drop off their food waste whenever they want. The DPW program is a very differ- ent model, but one that has also proved popular. Each ward in the District has a drop-off site open on Saturdays dur- ing the farmers market. Three of the 8 drop-off sites will continue service through the winter; the other 5 will re- open in the spring. While a less hands- on experience with composting than the DPR program, the farmers market drop-offs have introduced compost- ing to many new people; the sites col- lectively receive food waste from over 400 households each week. Food waste collected at the farmers markets goes to the community composting sites for processing. Having two types of drop-off programs in the District of Co- lumbia has helped raise the profile of composting in the District, and allows residents to be involved in composting at whatever level they want. l 4�f 1_l.f�nlr.'Is�F'1 The number of households with ac- cess to food waste collection continues to grow rapidly. Programs vary wide- ly. Thus local governments looking to replicate the success of early adopt- ers have much to consider: materials Food scraps from the South Portland, ME program are sent to the Exeter Agri - Energy anaerobic digestion facility. to accept, type of containers to pro- vide, offering starter kits, whom to pro- vide service, and whether households can opt in or not. The most successful curbside programs provide contain- ers to facilitate participation. Most of these programs collect food waste with yard trimmings. Drop-off programs are proving a good entry point for local gov- ernment to support food waste recov- ery. Several communities that started by providing drop-off access at seasonal farmers markets, subsequently estab- lished permanent sites and then curb- side programs. Outreach and marketing are com- mon critical features, with a wide range of techniques used (e.g., social media, posters in multiple languag- es, and engaging signage at drop-off sites). Cities are also trying new initia- tives to encourage participation, such as the first six months free service or educational signage at supermarket produce departments. As we were go- ing to press, new programs were com- ing online. If we missed your program, let us know! ■ Brenda. Platt directs the Composting for Community Project at the Institute for Local Self -Reliance and is the lead author of the State of Composting in the U.S.: What, Why, Where & How. Vir- aainia Streeter is a. Research Associate for ILSR's Composting for Community Proj- ect. ILSR interns Emily Saba. and Colton Fagundes assisted with research for the 2017 BioCycle Residential Food Waste Collection. Access Study BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright 02017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 11 Table 1. Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S., 2017 12 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. copyright 9) 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BicCycle.net) I31OCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Households Households With With State/City/County/ Start Curbside Drop -Off Access To Access To Processing Waste District Date (CS) (DO) Curbside Drop -Off Facility Alaska Gustavus 1996 x 500 The Disposal and Recycling Center (DRC) California Alameda 2002 x 30,708 Recology Grover, Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (RRP) Albany x 7,377 Recology Grover Berkeley 2007 x 23,000 Recology Blossom Valley Organics North Central Contra Costa 2006 x 66,000 West Contra Costa (Richmond) Compost Fac. Sanitary District (13)' Costa Mesa Sanitary District (3)' 2015 x 18,124 CR&R anaerobic digester (Perris) Cupertino 2010 x 14,051 South Valley Organics Davis 1970 x 24,873 Napa Recycling composting facility in Zamora (Upper Valley) Dublin 2005 x 13,338 Recology Blossom Valley Organics Emeryville x 6.205 Fremont 2003 x 43,057 Newby Island RRP Hayward x 46,713 Livermore x 30,182 Marin County (12)9 2012 x 102,633 WM Earth Care Compost Facility, Redwood Landfill Modesto 2011 x 55,000 City of Modesto Compost Facility Morgan Hill x 10,000 South Valley Organics Mountain View 2017 x 14,500 South Valley Organics Napa County (2)' 2017 x 26,500 Napa Materials Diversion Facility Newark x 13,436 Oakland 1995 x 159,601 Redwood Regional Composting Facility, Recology Grover Oceanside 2017 x 1,600 Agri Service, Inc. EI Corazon Compost Facility Palo Alto 2015 x 28,000 Zero Waste Energy Development Company Piedmont 2014 x 3,757 West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Organics Material Processing Facility Pleasanton x 26,020 San Francisco 1998 x 350,000 Jepsen Prairie Organics & EBMUD San Leandro 2005 x 21,000 Newby island RAP San Luis Obispo County (8)' 2016 x 50,000 Engel & Gray Inc. Santa Clara County (unincorporated) 2015 x 16,500 Zero Waste Energy Development Company Santa Monica 2013 x 11.000 Agromin Sonoma County (10)' x 187,782 Sonoma Compost South Bayside Waste 2009 x 93,000 Recology Grover, Newby Island RRP Management Authority (12)3 South San Francisco x 21,136 South San Francisco Scavenger Company/ Blue Line Transfer anaerobic digester Stockton 2005 x 90,000 Modesto City & Forward, Inc. (Republic) Sunnyvale x 55,094 Tulare County (9)' 2009 x 18,295 Union City 2001 x 20,000 Newby Island RRP Visalia x x 41.730 41,730 Colera-do Boulder County (11)' CS, 2000- x x 180,000 290,000 Al Organics 2016; DO, varies Denver CS, 2008; x x 100,000 275,795 Al Organics 00,2016 GQ:ch , x 7,225 Al Organics Lafayette 2015 x 6,100 Al Organics Longmont 2010 x 29,500 Al Organics Pitkin County (4)' 2010 x 6,000 Pitkin County Solid Waste Center Connecticut Bridgewater 2013 x 735 New England Compost New Fairfield 2016 x 4,919 New England Compost Newtown 2015 x 10,098 New England Compost Redding 101E x 3,811 New England Compost Ridgefield 2015 x 8,801 New England Compost 12 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. copyright 9) 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BicCycle.net) I31OCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 1. Residential Food Waste Collection Access In the U.S., 2017 (cont.) Households Households With With State/City/County/ Start Curbside Drop -Off Access To Access To Processing Waste District Date (CS) (DO) Curbside Drop -Off Facility District of Columbia Washington 2017 x 255,000 Community composting sites in DC Idaho Boise 2017 x 73,738 Boise City Twenty Mile South Farm Composting Facility Illinois Arlington Heights 2016 x 18,169 Bannockburn 2016 x 451 Lakeshore Barrmgtons 2016 x 3,390 Groot Deer Parks 2015 x 978 Groot DeKalb 2017 x 87 Fox Lake' 2017 x 3,912 Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) Glen Ellyn 2016 x 27,761 Glenview 2016 x 14,843 Groot Grayslake' 2016 x 6,674 Hawthom Woods, 2016 x 2,099 WMI Highland Parr 2016 x 9,300 Lakeshore Highwood, 2017 x 979 Lakeshore Island Lake' 2016 x 2,892 Prairieland Lake Bluff, 2017 x 21,000 DK Organics Lake County (53)- 2016 x 207.000 Midwest Organics Recycling Mill Creek Special Service Areae 2017 x 2,300 Compost Supply Mundelein, 2017 x 11,630 Groot North Barrington 2015 x 1,300 Midwest Organics Nor=hfield 2016 x 2,155 WMI Oak Pari 2013 x 12,055 Land & Lakes Port Barrington 2016 x 518 Prairieland River Forest 2015 x 3,000 Roy Strom Collection Riv9rwo:,ds 2016 x 1,228 Lakeshore Tower Lakes-, 2016 x 430 Prairieland Volo' 2017 x 1297 Groot Iowa Cedar Rapids 1999 x 41,150 Cedar Rapids Linn County Solid Waste Agency Dubuque x 23,901 Dubuque Metro SWA Iowa City 2017 x 15,500 Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center North Liberty 2014 x 3,050 Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center Maine Falmouth 2015 x 4,000 We Compost IV'MB Bark FreepMi x 3,550 We Compost It/MB Bark North Yarmouth 2017 x 1,2974 Kay-Ben. Farms Scarborough 2017 x 258 €comaine South Portland 2017 x x 668 10,5244 Ecomaine, Exeter Agri-energy Yarmouth 2006 x 3,641 Yarmouth Transfer Station Recycling Center Maryland Howard County' 2011 x 14,000 Alpha Ridge Landfill Municipal Composting Prince George's County 2017 x 200 Prince George's County Organics Composting Facility (OCF) Takoma Park 2013 x 3.300 Prince George's County OCF University Park 2011 x 925 Prince George's County OCF Massachusetts A'Ci C!1 x 8,720' Aniliei,l x 10,145' Martins Farm, 360 Recycling Barnstable x Watts Family Farm Beverly 2015 x 360 North Shore Farms Boston 2013 x 287,571 Rocky Hill Farm Cambridge CS, 2014; x x 5,600 45,779 Rocky Hill Farm DC, 2012 Chatham x 3,160 Wafts Family Farm Chilmark x 420 Beetlebung Farm, Morning Glory Farm & Goodale Construction Cknn s x 6,8834 Wafts Family Farm D ,jar 2012 x 2,008 Hidden Acres Medway BQCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright &) 2017 by The JG Press, Inc (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 13 Table i, Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S., 2017 (cont.) 14 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. copyaant @ 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) BIoCycLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORF Y Households Households With With State/City/County/ Starl Curbside Drop -Off Access To Access To Processing Waste District Date (CS) (DO) Curbside Drop -Off Facility Massachusetts (cont.) Edgartown x 1.200 Beetlebung Farm, Morning Glory Farm & Goodale Construction Egremont 2013 x 900 Egremont Transfer Station Greenfield x 7,731° Martins Farm, 360 Recycling Hamilton 2012 x 2,950 Brick Ends Farm Ipswich 2011 x 5,200 Brick Ends Farm Leverett 2014 z 717 Martin's Farm Manchester By The Sea 2014 x 2,3694 Town of Manchester Compost Facility (operated by BEC) Mashpee 2015 x 9.786 Compost With Me Medfield x 4.090' Natick 2016 x 10,450 Another municipality New Salem 2011 x 427 Clear View Composting Newburyport 2015 x 400 North Shore Farms Northfield 2011 x 1.141 Martin's Farm Northampton x 11,484" Martins Farm, 360 Recycling Orange 2011 x 2,459 Clear View Composting S31sm 2014 x 14,578 Black Earth Compost Wendell 2016 x 374 Clear View Composting Wenham 2012 x 1,404 Brick Ends Farm West Tisbury x BOB Beetlebung Farm, Morning Glory Farm & Goodale Construction Whately 2003 x 568 Clear View Composting Winchester 2016 x 7,748 JRM Hauling and Recycling -Organics Collection Michigan Ann Arbar 2006 x 47,179 City of Ann Arbor/WeCare Mackinac island 1992 x 240 Mackinac Solid Waste Minnesota Anoka County (18)' 2016 x 124,477 Specialized Environ. Technologies (SET), Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Compost Site (SMSC) Brooklyn Center' 2016 x 0.996 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Buffalo 2015 x 9901 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Carver County (`1 1)' 2007 x 35,000 SET Columbia Heights' 2015 x 6,440 SMSC Compost Site Corcoran' x 1,157 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Delano x 1.813 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Elk River 2008 x 7.600 Ham Lake 2017 x 16,073 Hennepin County (43)' x 361,896' Hutchinson 2001 x 4,000 Creekside Organics Processing Facility Lake Crystal 2017 x 1.200 Lino Lakes' x 6.706" Linwood Townships 2016 x 2,0018 SET Loretto' x 268 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Mankato 2016 x 11,500 Full Circle Organics Maple Grove x 4,659 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Maple Plain' 2012 x 501 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Medicine LA?` x 160 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Medina' 2013 x 1,902 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Minneapolis 2015 x x 106,000 168,385 SET Minnetonka' x 6,406 SET Montrose x 1,084 Randy's Transfer Station, SET New Hope' 2016 x 8,265 Randy's Transfer Station, SET North Mankato x 5,858" Riverbend Recycling Center Orono' x 1,211 SET Osseog x 1,128 Randy's Transfer Station, SET Plymouth' x 6,474 Ramsey County (20)' 2014 x 219,000 Shorewood' 20`17 x 784 Randy's Transfer Station, SET St. Bonifacius' 2014 x 760 Randy's Transfer Station, SET St. Louis Parka CS, 2013; x x 12,300 13,300 SET DO, 2017 Swift County (30)' 2000 x 4,231 Swift County Wayzata' 2013 x 1,296 Randy's Transfer Station, SET 14 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. copyaant @ 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) BIoCycLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORF Y Table 1. Residential Food Waste Collection Access In the U.S., 2017 (cont.) State/City/County/ Waste District Minnesota (cont.) Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) (17)' New Hampshire Portsmouth New Jersey Lambertville Lawrence Township Princeton New York New York City Scarsdale Tompkins County (11)' Watervliet North Carolina Orange County (6)' Wake Ccunty (14)' Ohio Luckey Oregon Eugene Forest Grove Hood River Keizer Lake Oswego Portland Silverton Stayton Turner Woodburn Pennsylvania State College Texas Austin San Antonio Vermont Chittenden County, (20)' Windham County (24)' Virginia Alexandria Falls Church tINashington Bellingham Burlington Deer Park"' Edmonds King County (40)' Kitsap County (5)' Lake Stevens Monroe Mukilteo Olympia Redmond Seattle Households Households With With Start Curbside Drop -Off Access To Access To Date (CS) (DO) Curbside Drop -Off 2004 2016 2014 x X 2011 x CS, 2013; x DO, 2007 2017 2013 2017 x 2016 2015 2010 x 2016 x 2017 x x 2016 x 2011 x 2013 x 2013 x 2017 x 2001 2013 x 2013 2017 x 2006 x 2004 x X 2008 x 2004 x 2007 x x x x 2008 x 2004 x 2005 x x x 1,958 12,363 7,200 x 790,000 x x 90 r, 443 1.500 5,500 2.100 4,497 12,000 157,000 1.558 2,599 671 1,016 3,600 52;000 351,000 19,767 3,025 19,000 824 1.394 8,500 337,462 70,000 10,213 4,777 7.900 23,000 11,313 296,633 Processing Facility 115,173 WLSSD 5,244 Mr. Fox Composting Ag Choice 3,113,5354 Staten Island Compost Site, Newtown Creek WWTP, multiple additional regional processors 5.500 Green Mountain Compost 40,000 Cayuga Compost 20,000 Anaerobic digester 57.000 Brooks Contractor 452,000 McGill Compost Hirzel Farms 1,3944 Rexius Dirt Hugger Pacific Region Compost Nature's Need, Pacific Region Compost, Dirt Hugger, Compost Oregon BioCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright J 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 15 State College Borough Composting Facility Organics by Gosh New Earth 67,000 Green Mountain Compost 26.840 Windham Solid Waste Management District 20,000 Prince George's County (MD) OCF 5,166 Compost Crew farm & Veteran Compost Green Earth Technology Skagit Soils 1,3944 Barr -Tech, LLC Cedar Grove Cedar Grove Cedar Grove Silver Springs Organics Cedar Grove Composting Cedar Grove Composting BioCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright J 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 15 Table 1. Residential Food Waste Collection Access In the U.S., 2017 (cont.) State/City/County/ Waste District Washington (cont.) Spokane County (13)' Tacoma Wisconsin Madison Milwaukee Shorewood Total Households With Start Curbside Drop -Off Access To Date (CS) (DO) Curbside CS, 2010; x DO. 2003 2012 x 2011 x 2016 x 2017 x 148 Households With Access To Drop -Off x 134.562 197,228 x 55,000 55,000 3,000 20,076 100 67 5,073,069 6,701,927 Processing Facility Barr -Tech, LLC Waste Connections, Compost Factory "olue Ribbon Organics The Farms Blue Ribbon Organics 'Number of communities with residential food scraps collection programs. 2Full county is not serviced—only City of Napa plus unincorporated area immediately sur- rcunding the city. 'Twelve member agencies: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Faster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, the County of San Mateo and the West Bay Sanitary District. 4Number based on census data; otherwise provided by program contact. 51n Lake County. 'Mill Creek is a community within the City of Geneva, but the curbside pilot is administered by Kane County. 'Howard' County's pilot area spans several unincorporated towns such as Ellicott City, however the pilot spans 3 routes, which are not specific to any community. Thus, it is counted here as serving just one community. 5 Community in Anoka County but has its own program. 9Located in Hennepin County. Each of these cities and towns has its own curbside program. Hennepin County is listed separately for its countywide drop-off program. 'ODeer Park is in Spokane County but has its own curbside and drop-off programs. Table 2. Curbside collection, 2013/14 vs. 2016/17 WoCycle studies Year 2013/14 2016/17 Number of programs' 79 148 Number of communities 198 326 Number of states 19 20 Number of households 2,740,000 5,073,069 'in some cases, one program covers multiple com- munities 16 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright @2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioGycle.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 3. Curbside collection: Program scale, type and collection provider (77 programs reporting) City/County/ Curbside Curbside Curbside Collection Waste District Scale' Type, Provider California Lake Bluff' Berkel-ay Full-scale all Std. Government (Govt) Costa Mesa Sanitary District(3)3 Full-scale all Sid. Contractor Davis Full-scale SFD Mand. Contractor Dublin FuV-scale SFD Std. Contractor Fremont Full-scale SFD Mand. Contractor Modesto Partial Std. Contractor Morgan Hill Full-scale SFD Std Contractor Mountain View Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Napa County(2)1 Full-scale all Std. Contractor Oakland Full-scale all Mand. Contractor Oceanside Pilot Std. Govt Pala Alto Full-scale all Mand. Govt San Francisco Full-scale all Mand. Exclusive collector San Leandro Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Santa Monica Fu -scale SFD Std. Govt Colorado Opt -in Govt University Park Boulder County(11)' Full-scale SFD Opt-in Contractorii Govt Denver Partial Opt-in Govt Lafayette Full-scale SFD Opt-in Cambridge Idaho Boise Partial Std. Govt Illinois Lake Bluff' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Mill Creek Special Service Area6 Pilot Std. Contractor Mundelein.' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor North Barrington' Full-scale SFD Mand. Contractor Northfield Pilot Opt -in Contractor pak Park Full-scale SFD Opt -in Contractor Iowa Cedar Rapids Fu -scale SFD Std. Govt North Liberty Full-scale SFD Opt -in Maine Scarborough Pilot Mand. Contractor South Portland Pilot Std Contractor Maryland Howard County' Pilot Opt -in Contractor Prince George's County Pilot Opt -in Contractor Takoma Park Full-scale SFD Opt -in Govt University Park Pilot Opt -in Govt Massachusetts Revell'! Contractor Cambridge Not Std. GTO Dover Contractor Ipswich Full-scale all Opt -in Govt + contractor Manchester By The Sea Contractor Nevburyport Contractor Wenham Full-scale all Mand. Contractor Minnesota Brooklyn Center' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Buffalo Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Corcoran' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Delano Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Elk River Full-scale SFD Opt -in Contractor Hutchinson Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Maple Grove' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Maple Plain' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Medina' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Minneapolis Full-scale SFD Std. Govt + contractor Minnetonka' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Montrose Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORnY Copyright ® 2017 by The JG Press. Inc. (BioLycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 17 Table 3, Curbside collection: Program scale, type and collection provider (cont.) City/County/ Curbside Curbside Curbside Collection Waste District Scaler Type, Provider Minnesota (cont.) New Hope' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Or ono.-. Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Plymouth8 Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Shorewoode Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor St. Bonifacius' Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor St. Louis Parke Full-scale SFD Opt -in Contractor Wayzatae Full-scale SFO Sid. Contractor New jetsey Lambertville Opt -in Princeton Partial Opt -in Contractor New York New York City Partial Std. Govt Ohio Luckey Std. Contractor Oregon Eugene Pilot Std. Contractor Hood River Full-scale SFD Std, Contractor Lake Oswego Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Portland' Full-scale SFD Std. Franchise haulers(14) Pennsylvania State College Full-scale SFD Std. Govt Texas Austin Partial Std. Govt San Antonio Full-scale SFD Std. Govt Vermont Windham County(24)3 Full-scale SFD Std. Contractor Virginia Falls Church Full-scale SFD Opt -In Contractor Washington Bellingham Opt -in Contractor King County(40)3 Full-scale all Std. Contractor Olympia Full-scale all Opt -in Govt Seattle Full-scale all Mand. Govt Spokane County(13)1 Full-scale SFD Std. Govt + Contractor Tacoma Full-scale all Opt -in Govt Wisconsin Madison Partial Opt -in Contractor Milwaukee Pilot Opt -in Contractor Shorewood Pilot Opt -in Contractor 'Partial = program not fully roiled out to entire community. Full-scale all = fully rolled out community -wide including all multifamily households. Full-scale SFD = single family (all single-family households OR all house- holds with city trash service). 20pt-in = households must sign up to take part. Std. = standard offering, offered along with trash and recycling, but participation is optional. Mand. = mandatory, offered along with trash and recycling, but participation is required.'3Number of communities with residential food scraps collection programs. 'Full county is not serviced — only City of Napa plus unincorporated area immediately surrounding the city. 'In Lake County. 6M511 Creek is a community within the City of Geneva, but the curbside pilot is admin- istered by Kane County. "While Howard's pilot area spans several unincorporated towns such as Ellicott City, this pilot spans 3 routes, which are not specific to any community. Thus, it is counted here as serving just one community, the county (which has no incorporated communities.) 91-ocated in Hennepin County. Each of these cities and towns has its own curbside program. Hennepin County is listed separately for its countywide drop-off program.'Households contract directly with hauler to provide collection. 18 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright © 2017 by The Press, Inc. (BioCycle net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 4, Materials accepted, curbside programs Compostable Yard Food Soiled Paper Molded Fiber Plastic Fruit & Meat, Trimmings/ Coated vwl Coated w/ Containers Foodservice Compostable State/City/County/ Vegetable Fish & Green Paper Conventional Compostable (e.g. Items & Plastic Solid Waste District Scraps Dairy Waste sags Uncoated Plastics Plastics bagasse) Packaging Bags California Alameda x x x x Albany x x x x x x x Berkeley x x x x x x x x x x Central Contra Costa x x x x x Sanitary District Costa Mesa Sanitary Dist. x x x x X Cupertino x Davis x x x x x x x x x x Dublin x x x x x x x x x Emeryville x x x x x Fremont x x x x x x x x x x Hayward x x x x x Livermore x X X X x Marin County x x x x x x Modesto x x x x x x x x x Morgan Hill x x x x x Mountain View x x x x x x x x Napa County x x x x x x x x x Newark x x x x x Oakland x x x Oceanside x x Palo Alto x x x x x x x x x x Piedmont x x x x x x x x Pleasanton x x x x x San Francisco x x x x x x x San Leandro x x x x x x x San Luis Obispo County x x Santa Clara County (uninc.) x x x x x Santa Monica X X x X X Sonoma County x x x x x South Bayside WMA x x x x x x x x x South San Francisco x x x x x x Stockton x x Sunnyvale x x Tulare x x x x x Union City x x x x x Visalia x x x Colorado Boulder County x x x x x x x x x Deriver x x x x x x x Golden x x x x x x x x Lafayette x x x x x x x x x Idaho Boise x x x Illinois Arlington Heights x x Bannockburn x x x Barrington x x x {leer Park x x x DeKalb x x x Fox Lake x X x Glen Ellyn x x x Glenview x x x Grayslake x x x Hawthorn Woods x x x Highland Park x x x Highwood x x x Island Lake x x x x x x Lake Bluff x x Mill Creek Special Service Area x x x Mundelein x x North Barrington x x x x Northfield x x x x x BIoCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORnY Copyright D 2017 by The JG Press. Inc. (BioCyde.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 19 Table 4. Materials accepted, curbside programs (cont.) Illinois (cant.) Oak Park x x Compostable Yard Food Soiled Paper Molded Fiber Plastic Fruit & Meat, Trimmings Coated w/ Coated w/ Containers Foodservice Compostable State/City/County/ Vegetable Fish & Green Paper Conventional Compostable (e.g. Items & Plastic Solid Waste District Scraps Dairy Waste Bags Uncoated Plastics Plastics bagasse) Packaging Bags Illinois (cant.) Oak Park x x x x x x x Port Barrington x x x River forest x x x x x x x Riverwoods x x x Towet Lakes x x x Vola x x Iowa Cedar Rapids x x x x Dubuque x x x x x Iowa City x x x x x x x x x North Liberty x x x x x x x x x Maine Scarborough x x x x x x South Portland x x x Maryland Howard County x x x x x x Prince George's County x x x x x x Takoma Park x x x x x x x University Park x Massachusetts Beverly x x x x x x x x Cambridge x x x x x x x Dover x x Hamilton x x x x x x l,pswidl x x x x x X x x Manchester -by -the -Sea x x x x x x x x x Natick x x x x x x x Newburypoa x x x x x x x x Salem x x x x x x x x Wenham x x x x Michigan Ann Arbnr x x x x Mackinac Island x x x x x Minnesota Brooklyn Center x x x x x Bufiale x x x x x Corcoran x x x x x Delano x x x x x Elk River x x x x x x x Hutchinson x x x x x x x x Loretto x x x x x Maole Grove x x x x x Map!e Plain x x x x x Medicine Lake x x x x x Medina x x x x x Minneapolis x x x x x x x x Minnetonka x x x x x Montrose x x Y x x New Hope x x x x x Orono x x x x x Osseo x x x x x Plymouth x x x x x Shorewood x x x x x x St. Bonitacius x x x x x St. Louis Park x x x x x x x x x Swift County x x x vhy;ata x x x x x x New Jersey Lambertville x x x x x x x x x 20 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright ®2017 by the JG Press, Inc (Biocycle.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 4. Materials accepted, curbside programs (cont.) New Jersey (coni.) Compostable Yard Food Soiled Paper Molded Fiber Plastic Fruit & Meat, Trimmings Coated w/ Coated w/ Containers Foodservice Compostable State/City/County/ Vegetable Fish & Green Paper Conventional Compostable (e.g. Items & Plastic Solid Waste District Scraps Dairy Waste Bags Uncoated Plastics Plastics bagasse) Packaging Bags New Jersey (coni.) Laurence Township x x x x x x Princeton x x x x x x New York New York City x x x x x x x x Watervliet x x Ohio Luckey x x x x x x x x x Oregon Eugene x x x Forest Grove x x x x x Hood River x x Keizer x x x Lake Oswego x x x x x x Portland x x x x x Siiverion x x x Stayton x x x Tumor x x x Woodburn x x x Pennsylvania State College R x x x x x x x x Texas Austin x x x x x x x x x San Antoni❑ x x x x x Vermont Windham County x x x x x x x x x Virginia Falls Church x x x x x x x Washington Bellingham x x x x x x x x x Burlington x x x x x x x x Deer Park x x x x x x Edmonds x x x x x King County x x x x x x x x x Kitsap County x x x x Lake Stevens x x x x x x Monroe x x x x x x Mukilteo x x x x x x Olympia x x x x x x x x Redmond x x x x x x x x Seattle x x x x x x Spokane County x x x x x x Tacoma x x x Wisconsin Madison x x x x x x Milwaukee x x x x x x x x .. Shorewood x x x x x Totals 148 135 105 101 105 10 51 33 63 60 BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLINGAUTHORrY copyright ©2017byThe JGPress, Inc. (BioGycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 21 Table 5, drop-off programs summary Drop-off Programs, 2016/17 Number of programs' 67 Number of communities 32 Number of states 15 Number of households 6,701,927 'In some cases, one program covers multiple com- munities 22 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright® 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (Biocycle.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 6. Drop-off program characteristics Number of 5tateJCity1 Number of Participants Year Service Paid County Sites Per Week Round Pilot Provider Staffed Staff Alaska Gustavus 1 125-150 Yes Government (Govt) Yes Yes California Visalia 2 NO Contractor Colorado Boulder County 6 Yes Gnvt Ygs Yes Denver 1 450 Govt Yes Yes Longmont 1 40 Yes Govt Yes Yes Pitkin County 1 25 Yes Govt Yes Yes Connecticut Bridgewater 1 70 Yes Govt Yes Yes New Fairfield 1 50 Yes Govt Yes Yes Newtown 1 510 Yes Govt Yes Yes Redding 1 50 Yes Govt Yes Yes Ridgefield 1 140 Yes Govt Yes Yes District of Columbia Washington 58 400 Mix Govt + contractor Mix Yes Illinois Lake County 2 Govt + contractor No Maine Falmouth 1 Yes Govt Freeport 1 Yes G ❑A North Yarmouth i Yes Yes Cimlractor South Portland 1 Yes Contractor Yes Yes Yarmouth 1 Govt Yes Yes Massachusetts Acton 1 Yes Govt Amherst 1 Barnstable 1 Govt Basion 6 Yes Govt No Cambridge 4 Govt No Chatham 1 Chilmark 1 Yes Govt Dennis 1 Edgartown 1 Govt Egremont 1 Yes Govt Yes Mix Greenfield 1 Govt Leterett 1 Yes Govt Yer Yes Mashpee 1 Yes Contractor Yes Yes Medfield 1 Yes Govt New Salem 1 Yes Govt Yes Yes Northampton 1 Yes Govt Northfield 1 Yes Govt Yes Yes Orange 1 Yes Govt Yes Yes Wendell 1 Yes Govt Yes Yes West Tisbury 1 Yes Govt VJha,ely 1 Yes Govt Yes Yes Winchester i 200.300 Govt Yes Yes Minnesota Anoka County 2 Yes Contractor Yes Yes Carver Counly 1 40 Yes Contractoi Yes Yes Columbia Heights 1 Yes Goat Yes No Ham Lake 1 Yes Yes Govt Hennepin County 1 Govt Lake Crystal 1 Yes Govt + contractor No Lino Lakes 3 Govt Linwood Township 1 65 Govt No ma4ato 3 Yes Yes Govt No Minneapolis 7 No Yes Govt No North Mankato 1 Govt Ramsey County 8 Yes Govt BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS FTECYCUNG AUTHORITY Copyright @ 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BiaCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 23 Table 6. Drop-off program characteristics (cont.) Number of I.;tateif itv/ Nnmher of Partirinants Yoar Conrir o ont,a Minnesota (cont.) St. Louis Park 3 55 No Yes Contractor No Western Lake Superior 7 Yes Govt Mix, Sanitary District New Hampshire Portsmouth 1 Yes Yes Contractor Yes Yes New York New York City 100 Yes Govt + contractor Mix Scarsdale 1 800 Yes Govt Yes Yes Tompkins County 11 200-300 Yes Contractor Yes Yes North Carolina Orange County 2 Yes Govt Yes Mix Wake County 4 Yes Yes Govt Yes Yes Vermont Chittenden County 8 Yes Govt Yes Yes Windham County 11 Yes Govt + contractor Mix Virginia Alexandria 4 590 Yes Govt Yes Yes Falis Church 1 Yes Contractor No Washington Deer Park 1 Spokane County 4 Yes Govt Yes Yes Tacoma 1 Govt Yes Yes 'Mix = Both staffed and unstaffed 24 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright 0 2017 by The JG Press. Inc. (BioCycle.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 7. Drop-off locations Muitimaterial Uy/County Recycling Drop-off Transfer Municipal Farmers City Composting Community Stale Center/Site Station Buildina' Market Park Site Garden Other Alaska Gustavus x x Calilornia Visalia x Colorado Boulder County x Denver x Longmont x Pitkin County x Connecticut Bridgewater x New Fa'rfield x Nevrtown x Redding x Ridgefield x District of Columbia Washington x x Illinois Lake County x Maine Falmouth x Freeport x North Yarmouth x South Portland x Yarmouth x Massachusetts Acton x Amherst x Barnstable x Boston x Cambridge x x x Chatham x Chilmark x Dennis x Edgartown x Egremont x Greenfield x Leverett x Mashpee x Medfield x Nev., Salem X Northampton x Northfield Orange x Wendell x West Tisbury x Whately x Winchester x Minnesota Anoka County x Carver County x Columbia Heights x Ham Lake x Hennepin County x Lake Crystal x Lino Lakes x x Linwood Township x Mankato x x Minneapolis x x North Mankato x Ramsey County x x BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright 0 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle.net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 25 Table 7. Drop-off locations (cont.) Multimaterial City/County Recycling Drop-off Transfer Municipal Farmers City Composting Community State Center/Site Station Building' Market Park Site Garden Other Minnesota (cont.) St. Louis Park x Western Lake Superior Sanitary District x x New Hampshire Portsmouth x New York New York City x x x Scarsdale x Tompkins County x x North Carolina Orange County x x Wake County x x Vermont Chittenden County x Windham County x Virginia Alexandria x Falls Church x Washington Deer Park x Spokane County x x x Tacoma x TOTALS 32 20 7 6 5 4 2 7 'Examples include Department of Public Works building, municipal office building 26 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright @ 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (eioCycle.net) $IOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Table 8- Materials accepted, drop-off program Bx)CYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright 0 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 27 Compostable Yard Food Soiled Paper Molded Fiber Plastic Fruit & Meat, Trimmings/ Coated w/ Coated %v/ Containers Foodservice Compostable State/City/County/ Vegetable Fish & Green Paper Conventional Compostable (e.g. items & Plastic Solid Waste District Scraps Dairy Waste Bags Uncoated Plastics Plastics bagasse) Packaging Bags Alaska Gustavus x x x x x x x x x California Visalia x x x x Colorado Boulder County x x x x x x x x x Denver x x x x x x x Longmont x x x x x x x x Pitkin County x x x x x x x x x x Connecticut Oddgewater x x x x New Fairfield x x x x Newtown x x x x Redding x x x x Ridgefield x x x x District of Columbia Washington x Illinois Lake County x x Maine Falmouth x x x Freeport x x x North Yarmouth x x x South Portland x x x Yarmouth x x Massac . usetts Acton x x x x x Amherst x x x x x x x x Barnstable x x x Boston x x x Cambridge x x x x x x x Chatham x Chilmark x x x Dennis x x x x Edgartown x x x Egremont x x x Greenfield x x Leverett x x x x x Mashpee x x x x x x x x Medfield x x New Salem x Northampton x x x Northfield x x x x Orange x x x x x Wendell x x x x x Wes: Tisbury x x x Whately x x x x x Winchester x x x Minnesota Anoka Courliy x x x x x x x Carver County x x x x x x x x Columbia Heights x x x x x x x x Ham Lake x x x x x x x Hennepin County x x x x x x x Lake Crystal x x x x x x x x x x Lino Lakes x x x x Linwood Township x x x x x x x x Mankato x x x x x x x Minneapolis x x x x x x x x Bx)CYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORITY Copyright 0 2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycle net) Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. 27 Table 8. Materials accepted, drop -oft program (cont.) 28 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright @2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycls.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORfTY Compostable Yard Food Sol led Paper Molded Fiber Plastic Fruit & Meat, Trimmings Coated w/ Coated w/ Containers Foodservice Compostable State/City/County/ Vegetable Fish & Green Paper Conventional Compostable (e.g. Items & Plastic Solid Waste District Scraps Dairy Waste Bags Uncoated Plastics Plastics bagasse) Packaging Bags Minnesota (cont.) North Mankato x x x x x x x Ramsey County x x x x x x x St. Louis Park x x x x x x x x x Western Lake Superior Sanitary District x x x x x x x x New Hampshire Portsmouth x x x x x New York New York City x x x x x x x Scarsdale x x x x x x x x Tompkins County x x x x North Carolina Orange County x x x x x x x x Wake County x x x x x x x Vermont Chittenden County x x x x x x x x x Windham County x x x x x x x x Virginia Alexandria x x x Falls Church x x x x x x x Washington Deer Park x x x x x x Spokane County x x x x x x Tacoma x x x Totals 67 59 30 38 54 4 24 18 26 36 28 Residential Food Waste Collection Access In The U.S. Copyright @2017 by The JG Press, Inc. (BioCycls.net) BIOCYCLE, THE ORGANICS RECYCLING AUTHORfTY Plymouth Parks & Forestry Buckthorn Bust Guidelines Plymouth Parks & Forestry P I 172 ;b City of Buckthorn Bust Guidelines ymouth Updated October, 2017 F . Adding Quality to Life Working to eradicate invasive plant species from Plymouth's parks is a daunting task, but it becomes less so with the help of the city's dedicated volunteers. Organized by residents and coordinated with the City of Plymouth, buckthorn busts typically take place in the fall every year. Buckthorn, considered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to be one of the most invasive species in the state, out -competes native plants for nutrients, light and moisture. The plant also degrades wildlife habitat, contributes to erosion and hosts pests. City Property Buckthorn Busts taking place on City property can receive the following resources from the City; • Sign(s) in the neighborhood/site promoting buckthorn bust • Tool box provided with weed wrenches, hand saws, loppers and chemical applicators • Delivery and pick-up of the tool box • Pick-up of buckthorn piles from City property Non -City Property Buckthorn Busts taking place on Non -City property will receive the following resources from the City; • Reserving weed wrenches in advance • Volunteer organizer must pick-up/drop-off weed wrenches at the Maintenance Facility • Buckthorn can be disposed at the City Yard Waste Site during normal operation hours For questions, please contact Sonya Rippe, Project Coordinator at srippePplymouthmn.gov or (763) 509-5943. Letter to Leonard and Judy Luedke dated 11/27/17 regarding drainage 1'.0P City of Plymoutffi Adding Quality to Life November 27, 2017 Leonard and Judy Luedke 17910 County Road 47 Plymouth, MN 55446 Dear Mr, and Mrs. Luedke: In response to your concerns raised at the Environmental Quality Committee (EQC), City Council and Planning Commission meetings in November, Staff has reviewed your storm water comments related to The Fields at Meadow Ridge development. With a new development, the developer's engineer is required to submit a detailed storm water management plan that documents they are meeting the requirements from both the City and watershed through the use computer software. Drainage can be designed to generally flow where it had historically, but with treatment and rate control. The development is required to show that there is no increase in the 2, 10 or 100 year storm event flow rates from the existing to the proposed conditions and water volume from existing conditions, and other water quality requirements. The storm water management plan also documents the drainage flowing onto your property in both the pre and post development conditions. The computer software includes site specific information such as soil type and description of the land (i.e. woods, wetland, pasture, open space, etc.) that provides a detailed analysis of the pre and post development conditions. Both the City and watershed review and approve the plan, which was the case with this development. After reanalyzing the storm water management plan, the development meets the requirements by installing ponds and filtration basins. Attached are a couple of figures that show the drainage areas are similarly sized for the pre and post development conditions as well as the pond and filtration bench locations. The development plan shows two ponds, each with a filtration bench, for water treatment for water flowing to the wetland on your property to help control the rates and the volumes. One comment that we have heard from you is your desire to direct more water south under County Road 47 where there is an existing 15" pipe that is being utilized with storm water from the development. Directing additional water would need to be carefully considered as it may impact wetlands, pipes and low floor elevations of homes downstream. This could be considered with a County Road 47 reconstruction project that the City is advocating for in the near future as future build out of County Road 47 should be included in the calculations. Another concern you raised is that wetlands on your property may be expanding as a result of the Fields at Meadow Ridge development. While the State Wetland Conservation Act generally protects wetlands from excavation, fill, and draining, the State Wetland Conservation Act does 3400 Plymouth 611va - Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 0 lel: 763.509-5000 0 w.ww.plymouthmn.gov ► • P:\Planning Applications\2016\2016077 Fields at Meadow Ridge FP\Eng\Letter\Luedke Storm Water Letter docx not regulate "incidental wetlands". Incidental wetlands are defined by the State Wetland Conservation Act as "...wetland areas that the landowner can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the local government unit [City of Plymouth], were created in non -wetland areas solely by actions, the purpose of which was not to create the wetland." I would suggest you consult with a certified wetland delineator who can assist you with both the historic wetland boundary (using aerial photography and topographic mapping) and the current wetland boundary. Your consultant may be able to demonstrate that the wetland(s) on your property have in fact, expanded since development of the neighboring property and if that is the case, those areas would not be regulated by the State Wetland Conservation Act. After hearing your concerns, there may be an issue with sediment buildup in the drainage way on your property downstream of the ponding area. If that is the case, City Staff can help you coordinate a solution which may include dredging a channel on your property to ensure the water can flow properly by removing excess sediment. Please contact us if you're willing to explore this opportunity. If you have questions, please contact me at 763.509.5541. Sincerely, Jim Renneber, , OE City Eng neer enclosure cc: Plymouth City Council Dave Callister, City Manager Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Derek Asche, Water Resources Manager PAP I.nning Applications\2016\2016077 Fields at Meadow Ridge FP\Eng\Letter\Luedke Storm Water Letter.docx ' : V--. I I .Li:~ - .gni ■ '� + }..: -,i• ;-1' 15- ••. � ,�::,- +�! �` � a Ins aso `k%� •'!: ��j, '�.t ^ 's•?i Fre[ .r , _t[ s Iinch. ISO 1-1 r jf[�� , :1 Wltlond 2 fWelfood -01, 04.i I- _ ..;7'o f r —t 11 a�{ We laud D C, Y Il a C !dartrd 4- Uk , --'-- Proposed Site Boundary C* Existing Drainage Areas Existing Tc Path Existing Contours - 2 ft 75 Wetlands r ►' Existing Culvert +ey rein. r upv. lMt mep Ir al mer .own rUM +@S doe. ro! *etr+ I.� map o. Bt 1eatlne; m- ea^•r roallvh ar lrweareF oc ru, a,e m M Io a mm�r.dm v.. ' Figure 2 • Existing Drainage Area Map Sathre-Bergqulst, Inc. - Sands/Bantus Development Plymouth I Hennepin County, MN Adv.ncedrt.1E"M'5 a .. and Env:ronmentnl Bervlcos tnc Localar Map Not M Scat. Dole 4,1 V2011 I C—drool-- iyde— Hennepin County MN (US (se)l wy56lMe112623.2016-011 - PNmoalh Sand1t070 Pleliminary Englneeengl G1S\F1gvry 2 - E[b,ing Cdndlllam - AU9UJfMXd I Edlied by'- AMB P;\Planning Appllcat,—\2016\2016077 Fields at Meadow Ridge FP\Eng\Letter\Luedke Storm Water Letter.docx W \SWhre\ 12623.2014.011 - PlYmoulh Sondl\030 hellminrny ray'nial g1 C1S\figure 3 - hopoaed Condillom - Au9ml msd I NdAed by ANIS P:\Planning Applications\2016\2016077 Fields at Meadow Ridge FP\Eng\letter\Luedke Storm Water Letter.don L} f 7-)t frl MCA rr lxlo jr ! � ~ 1 — h ,yya' a 4 \ yr•Z 'N, P� 1 •v f � Proposed Drainage Areas Proposed Filtration Bench Proposed Contours - 2 ft ;; r,' Wetlands Proposed Storm Sewers Proposed Impervious Surface ar -__. Proposed Site Boundary ' • �' # Proposed NWl > ■ • ti s Existing Culvert w �� t A+Y +eSaKt upea Mb moo I, of ural r own rNk Ar25 door Nol wan oN N.a rneo e. lir fea'k.ea ae e1!F a+.coKa,q p 1eMOvv>•t• eccir-Ye oe R:n. a parNcvla. uae Figure 3 - Proposed Drainage Area Map Sathre-Ber gquist, Inc. •Sands/Bartus Development th PI mouenne iun , MN y � HP•n Co� MvenadEndb!eariu0 and Environman,al Servieaa,b¢. Lacalp Abp Hol to Stale Dale 4%I 1'2011 1 Coardlnale Syrlem N-0. Corm!, MN (Us 1.0; - W \SWhre\ 12623.2014.011 - PlYmoulh Sondl\030 hellminrny ray'nial g1 C1S\figure 3 - hopoaed Condillom - Au9ml msd I NdAed by ANIS P:\Planning Applications\2016\2016077 Fields at Meadow Ridge FP\Eng\letter\Luedke Storm Water Letter.don