Agenda - Council - 06/23/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Program, ICAN DELAY "WORST YEAR" LOSSES AND REDUCE) have reduced annual losses. The Metropo~-~-~ Area has lost only four percent of its 197~ inventory of oak and elm shade trees over the past four years. (TREE WASTE PROJECTIONS ARE DETAILED FOR MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL AND EACH METROPOLITAN COUNTY EXCLUSIVE OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL IN TABLE 5. SHADE TREE DISPOSAL REQUI~MENTS FOR THE NEXT 10 to 20 YEARS ARE ESTIMATED BETWEEN 150,000 AND 600,--~0' TONS PER YEAR.) Although it is difficult to predict, it is anticipated that future shade tree losses will not increase substantially if effective removal and disposal programs continue. Actual annual disposal requirements will vary, depending on the effectiveness of shade tree disease control programs and (THE NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE THE DISEASE WAS FIRST DETECTED) on whether weather conditions are conducive to ~ spread of the disease or not. IDUTCH ELM DISEASE AND OTHER PLANT DISEASE EPIDEMICS CAUSE INCREASING ANNUAL LOSSES UNTIL THE CUMULATIVE LOSS REACHES 50 PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL POPULATION WHEN ANNUAL LOSSES BEGIN TO DECLI--~E. THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CUMULATIVE LOSS REACHES 50 PERCENt--OF THE ORIGINAL TREE POPULATION IS GENERALLY THE WORST YEAR FOR LOSSES.) The Region will never entirely eradicate shade tree diseases. Effective sanitation and disposal programs must continue if the Region is to keep the losses of our shade trees to a minimum. Furthermore, non-diseased wood waste will be generated from storm damaged trees and normal trimming and clearing operations by contractors and homeowners. The Region must, therefore, have a system for utilizing and properly disposing of its wood waste. Tree waste management options available in the Area include land- filling, open burning and wood resource recovery. Figure 8 shows recovery and disposal sites in the Region for diseased shade trees. State and federal statutes ha~e d~clared that open burning is environ- mentally unacceptable. However, in 1976, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Air Quality Divi~-{on modi~-f~d its regulations mo allow open burning of tree waste because of a lack of accessible disposal facilities and spiraling charges at sanitary landfills. Landfilling and Open Burnin~ Prior to 1976, shade tree waste in the Metropolitan Area was primarily disposed of by landfilling. In 1975, when 27,100 trees were lost (less than one percent of the original elm tree popula- tion), diseased trees did not create excessive demands on landfill capacitles~--~so-l-l~W~-~-~e-h-~n~[1-i-h-g equipment. However, th-~ increase in diseased trees (nearly three times the number removed in 1975) crewed significant handling problems for many Area landfills. Trees are not easily compacted and demand more landfill space than municipal solid waste. Landfill equipment, compactors and earth moving equipment are not designed to handle large volumes o~f tree waste. Hence~ increased tree waste volumes have resulted in rising maintenance and operating costs for landfill operators. Some closed their gates to tree waste; others increased their charges. The MPCA and the Council consider landfi~ling and open burning of tree waste interlm disposal methods. If the Region depends on land- ~-{~ing to dispose of tree waste, the anticipated life of ex~stlng