Document elcerrito_gov_doc_e959da672b

DRAFT and FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance Prepared by: March 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION TO THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIR This document contains both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for the West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance. The first document in this volume, the Final EIR, contains responses to comments on the Draft EIR, text revisions, and copies of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is included in this document following the Final EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance Prepared by: March 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance i Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 PREFACE This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance. The DEIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period. This FEIR consists of comments received by the Lead Agency, RecycleMore, on the DEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the text of the DEIR. In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The FEIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. The FEIR is used by the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project. The CEQA Guidelines require that, while the information in the FEIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the DEIR by making written findings for each of those effects. According to the State Public Resources Code (§21081), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph of subdivision the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Copies of all documents referred to in this EIR are available for review at the RecycleMore offices, located at One Alvarado Square, Building 5, San Pablo, CA 94806, during normal business hours. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR will be made available to the public at least ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ii Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING THE DRAFT EIR 3 SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR 4 SECTION 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR 5 SECTION 4.0 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR 8 SECTION 5.0 COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 3 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 SECTION 1.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING THE DRAFT EIR Federal and State Agencies California Air Resources Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Regional and Local Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 Contra Costa County City of El Cerrito City of Hercules City of Pinole City of Richmond City of San Pablo Organizations Save the Plastic Bag Coalition ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 4 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR Presented below is a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the DEIR and the date of the letter received. Comments that raise questions regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or analyses in the DEIR require substantive responses. Comments that contain only opinions regarding the proposed project do not require substantive responses in the FEIR. Complete copies of all the letters are included in Section 5.0 of this FEIR. Comment Received From Date of Letter Response Required? Local Agencies A. Contra Costa County March 4, 2013 Yes B. City of Richmond March 4, 2013 Yes State Agencies C. State of California, Governor’s Office March 5, 2013 No of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 5 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 SECTION 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR The following section includes all of the comments requiring responses contained in letters received during the advertised 45-day DEIR review period by RecycleMore. The comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments have been excerpted from the letter and are presented as “Comment” with each response directly following (“Response”). The letters submitted to RecycleMore are contained in their entirety in Section 5.0 of this document. A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DATED MARCH 4, 2013. COMMENT A.1: On behalf of Contra Costa County, I offer the following comments to the above referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Contra Costa County is not a member of the Joint Powers Authority for West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority, known as RecycleMore. However several unincorporated communities lie within RecycleMore's jurisdiction. These communities include: East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante. In the interest of community integration and parity of statutory ordinances between the municipalities, Contra Costa County would like the ability to adopt the model ordinance prohibiting the free distribution of single-use carryout bags as outlined in the EIR. The County asks RecycleMore to amend the project description in Section 2.4 of the EIR to include Contra Costa County as an agency that can adopt the EIR and the model ordinance within the jurisdiction of RecyleMore's boundary. Additionally, Contra Costa County requests that references to the ability of the County to adopt the EIR and proposed model ordinance be revised as addressed in the following sections of the EIR. • Page 2, paragraph 2 • Page 6, paragraph 1 • Page 8, paragraph 2 • Page 30, paragraph 1 and 2 • Page 187, paragraph 2 • Page 205, paragraph 1 and 2 RESPONSE A.1: The requested revisions to the text have been incorporated into the EIR, and can be found in Section 4.0 Revisions to the Text of the EIR1 (refer to pages 7- 8 of this FEIR), with the exception of the revisions requested in the last two bullet points (pages 187 and 205). These pages are part of the Initial Study 1 Please note that the page numbers listed in this comment refer to numbered page of the pdf document of the EIR downloaded from the RecycleMore website, and do not match the actual page numbers of the EIR (ie, page 23 of the EIR is referred to as “page 30” in the comment because it is the 30th page in the pdf file, which assigns numbers to unnumbered pages such as the cover and table of contents). ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 6 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 completed for the project prior to preparation of the EIR, which is included as an appendix to the EIR. Changes to the text of the EIR do not extend to the text of the Initial Study, as it represents a previous analysis of the project. Changes to the text of the Initial Study are not necessary for the County to use the EIR, in which the text has been revised as requested, as a responsible agency in deciding whether to adopt an ordinance covering the unincorporated areas of the West County. B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF RICHMOND, DATED MARCH 4, 2013. COMMENT B.1: Thank you for allowing the City of Richmond, Planning and Building Services Department to comment on the proposed West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance. It was a pleasure to find that our previous concerns were addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by RecycleMore for the proposed ordinance. Our concern stems from the size of the RecycleMore agencies and service areas within West Contra Costa County. Most importantly, the City of Richmond has a population of 103,701 and a land territory of 55.9 square miles. By all accounts we would be classified as a large city. Given our size, and recent news reports on the Supreme Court decision that upheld the ban in Manhattan Beach, CA (population 35,135); we suggested that an EIR should be considered instead of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to explore all proposed cumulative impacts regarding banning plastic bags. Particularly, in light of concerns about contamination and risks associated with reusable bags. The draft environmental document answered most of our concerns related to contamination and risks associated with recycled bags. According to the document, more studies are needed and implementation of alternatives to lessen these effects. One alternative is for the consumer to wash their recyclable cloth bags regularly or opt to purchase recyclable paper bags for 5 cents from stores. Consistently, concerns have been raised about potentially harmful bacteria travelling to and from the meat section through repeated use of bags. In order to reduce this problem to a level of insignificance, we recommend that stores provide bags in the meat section similar to the ones that are provided for produce. This practice should reduce the potential for contamination. RESPONSE B.1: Because the EIR did not identify significant impacts related to contaminants in reusable bags, no mitigation measures are necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The model ordinance analyzed in the EIR allows for the distribution of free plastic bags for the purposes of transporting meat and produce. Individual stores are free to implement this practice. COMMENT B.2: Staff is in agreement that single-use carryout bags are better for our landfills and less plastic litter will end up in Contra Costa waterways. Additionally, once behavioral changes are implemented among the populace this change will be welcomed by all patrons. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 7 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 We are still concerned with the lack of community awareness of the process for banning plastic bags within West Contra Costa County. Although, if individual cities adopt a specific ordinance tailored to their municipality this would benefit the entire West County area. We still believe there should a one to two year transition period for businesses to adapt to the proposed ordinance. RESPONSE B.2: This comment is noted. Individual member agencies may choose to conduct appropriate community outreach prior to adopting an ordinance, and may include a one- to two-year transition period in the implementation of their respective ordinances, if desired. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 8 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 SECTION 4.0 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT EIR The following section contains revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance, dated August 2012. Underlining depicts text added, while strikeouts depict text deleted. Page i: INSERT the following text in the PREFACE section, second paragraph: RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. This EIR also provides the environmental analysis needed for RecycleMore’s Member Agencies to adopt single- use bag reduction ordinances with approval by their own governing board or council. Although it is not an official Member Agency of RecycleMore, Contra Costa County, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area (East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante), is considered a responsible agency for the purposes of this EIR and can utilize this EIR to adopt a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance that applies to those communities. Page v: INSERT the following text in the SUMMARY section, first paragraph: This is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by RecycleMore to address the impacts of implementing a proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County. For the purposes of this EIR, RecycleMore is the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. Although it is not an official Member Agency of RecycleMore, Contra Costa County, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area (East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante), is considered a responsible agency for the purposes of this EIR and can utilize this EIR to adopt a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance that applies to those communities. Page 1: INSERT the following text in Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION, first paragraph: At the behest of its Member Agencies, RecycleMore is developing a model single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance for consideration and potential adoption by its Member Agencies. RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. Although it is not an official Member Agency of RecycleMore, Contra Costa County, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 9 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 (East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante), is considered a responsible agency for the purposes of this EIR and can utilize this EIR to adopt a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance that applies to those communities. Page 2: INSERT the following text in Section 2.2: PROJECT LOCATION, first paragraph: RecycleMore's service area encompasses roughly 74 square miles in West Contra Costa County. The project area includes five incorporated cities (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo) in addition to unincorporated areas. If adopted by all Member Agencies as it is proposed, the Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance would apply to all retail establishments within West Contra Costa County, with the exception of restaurants and take-out food establishments. Although it is not an official Member Agency of RecycleMore, Contra Costa County, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area (East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante), is considered a responsible agency for the purposes of this EIR and can utilize this EIR to adopt a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance that applies to those communities. Page 7: INSERT the following text in Section 2.4: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, first paragraph: RecycleMore is proposing a model ordinance to be used by its Member Agencies for the purpose of regulating the distribution of single-use carryout bags at the point of sale in West Contra Costa County. Although it is not an official Member Agency of RecycleMore, Contra Costa County, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area (East Richmond Heights, North Richmond, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante), is considered a responsible agency for the purposes of this EIR and can utilize this EIR to adopt a single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance that applies to those communities. Page 23: REVISE the text of Section 3.0: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES, first paragraph, as follows: While the discussion in the EIR assumes that all of the Member Agencies of RecycleMore, along with Contra Costa County on behalf of the unincorporated communities within RecycleMore’s service area, would adopt the ordinance as it is described, the most basic purpose for preparing any CEQA analysis is to provide useful information to the decision makers, who may subsequently choose to modify the project based on the EIR or other information. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 10 Final EIR RecycleMore March 2013 SECTION 5.0 COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS The original comment letters on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance are provided on the following pages. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance Prepared by: January 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance i Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 PREFACE This document has been prepared by RecycleMore, which for the purposes of this EIR is the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), as the Lead Agency in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision makers and the general public of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to identify ways in which the significant effects might be minimized, and to identify alternatives to the project that could avoid or reduce those significant impacts. RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. This EIR also provides the environmental analysis needed for RecycleMore’s Member Agencies to adopt single-use bag reduction ordinances with approval by their own governing board or council. In accordance with CEQA, this EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project, both to the decision makers who will be considering and reviewing the proposed project and to the general public. The following guidelines are included in CEQA to clarify the role of an EIR: §15121. Informational Document. An EIR is an informational document, which will inform public agency decision makers, and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR, along with other information which may be presented to the agency. While the information in the EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary by making a statement of overriding considerations. §15145. Speculation. If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. §15146. Degree of Specificity. The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of a project than will an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ii Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction project that might follow. §15151. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently considers environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. This EIR and all documents referenced in it are available for public review at the office of RecycleMore located at 1 Alvarado Square, San Pablo, California 94806, on weekdays during normal business hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance iii Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i SUMMARY v SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 22 3.1 AESTHETICS 34 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 39 3.3 AIR QUALITY 41 3.4 BIOLOGICAL 45 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 59 3.6 GEOLOGY 60 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 61 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 74 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 83 3.10 LAND USE 89 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 97 3.12 NOISE 98 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 100 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 101 3.15 RECREATION 102 3.16 TRANSPORTATION 103 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 105 3.18 ENERGY 110 SECTION 5.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 119 SECTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 120 SECTION 7.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 122 SECTION 8.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 123 SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES 124 SECTION 10.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 132 Tables Table 2.3-1: Annual Single-Use Bag Usage in West Contra Costa County Based on Population 2 Table 2.3-2: Litter Statistics from Coastal Cleanups 6 Table 3.0-2: Letter Codes for Environmental Issues 28 Table 3.7-1: Nolan-ITU Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags 67 Table 3.7-2: Boustead Consulting & Associates LCA Greenhouse Gas Emissions 68 Table 3.7-3: Ecobilan for Carrefour Greenhouse Gas Emissions 69 Table 3.8-1: Comparison of Microbiological Contamination on Reusable Bags and Household Surfaces 79 Table 3.9-1: Ecobilan for Carrefour Consumption of Non-Renewable Primary Energy 111 Table 3.9-2: Nolan-ITU Primary Energy Use Associated with Carryout Bags 112 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance iv Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued Figures Figure 1: RecycleMore Member Agencies and Service Area 3 Figure 2: Marine Sanctuaries 50 Figure 3: Types of Plastic and Paper Commonly Used in Bags 90 Photographs Photo 1: Single-Use HDPE Plastic Bag 10 Photo 2: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bags 10 Photo 3: Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag 11 Photo 4: Non-Grocery Single-Use Shopping Bags 11 Photo 5: Various Reusable Bags 12 Photo 6: Various Reusable Bags 12 Photo 7: Various Reusable Bags 13 Photo 8: Single-Use Paper Bags with Recycled Content 14 Photo 9: 34 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 14 Photo 10: 40 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 15 Photo 11: 100 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 15 Photo 12: Davis Street Transfer Center 16 Photo 13: Residue from Recycling Facility 17 Photo 14: Plastic Bag Litter from Newby Island Sanitary Landfill 18 Photo 15: Plastic Bag Litter from Altamont Landfill 18 Photo 16: Single-Use HDPE Plastic Bag – 57 Tennis Balls (1:1) 29 Photo 17: Single-Use LDPE Plastic Bag – 70 Tennis Balls (1.2:1) 29 Photo 18: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bag – 86 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 30 Photo 19: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bag – 114 Tennis Balls (2:1) 30 Photo 20: PET Plastic Reusable Bag – 114 Tennis Balls (2:1) 31 Photo 21: Cotton Mesh Reusable Bag – 70 Tennis Balls (1.2:1) 31 Photo 22: Polypropylene Reusable Bag – 87 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 32 Photo 23: Nylon Reusable Bag – 84 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 32 Photo 24: LDPE Reusable Bag – 94 Tennis Balls (1.6:1) 33 Photo 25: Underwater Photo of Pacific Gyre 48 Appendices Appendix A: NOP Appendix B: Draft Ordinance Appendix C: Summary of Available Information on Reusable Shopping Bags Appendix D: Summary of Life Cycle Assessments Appendix E: Initial Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance v Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SUMMARY This is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by RecycleMore to address the impacts of implementing a proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County. For the purposes of this EIR, RecycleMore is the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. This EIR also provides the environmental analysis needed for RecycleMore’s Member Agencies to adopt single-use bag reduction ordinances with approval by their own governing board or council. CEQA allows a lead or responsible agency to approve a smaller project than that described in the EIR, or to approve a part of the project described in the EIR. In addition, the project may be changed in order to incorporate new elements that further reduce or avoid adverse impacts and still be covered by the same EIR. This EIR analyzes the maximum impact scenario that could occur with the adoption of the ordinance by all Member Agencies. The maximum impact scenario is a set of assumptions about the scope and design of each of the ordinance that would likely result in the greatest environmental impacts. Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinance: RecycleMore is proposing a model ordinance that, if adopted by individual Member Agencies, would regulate the distribution of single-use carryout bags at the point of sale in West Contra Costa County. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale check-out) for all retail establishments in the West County except restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. This includes department stores, clothing stores, liquor stores, book stores, specialty stores, drug stores, convenience stores, etc. This ordinance does not distinguish among types of plastic or types of plastic bags beyond their ability to be reused multiple times. Single-use plastic bags provided free to customers at the check-out stand for the purpose of holding the customer’s purchases are prohibited by the ordinance. Plastic carryout bags are allowed if the bags are intended and identified as reusable as defined in the proposed ordinance. An exception to the ban on single-use bags would be made for paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content, as long as the retail establishment charges at least five cents for each bag. The retail establishment would be required to charge for the exempt paper bags so that the cost of carryout bags is no longer hidden in the price of the merchandise, and the customer can choose whether to pay or not to pay the cost of the bag, and therefore, whether to use one. The ordinance would exclude plastic or paper bags that are used by customers or the retail establishment to protect or contain meat, fresh produce, food prepared at the establishment, or other goods that must be protected from moisture, damage, or contamination, and that are typically placed inside a carryout bag at the point of sale. Restaurants, take-out food establishments, or any other businesses that receive their revenue primarily from the sale of food cooked or otherwise prepared at the establishment would be exempt from the ordinance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance vi Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Below is a summary of potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation identified or proposed to reduce the impact from each project. This section is only a summary. You must consult the text of the EIR (which immediately follows this summary) for a complete description of the project, the analysis, and all identified impacts. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION No significant impacts were identified for this project. No mitigation is required. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following alternatives are identified and evaluated in this EIR: No Project Alternative Alternatives to Reduce Less than Significant Impacts (ie, warning labels on reusable bags) AREAS OF CONTROVERSY KNOWN TO THE LEAD AGENCY At this time, no areas of controversy are known to exist in West Contra Costa County specifically related to the proposed ordinance. In 2007, the City of Oakland was sued by representatives of the plastic bag industry because the industry representatives argued that the City should not have found a proposed ordinance banning distribution of single use plastic bags by some stores to be categorically exempt from CEQA because the ban would cause a significant increase in paper bag use, which increase would have a significant effect on the environment. [Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling vs. City of Oakland] Subsequently, similar objections have been raised, mainly the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition1, about proposed regulations banning or restricting distribution of single- use carryout bags in other communities, including Palo Alto, San Jose, Los Angeles County, Santa Monica, and Manhattan Beach. 1 According to a 2011 Wall Street Journal story, this is a coalition of “plastic bag makers and distributors”. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 1 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by RecycleMore to address the environmental impacts of implementing a proposed single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance in West Contra Costa County. For the purposes of this EIR, RecycleMore is the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). This EIR is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). RecycleMore is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this EIR to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project. At the behest of its Member Agencies, RecycleMore is developing a model single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance for consideration and potential adoption by its Member Agencies. RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. A copy of the draft model ordinance is attached to this EIR as Appendix B. CEQA CONTEXT CEQA requires that a lead agency prepare an EIR for a project when there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the physical environment. The effect may be: a direct physical change caused by or immediately related to the project; or an indirect physical change. An indirect physical change shall be considered “only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.” [CEQA Guidelines §15064] RecycleMore prepared and circulated an Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration for the proposed ordinance in August 2012. Although the IS did not identify evidence of any significant negative environmental impacts associated with the ordinance, the Agency is preparing an EIR to address comments received on the Initial Study from the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition2, and also to incorporate new information that was made available subsequent to circulation of the Initial Study regarding the effectiveness of existing bag reduction ordinances in other jurisdictions in California. 2 According to a 2011 Wall Street Journal story, this is a coalition of “plastic bag makers and distributors”. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 2 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION RecycleMore's service area encompasses roughly 74 square miles in West Contra Costa County. The project area includes five incorporated cities (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo) in addition to unincorporated areas. If adopted by all Member Agencies as it is proposed, the Single- Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance would apply to all retail establishments within West Contra Costa County, with the exception of restaurants and take-out food establishments. Figure 1 shows West Contra Costa County and the various jurisdictions within its boundary. 2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND This section contains a brief summary of the circumstances and conditions that have resulted, in part, in the currently proposed project. More information on many of these conditions is included in the body of the EIR, under the specific impact sections. The website for the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) contains a 2007 estimate made by the Progressive Bag Alliance that retail establishments in California hand out approximately 19 billion single-use plastic bags at the point of sale annually, at a rate of 600 bags per second. This equates to an average of over 350,000 single-use plastic bags given away in West Contra Costa County every day of the year, or roughly 1.4 single-use plastic bags per person per day for every man, woman and child in the area. Table 2.3-1 lists the estimated quantities of plastic and paper single-use bags used in each city in West Contra Costa County on an annual basis. There is no single or definitive estimate about the number of single-use paper bags distributed to the public. The San Francisco Environment Department estimated that bags distributed at San Francisco supermarkets in 2004 consisted of 90 percent plastic bags and 10 percent paper 3 Note: Bag usage totals are based on 2010 population estimates for California and the individual Member Agencies of RecycleMore and are rounded to the nearest 1,000. Because the estimates are population-based, numbers may also reflect bags obtained in one city and transported to another jurisdiction. Totals may not add due to rounding. Table 2.3-1: Annual Single-Use Bag Usage in West Contra Costa County Based on Population3 Jurisdiction Population Plastic Bags Paper Bags El Cerrito 23,549 11,913,000 1,624,000 Hercules 24,060 12,171,000 1,660,000 Pinole 18,390 9,303,000 1,269,000 Richmond 103,701 52,459,000 7,153,000 San Pablo 29,139 14,740,000 2,010,000 Unincorporated 44,801 27,195,000 3,090,000 Total 243,640 127,780,000 16,807,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 4 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 bags.4 A study produced more recently for the City of Seattle estimated that, based on statistics garnered from waste characterization studies, roughly 80 percent of single-use grocery bags distributed for free are plastic and 20 percent are paper.5 A similar study done for the City of San Jose estimated that 88 percent of the single-use bags given away are plastic and 12 percent are paper.6 Based on the San Jose estimate, it is likely that approximately 16.8 million paper single-use bags in addition to the 127.8 million plastic single-use bags are distributed given away free) in West Contra Costa County annually. The estimate for paper bags distributed in West Contra Costa County averages over 46,000 single-use paper bags per day, or approximately 0.2 single-use paper bags per person per day. The predominant type of single-use plastic bag distributed at point-of-sale in West Contra Costa County and throughout California is the high density polyethylene (HDPE) bag shown in Photo 1. The bag in the picture weighs approximately five grams. The most common type of single-use paper grocery bag is made of unbleached kraft paper. Photo 2 shows the two most common sizes distributed for free in West Contra Costa County. The two bags in the picture weigh 45 grams and 65 grams. 2.3.1 Waste Management According to CalRecycle’s 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study, approximately 155,848 tons of paper bags and 123,405 tons of plastic grocery and merchandise bags were disposed of in 2008, comprising 0.4 percent and 0.3 percent of all landfilled waste in California, respectively. Because of the lighter weight of plastic bags, these numbers represent considerably more plastic bags in the waste stream by number and volume than paper. Once in a landfill, both types of bags will eventually break down, albeit very slowly. Changes that have occurred in the tons disposed at the state level demonstrate a critical difference between the recyclability of the two types of bags. In 2003, approximately 386,097 tons of paper bags and 147,038 tons of plastic grocery and merchandise bags were disposed in the state. In five years, the quantity of paper bags disposed was reduced by over 59 percent. The quantity of plastic grocery and merchandise bags was reduced by 16 percent. Since this time period also coincided with a significant increase in new and expanded recycling programs and recycling statewide, it is likely that much of the reduction was due to recycling, but the percentage recycled for paper is much larger than for plastic. No municipal recycling program was identified that diverts substantial percentages of plastic bags from landfill and litter, particularly not any serving a major city. In San Jose, a city with a large and diverse population similar in many ways to that of West Contra Costa County, the City’s Recycle 4 San Francisco Department of the Environment. November 18, 2004 Bag Cost Analysis: Costs Associated with Paper and Plastic Bags. November 18, 2004. http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfenvironment_page.asp?id=28374. 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 1. January 29, 2008. 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants. City of San Jose Single-use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis – Final Report. June 22, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 5 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Plus residential curbside recycling program accepted plastic bags for recycling from roll-out of the city-wide program in 1993 until early 2009, or for approximately 15 years. Despite extensive public education and outreach efforts, there was limited success with plastic bag recycling in the City of San Jose. Residents were willing to recycle plastic bags in large numbers and put them into the recycling bins, but most failed to understand that bags needed to be clean, have nothing adhering to them, and they needed to be bagged or packaged together so they would not be contaminated by all of the organic materials, dirt and other contaminants in the recycled materials stream. The City distributed educational materials, but little improvement occurred. It was therefore neither convenient nor easy to recycle the bags, despite their being collected in a curbside program. Plastic bags increase labor and costs at recycling facilities due to interference with machinery, leading to frequent system shutdowns and the need for manual cleaning, which is corroborated by operations at the Davis Street transfer station and materials recovery facility (MRF) in San Leandro (see Photo 12). In addition, plastic bags often become mixed with other recyclables, reducing the market value of those materials. The City of San Jose recycling facility operators reported that bales of recycled plastic bags had little or no value on the market and the operators were paying 180 dollars per ton to have those bales taken away. In 2009, San Jose began encouraging residents to return plastic bags to local grocery stores for their in-store recycling programs, and discontinued promoting plastic bag recycling through the residential Recycle Plus program. The nature of single-use plastic bags and lightweight plastic film makes recycling them difficult because they are lightweight, easily airborne, and difficult to handle efficiently. In addition, because they are so numerous (127.8 million distributed in West Contra Costa County every year), they migrate within the materials recovery facilities and contaminate virtually all other recycled materials streams (see to Photos 12 and 13 of landfills in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties). 2.3.2 Litter and Waterways Single-use carryout bags, especially plastic bags, contribute to a persistent litter problem that is of growing concern for the health of waterways locally and worldwide. Marine debris ocean pollution) has been shown to have dramatic impacts on wildlife and habitat, and most marine debris is comprised of plastic materials. An estimated 60 to 80 percent of all marine debris (and 90 percent of floating debris) is plastic. [For extensive discussions of plastic in the marine environment and the effects on marine life, see Algalita Marine Research Foundation, Pelagic Plastic; Andrady, Plastics in the Marine Environment: A Technical Perspective; Arthur, Bamford & Baker, The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans; Day, Shaw & Ignell, “The Quantitative Distribution and Characteristics of Neuston Plastics in the North Pacific Ocean, 1985-1989”; Gregory, “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions”; Spear, David & Ribic, “Incidence of Plastic in Seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984-91….”; and other sources listed in the References section of this EIR]. Land-based sources, such as stormwater runoff from urbanized areas, are the dominant contributor. The 2009 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) report, produced by the Ocean Conservancy, found that in 2008, plastic bags were the second most common debris item collected worldwide during the annual one-day coastal cleanup event. Cigarettes and cigarette filters were the most common item ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 6 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 littered worldwide; paper bags were the sixth most common debris item collected.7 In the 2010 report, plastic bags remain the second most common element in the coast litter totals, after cigarettes and cigarette filters. Paper bags, however, fell to tenth place in the international rankings in the one-day coastal cleanup. In the United States, plastic bags are the fourth most commonly littered item found on beaches. Paper bags are ninth. In California, plastic bags rose from being the four mostly commonly found item of litter to third (an increase of 25 percent), and paper bags ninth to seventh (an increase of 20 percent). The table below summarizes some of the raw numbers of the more commonly littered items documented by the Ocean Conservancy from the litter collections over two years. Table 2.3-2: Litter Statistics from Coastal Cleanups Worldwide United States California 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Paper Bags 530,607 331,476 78,417 89,626 24,194 29,269 Plastic Bags 1,377,141 1,126,774 229,758 268,166 52,544 65,736 Food Wrapping/ Containers 942,620 943,233 397,231 427,439 114,758 124,637 Caps/Lids 937,804 912,246 379,231 410,073 83,069 64,517 The preparers of the 2008 Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan completed by the District of Columbia Department of the Environment discovered that plastic bags made up 21 percent of the trash in the main river and 47 percent of the trash in tributaries to the river. A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in storm drain catch basins by weight. The exact quantities and proportions vary, but the weight of evidence indicates that plastic bags are present in, and comprise a substantial component of, the litter in urban environments and local streams in the United States. In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.8 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay 7 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It). 2009. 8 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 7 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. Even placed appropriately in garbage containers after use, single-use plastic bags can become a part of the urban litter problem. The bags are light-weight and so, during transfer (from residential garbage cart or from bin to collection vehicle or from collection vehicle to the working face of the landfill), can become airborne. Even aggressive litter control programs that are in place at sanitary landfills cannot fully avoid plastic bag litter entering the environment (see Photos 14 and 15). Since most local waterways drain to San Francisco Bay, trash in Bay Area creeks and rivers often ends up in the Pacific Ocean. The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) recently finalized its Implementation Strategy for the OPC Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. The strategy cites the elimination of packaging wastes that contribute to litter, including single-use carryout bags, as a priority, and recommends a fee on paper and plastic bags as an incentive for using reusable bags. Although cost is not a measure of environmental impact, it is factor in the allocation of services in an urban environment. In an era of limited public resources, local government must use available resources to provide all of the services that protect human health and safety and protect the environment. West Contra Costa County and its cities are spending a considerable amount to address litter in the storm drains. Contra Costa County spent $28,500 on catch basin cleaning in 2011. The City of El Cerrito annual street sweeping and disposal costs are $150,000. The City of San Pablo annual litter removal costs are $293,000 and include creek cleanups, street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, manual litter cleanup, and public education. Up to 10 percent of the litter collected in creek monitoring San Pablo is plastic bags. The City also spent $30,000 for stormwater capture devices last fiscal year.9 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT RecycleMore is proposing a model ordinance to be used by its Member Agencies for the purpose of regulating the distribution of single-use carryout bags at the point of sale in West Contra Costa County. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale check-out) for all retail establishments except restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. In addition to grocery stores, the ordinance as proposed would apply to all other businesses that put purchases into single-use carryout bags, either paper or plastic, at the point of sale except: stores operated by nonprofit charitable reuse organizations, and businesses that are primarily the sale of food cooked or otherwise prepared on site. This includes department stores, clothing stores, liquor stores, book stores, specialty stores, drug stores, convenience stores, etc. This ordinance does not distinguish among types of plastic or types of plastic bags beyond their ability to be reused multiple times. Single-use plastic bags provided free to customers at the check-out stand for the purpose of holding the customer’s purchases are prohibited by the ordinance. Plastic carryout bags would be allowed by the ordinance if the bags are intended to be and are identified as reusable, meet the regulatory definition of reusable bags as described in the 9 Chris Lehon, Executive Director, RecycleMore. Email Communication. July 2, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 8 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 ordinance, and if a fee for the bag is charged as described below. The ordinance defines a reusable bag as a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple re-use and meets all of the following requirements: has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; is machine washable or capable of being cleaned and disinfected; and does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts as defined by applicable State and Federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags. An exception to the ban on single-use bags would be made for paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content, as long as the retail establishment charges at least five cents for each bag, which is less than the average cost to a retail establishment of providing a paper carryout bag.10 The retail establishment would be required to charge for the exempt paper bags so that the cost of carryout bags is no longer hidden in the price of the merchandise, and the customer can choose whether to pay or not to pay for the bag, and therefore, whether to use one. A retail establishment can charge an amount different than five cents by providing documentation of the actual cost incurred by the retail establishment per paper carryout bag distributed. The retail establishment would be required to list the paper carryout bag on the receipt as a sale. The store will be required to charge for the bags in order to discourage people from taking single-use bags, encourage people to use reusable bags, and allow people to choose whether to pay the cost of the bag or not (instead of having it be a hidden cost). There have been reports from San Jose and San Francisco, where there are bans on single-use plastic bags in effect, of stores distributing thin plastic reusable bags for free at checkout in an attempt to circumvent the ban. In order to prevent the free distribution of thin plastic reusable bags to be used as de facto single-use bags, the proposed ordinance would require a store charge of at least five cents on reusable bags. Sanctioned reusable bag giveaway events that are intended to promote the use of reusable bags would be allowed. The ordinance would exclude plastic or paper bags that are used by customers or the retail establishment to protect or contain raw meat, fresh produce, food prepared at the establishment, or other goods that must be protected from moisture, damage, or contamination, and that are typically placed inside a carryout bag at the point of sale. Restaurants, take-out food establishments, or any other businesses that receive their revenue primarily from the sale of food cooked or otherwise prepared at the establishment would be exempt from the ordinance. 10 Appendix A of the Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR contains paper bag cost estimates provided by representatives of other California jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, Marin County, and the City of San Jose. Based on the price ranges for paper bags provided by the three Bay Area jurisdictions, the average price of a paper bag in the Bay Area is 10.15 cents. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 9 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 2.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT In proposing to adopt an ordinance regulating the free distribution of single-use bags, RecycleMore has the following objectives: Minimize the dedication of non-renewable resources to single-use carryout bags. Minimize the number of single-use bags sent to landfill. Facilitate the change in consumer behavior toward the use of reusable bags in West Contra Costa County. Eliminate the annual distribution of an estimated 114 million single-use carryout bags by 2014 through regulating their free distribution at retail establishments. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the amount of single-use carryout bag litter contaminating public and private property in West Contra Costa County, polluting streets, parks, sidewalks, storm and sewer systems, creeks, and streams. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the quantity of single-use carryout bag litter polluting streams and other water bodies in West Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area, and contaminating the world’s oceans. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the presence of plastic bags in the recycling programs and facilities operated in West Contra Costa County, where they contaminate recovered material streams and clog processing equipment. These objectives are fundamental to the adopted goals and policies represented by state law and to the purposes for creating RecycleMore. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 19 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 2.6 CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS Each of the following sections identifies plan sections relevant to the proposed project. 2.6.1 Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS 7-AG. To reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by: 1) reducing the amount of solid waste generated (waste reduction); 7-AJ. To minimize the potential impacts of waste collection, transportation, processing, and disposal facilities upon residential land uses. (7-33) 7-bd. Ensure that solid waste activities in Contra Costa County are carried out in accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Plan and are coordinated with other jurisdictions. (7-34) 2.6.2 El Cerrito General Plan 1999 RECYCLING Goal PS5: A system that minimizes the City’s generation and disposal of solid waste materials by providing an adequate and integrated waste management program and related facilities to serve existing and future planned development. (6-30) 5. City Policy The City can undertake several of its implementation measures by making changes in its internal operating policies, assuming these changes would be within budget limits. (6-31) 2.6.3 Pinole General Plan 2010: SOLID WASTE The City will promote efforts designed to reduce the amount of solid waste generated and ensure that generated waste is recycled or efficiently disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. (11.0-6) Goal SE.5: Achieve a solid waste diversion of 75% of the waste stream by 2020. POLICY SE.5.1 Continue and expand programs to reduce solid waste generated from all sectors of the city. Programs may include recycling, reuse, source reduction and composting. (11.0-9) POLICY CS.8.1 The City will continue to encourage efforts to reduce, recycle and compost as many materials as possible to minimize demand for future waste disposal facilities. (8.0-40) POLICY CS.8.3 The City will continue to reduce litter to the maximum extent possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 20 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 2.6.4 Richmond General Plan 2030 To meet and maintain the 50% diversion rate, Richmond Sanitary Service offers residential and commercial co-mingled recycling collection and green waste collection services throughout out its service area. (6.7) Policy CN5.3 Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials that are processed in landfills. (7.33) Action CN5.D Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Work with joint power authority or solid waste facility holder to expand recycling programs and reduce the generation of solid wastes. (7.35) Action CF1.E Waste Management Master Plan … … Work with relevant agencies to address impending shortage of landfill space and ensure that proposals adequately address health, safety and environmental concerns. (6.15) 2.4.5 San Pablo General Plan 2030 GUIDING POLICIES PSCU-G-8: Enhance waste reduction and recycling in San Pablo - General plan policies focus on recycling, promoting recycling/reuse, construction waste reduction, and using recycled paper (page 6-33) 2.6.6 State of California Code of Regulations, Title 14. Natural Resources Section 18734.1. Source Reduction Component Objectives. Each jurisdiction shall examine and select source reduction program objectives which meet the goal of minimizing the quantity of solid waste disposed, including, but not limited to, the following: reducing the use of non-recyclable materials; replacing disposable materials and products with reusable materials and products; reducing packaging; reducing the amount of yard wastes generated; purchasing repairable products; and increasing the efficiency of the use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, and other materials by reducing wastes from non-residential generators' production operations, processes, and equipment and considering durability, reusability, and recyclability as product selection criteria. Each jurisdiction shall identify specific waste types (materials, products, and packaging) to be targeted for the source reduction objectives, based upon criteria, which include, but are not limited to, the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 21 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 the potential to extend the useful life of affected materials, products, or packaging; and whether the waste type has limited recyclability. 2.6.7 Federal Clean Water Act As discussed in section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of this EIR, the Federal Clean Water Act requires cities in West Contra Costa County to operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters via the cities’ storm sewer collection system. Pursuant to the permit, litter reduction plans have been adopted by cities and counties in the Bay Area. The short term litter reduction plans (to reach 40% reduction by 2014) includes a single-use bag ordinance and the following Agencies in the west part of the County have the ban in their short term plans: El Cerrito, Hercules, Richmond, San Pablo, and Contra Costa County for the unincorporated area. 2.6.8 Conclusions The proposed project is consistent with all applicable adopted plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 22 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts that can reasonably be expected to occur if the proposed project is implemented as proposed. If impacts are identified as significant or potentially significant, mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact(s) to less than significant. NOTES ABOUT METHODOLOGY Most CEQA documents are prepared for development projects, a situation in which a project proponent is proposing to build something that does not presently exist. If the project site is vacant, then the new project will create a land use and physical set of improvements that did not exist before. If the site is already developed, then the new project will replace one set of physical conditions with a new and different set. In both cases the physical impact – the increment of physical change – is clear and distinct when compared to the existing environment. Any proposed project that deals with something that is otherwise classified as trash or waste materials, as does the project addressed in this EIR, must be seen in an entirely different context. In this specific case, the proposed project is intended to reduce the reliance on single-use, hard-to- recycle, litter prone products that have a readily available reusable alternative by limiting the free distribution of single-use bags. The project will not eliminate all solid waste but will reduce quantities of waste material currently being buried in sanitary landfills because compliance with the ordinance will change some consumer behavior in West Contra Costa County. All CEQA analyses require some degree of forecasting, and that is true of this EIR. The project is the adoption and implementation of an ordinance and this EIR must forecast how consumers will comply with the ordinance, and what changes those efforts to comply might make to the physical environment. CEQA does not require that an EIR engage in speculation, but that a good faith effort be made to identify and disclose the likely physical changes to the existing environment resulting from the project being approved. Maximum Impact Scenario This EIR analyzes the maximum impact scenario that could occur with the adoption of a single-use bag reduction ordinance. The maximum impact scenario is a set of assumptions about the scope and design of the ordinance that would likely result in the greatest amount of change, which would reasonably be assumed to cause environmental impacts, including full implementation by all jurisdictions and compliance by all of the affected populations.11 Failure to comply with the ordinance, for example, would not cause any change from existing conditions and would not, therefore, result in any “impact” from the project. 11 The maximum impact scenario is not the same thing as a “worst case”, which implies extreme conditions that may include illegal behavior and other unintended consequences. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 23 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 While the discussion in the EIR assumes that all of the Member Agencies of RecycleMore would adopt the ordinance as it is described, the most basic purpose for preparing any CEQA analysis is to provide useful information to the decision makers, who may subsequently choose to modify the project based on the EIR or other information. An individual Member Agency might, for example, decline to adopt the ordinance exactly as it is described in this EIR, or the various Member Agencies might each adopt different ordinances. CEQA allows a lead or responsible agency to approve a smaller or lesser impact project than that described in the EIR, or to approve a part of the project described in the EIR. In addition, the project may be changed in order to incorporate new elements that will further reduce or avoid adverse impacts, and it can still be covered by the same EIR. Throughout this EIR, impacts will be discussed in the context of the entire West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority jurisdiction. The maximum impact scenario will entail the adoption of the model ordinance by each Member Agency of RecycleMore. Any ordinance or set of ordinances that is implemented by anything less than the entire West County would (by definition) result in less change from the existing conditions producing less impact (as well as reduced benefits), and those impacts would therefore be within the impact parameters of the analysis completed in this EIR. If a potentially significant impact from adoption of the model ordinance is identified at the West-Countywide level, the discussion will also disclose whether the impact could also be significant at the local jurisdictional level would the impact from a single city also be significant). CEQA requires that an environmental impact analysis identify the impact of a proposed project upon the existing physical conditions “on the ground”. “Existing” is usually defined as conditions which exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated, or when the environmental analysis begins. The environmental analysis for this project was undertaken in February of 2012. That date therefore defines the baseline period for this environmental analysis. Single-Use Bag Impact Calculations There is a great deal of information available about plastic bags, paper bags, and reusable bags. Most of the information is generated by people with an economic interest in one or another of the products being discussed. There is also a quantity of technical analysis that has been done in the form of life cycle analyses (LCAs) on various elements of the single-use carryout bag universe. As summarized in a review of all of the LCAs available on this topic (see Appendix D of this EIR), relying on LCAs for precise estimates of potential impacts that could result from this or any other proposed ordinance in California is problematic for several reasons. The LCA process is complex and involves many variables that virtually always differ from report to report. Each LCA preparer assumes different parameters and system boundaries in its calculations, and utilizes a unique set of data to reach its conclusions. Some of the consultants that prepare LCAs use tools which they characterize as “proprietary” that are secret or not fully explained. Often, LCAs are completed in different regions of the world that have unique environmental or behavioral factors that do not apply elsewhere. As stated in Appendix D for each of the LCAs reviewed, the conclusions in the LCAs consulted for this EIR do not accurately reflect conditions in West Contra Costa County and are not and cannot be relied on for the purpose of calculating environmental impacts that may occur in the West County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 24 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 It is possible, however, to use some of the data contained in LCAs to derive an approximation of the range of some impacts that may occur as a result of certain aspects of the proposed ordinance greenhouse gas generation from disposal). Data contained in some of the LCAs were used to estimate some of the resource impacts (air quality, water, energy) because no detailed reports were found prepared by neutral experts on these subjects, and some of the reports were specific enough in describing certain effects that they can be translated into an appropriate level of detail relevant to this project. There are reasons, however, that the analysis in any LCA should not assumed to accurately reflect the situation in West Contra Costa County. These reasons are described in more detail in Appendix D. The most limiting aspect of the LCAs available, at least in the U.S., is that they were all prepared by or for groups with strong vested economic interests in their outcomes and conclusions. This should be kept in mind in evaluating any and all of these analyses. To arrive at the estimates of potential impact from the proposed ordinance, two basic pieces of information are needed: the current number of single-use paper and plastic bags used in West Contra Costa County and the number of single-use paper and plastic bags that will be used in the West County after the ordinance takes effect. The current number of bags is the baseline. The difference between those two numbers is the direct impact of the ordinance. Of necessity, all three of the numbers – existing, future, and the difference between them – are estimates. Behavior Change Assumptions Although programs to eliminate or reduce single-use disposable bags have been implemented all over the world, there are wide variations in the programs. Some of the variations are identified in this EIR, where comparisons are made. The best known international example is the country of Ireland, which imposed a fee on single-use plastic carryout bags in 2002. As a result of the fee, which was equivalent to $0.15 U.S., the use of single-use plastic bags was reduced by over 90 percent almost immediately. Additionally, surveys completed a year later found that approximately 90 percent of consumers were using reusable bags, so it does not appear that there was a dramatic shift to paper bag use, even though they continued to be distributed free of charge. Until recently, there was no existing program in the United States, comparable to the proposed project, which could be used to predict future behavior. Then, in 2010, a $.05 fee on all single-use carryout bags (paper AND plastic) enacted in the District of Columbia resulted in an immediate substantial reduction in their use. District staff estimates that the reduction achieved has been in the 50-80 percent range for both paper and plastic single-use carryout bags (the range in estimated reductions is because some of the businesses were not complying at last report). The most current – and relevant – experience for which detailed monitoring data is available resulted from the enactment of a single-use carryout bag ordinance by Los Angeles County. The ordinance took effect on January 1, 2012, and the County Department of Public Works has published data from the first three quarters of the year. The information reported by all of the large stores and (for the first quarter) most of the small stores reflected a reduction in paper bag use of 16 percent, compared to paper bag use prior to adoption of the ordinance. The overall reduction in all single-use carryout bags (paper and plastic) was 95 percent. The recycled content paper bag fee adopted by LA County was $.10. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 25 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 In January 2012, the City’s “Bring Your Own Bag” (or BYOB) Ordinance took effect in San Jose. The ordinance banned single-use plastic carryout bags and required that retail businesses charge at least ten cents for single-use paper carryout bags. The paper bags are also required to contain at least 40 percent recycled content. In a recent report to the City Council, City staff reported that: To assess behavior change in bag use, City staff conducted visual observations of customers at retail stores before and after the ordinance went into effect. City staff observed shoppers leaving selected retail stores for one hour and counted the number and type of bags, or absence of a bag, that customers used to carry their purchases. Visual observations were made at a variety of store types, including grocery stores, pharmacies, and general retailers in different San Jose neighborhoods at the same stores both before and after implementation of the BYOB Ordinance. Observation records show that reusable bag use increased greatly following the implementation of the ordinance, from almost 4 percent of bags observed to approximately 62 percent of bags observed. In addition, the percentage of customers that chose not to use a bag, and instead carry items by hand, more than doubled. The overall impact was that the average number of single-use bags used per customer decreased from 3 bags to 0.3 bags per visit following the implementation of the ordinance. Results from store observations reflect that the ordinance has had the intended effect of reducing the use of single-use bags. In addition, a phone survey of grocery stores in November 2012 found that most of the stores responding to the survey reported a reduction in paper bag use. Specifically, 55 percent of respondents reported a decline or no change in the numbers of paper bags distributed from the store and 32 percent reported an increase in the volume of paper bags sold in the store compared to the number given away free. Of the seven stores that reported an increase, three of them were outlet food stores that had previously not provided paper bags at all, so the increase was from a base of zero. For four stores that had past experience giving away paper bags, one had no idea how much the use had increased and three estimated that the increase was 50 to 100 percent. For stores that experienced a decrease in paper bag use, six stores estimated reductions of between 50 and 80 percent. Other comparative data is less directly comparable, but supports the experiences in Ireland, Washington D.C., San Jose, and Los Angeles County: Individual stores in Australia and Canada that charge for single-use plastic bags have experienced reductions in their use of 83 and 97 percent, respectively. Taiwan instituted a flexible charging regime where retailers apply a charge but the level is determined and retained by them. The average charge is the equivalent of $0.03 –$.10 U.S., and has resulted in a 68 percent reduction in plastic shopping bag numbers, and a 57 percent reduction in all shopping bags. In 1993, the Danish government instituted a range of ‘green taxes,’ including a tax on bags at a rate equivalent to $0.12 per paper bag and $0.03 per plastic bag to promote the use of reusable bags. The bag fees are charged to retailers at the distribution level instead of ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 26 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 customers at checkout. Despite this, Denmark still achieved a 68 percent reduction in single- use bags. The programmatic variations in combination with differences in physical conditions and cultures have made it difficult to project the exact results of a program being implemented in West Contra Costa County when the only examples were in Europe or Asia. The experiences in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles County, however, are current and are located in modern American urban areas. Washington, D.C. found that imposing a five-cent fee on a commodity that has been provided for free results in immediate reductions in use of the commodity, even if there is no longer a free alternative. Los Angeles County found that imposing a ten-cent fee on a free commodity (the paper bag) even when the alternative was eliminated, still resulted in an immediate reduction in demand. Representatives of the plastics industry have stated that the convenience of having paper bags available at the point of sale, even if they must be paid for, would influence consumers toward using more paper bags. Previously prepared CEQA documents in California have been unable to identify any factual support for such an assumption but, in the absence of relevant experience, concluded that substantial increases in paper bag use (should such increases occur) might have impacts of unknown intensity at unknown locations. No significant direct or indirect project impacts were identified by any of the jurisdictions proposing single-use carryout bag bans or fees, although Los Angeles County’s EIR found that, if paper bag use were to substantially increase in Los Angeles County, there might be a cumulatively significant contribution to greenhouse gases from such regulations being enacted globally.12 Since paper bag use did not increase and is presently decreasing, the cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact is not occurring. It is understood that banning a type of bag will significantly reduce or eliminate the use of that type of bag, but what will the public do instead? Behavior is influenced by a number of circumstances, including cost and convenience, but also by perceptions, values, and beliefs. The citizens of California and West Contra Costa County have strongly supported environmental programs, like recycling, that require a change in behavior. With sufficient information about the superiority of reusable bags and the adverse impacts of single-use bags, combined with a store charge for an item that has previously been free (paper bags), it is logical to assume that residents of the West County will respond in a manner similar to the changes seen in Los Angeles County and Washington, D.C. There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved in grocery stores there. There was no fee enacted on paper bags at that time, so a comparison to this proposed project is not valid. There is also no documentation that the increase actually occurred in San Francisco, and no documented information of such an increase occurring anywhere that a fee was enacted on paper bags. A survey of residents of the City of San Jose completed in spring/summer 2010 found that a charge on single-use paper bags would increase customers’ use of reusable bags. Of those responding to the survey, 81 percent indicated they would bring reusable bags for shopping if plastic bags were banned 12No factual support is provided for the conclusion, although it is acknowledged in the FEIR that the issue was raised by representatives of the plastic industry and the preparers of the EIR were unable to find factual evidence to refute it. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 27 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 and recycled content paper bags cost $.10. Since there is no reason to think that the citizens of San Jose differ substantially in their beliefs and behavior from the citizens of West Contra Costa County, this supports RecycleMore’s assumptions that the citizens of West Contra Costa County will also reduce their use of plastic and paper single-use bags. It is estimated that currently there are nearly 127.8 million single-use plastic carryout bags and 16.8 million single-use paper carryout bags freely distributed in West Contra Costa County every year (the bases of those estimates are described in §3.1 of this EIR). Based on the recent experiences in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles County, it is estimated that with a ban on plastic bags and a $.05 charge for paper bags, all single-use plastic carryout bags given out by retail businesses except restaurants and charity re-use stores will be eliminated; that is conservatively estimated to include over 95 percent of 127.8 million single-use plastic carryout bags annually. Based on all known real-world experience, charging a fee for their use will cause single-use paper carryout bags to be used less often than under existing conditions. The fee proposed by RecycleMore is currently $.05 per bag, which is half of the $.10 fee that is charged in Los Angeles County and San Jose, and that is proposed in neighboring Alameda County. Therefore, the reduction in single-use paper carryout bags is conservatively assumed to be half of what has so far been experienced in Los Angeles County – a reduction of eight percent or 1.3 million fewer bags than the 15.8 million single- use paper carryout bags now given away free in West Contra Costa County. The numbers of single-use paper carryout bags purchased by shoppers in Los Angeles County has declined rapidly since the ordinance was implemented and the number is expected to continue to decline as shoppers become more accustomed to remembering their reusable bags. It is likely that the same pattern will occur in West Contra Costa County, but this EIR does not assume the continuing decline in numbers in the analysis. This is, therefore, considered a very conservative set of assumptions. Using these percentages, it is possible to estimate numbers of bags that will be used in the West County. If five percent of single-use plastic carryout bags are distributed in restaurants and charitable re-use stores (a conservatively high number), it can be assumed that 95 percent, or approximately 121.4 million single-use plastic carryout bags will no longer be freely distributed in the West County every year as a result of the ban. If the quantity of single-use paper carryout bags purchased by shoppers in West Contra Costa County is eight percent less than the number given away previously, then the total number of single-use paper carryout bags used in West Contra Costa County (and in the Bay Area) would decline by 1.3 million bags annually. Instead of 143.6 million single-use carryout bags given away free in West Contra Costa County, this EIR assumes that 37.5 million bags would be given away and sold, a reduction of 76 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 28 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Table 3.0-1: Estimated Numbers of Single-Use Carryout Bags West Contra Costa County Existing Condition After Ordinance Adoption Annually Daily Annually Daily Plastic 6,389,000 18,000 Paper 15,462,000 42,300 Totals 21,851,000 59,800 Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Mitigation Measures and Numbering System This EIR addresses the likelihood for significant and potentially significant impacts in this next section; it also identifies measures incorporated into the proposed ordinances for the purpose of avoiding or reducing those impacts and briefly evaluates the effectiveness/feasibility of these measures. For those circumstances in which existing and proposed laws, regulations and policies are not sufficient to reduce an impact to less than significant, there may be other impact-reducing means or methods that can be evaluated and perhaps implemented or required when elements of the project are implemented. For the purposes of this EIR, however, the impact will designated as significant and unavoidable, if identified. Each impact identified in this section of the Initial Study is numbered using an alpha-numerical system that also identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact BIO-1 denotes the first impact in the biological resources subsection. Mitigation measures and conclusions are also numbered to correspond to the impacts they address. For example, MM TRANS-2.1 refers to the first mitigation measure for the second impact in the transportation subsection. The letter codes used to identify environmental issues are listed as shown below. Table 3.0-2: Letter Codes for Environmental Issues Letter Code Environmental Issue Letter Code Environmental Issue AQ Air Quality HYD Hydrology and Water Quality BIO Biological Resources LU Land Use C Cumulative Impacts NV Noise and Vibration ENER Energy PS Public Facilities and Services GEO Geology and Soils TRANS Transportation GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions UTIL Utilities and Service Systems HM Hazards and Hazardous Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 17 16 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 19 18 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 21 20 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 23 22 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 34 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 Existing Setting Littering is illegal in California. It is defined and prohibited by the California Penal Code Section 374. While littering is illegal, litter is a substantial presence in the urban environment, including West Contra Costa County. It is difficult to document and categorize litter because it is the result of human behavior, frequently impulsive behavior, and is operated on by various environmental factors (especially wind, sunshine, and rain). It is also very difficult to compare study results in a mathematical format, because there is no standardized methodology for preparing litter studies. Various litter studies done all over the world use different categories for the litter itself, document what is found in various ways, and each organizes the information differently. This is further complicated by different systems used to identify the materials littered. It is not uncommon to have substantial categories labeled “Miscellaneous Paper” and “Miscellaneous Plastic”. Single-use carryout bags, especially plastic bags, contribute to the litter problem in West Contra Costa County. Due to the expansive and lightweight nature of plastic bags, they are easily airborne by wind, often ending up entangled in brush and caught on fences. Because they are usually white (and therefore visible) and are difficult to collect, plastic bags constitute a greater aesthetic nuisance than some other types of litter. In addition, paper and plastic behave differently in the natural environment. Paper breaks down in water, loses cohesion, and (in effect) becomes invisible. It biodegrades and leaves behind the organic paper fibers, and residues of whatever was on the paper (ink, glue, etc.). Plastic may photodegrade (break down in sunlight), which means it breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces.13 Litter surveys can only document what is found. Many of the surveys reviewed for this study refer to the presence of small pieces of plastic and plastic film whose origin cannot be determined. Litter also moves around. In no urban community is litter found in a regular distribution, occurring equally in all neighborhoods or uniformly applied at all locations. Nor does it stay where it is dropped. Lightweight litter such as small pieces of paper and plastic bags are easily caught in light winds and may accumulate in sheltered areas. Likewise in a marine environment or in urban waterways, floating litter is carried with the water and may travel for miles or become entangled in streamside vegetation or urban infrastructure. No single plastic bag known to have been given away in West Contra Costa County has been identified in the mass of floating plastic found near the Pacific Gyre, the enormous ocean-borne concentration of floating garbage north of the Hawaiian Islands. On the website called “Marine Debris Program” maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration is a simplified strategic diagram of the ocean currents that support and maintain the Pacific Gyre.14 It is apparent that the major oceanic currents travel from the California coast as part of the overall circulation system that contributes to the Gyre. There are also references in the literature to plastic bags seen underwater at other oceanic locations. 13 Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Pelagic Plastic. April 9, 2007. 14 http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html. Accessed on July 2, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 35 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 West Contra Costa County’s plastic bags may or may not have contributed to the Pacific Gyre and/or to other accumulations of trash elsewhere in the Pacific. Plastic and paper bags are found on the streets, sidewalks, and in parks in West Contra Costa County, and in the storm sewers and catch basins that drain to various creeks and waterways which ultimately all drain into the Bay. It is therefore necessary to conclude that plastic bag litter from West Contra Costa County contributes to the plastic litter polluting the creeks, Bay, and Pacific Ocean. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes a recent year in which substantial floating debris from stormwater systems was washed from Bay Area communities into the Cordell Bank Marine Sanctuary. Since, as discussed previously, plastic bags are known to constitute a substantial percentage of the litter which accumulates in storm drains, this means that some number of plastic bags from West Contra Costa County communities would have ended up in a national marine sanctuary that provides habitat for a number of endangered species. Litter Surveys Perhaps the most comprehensive survey of litter and floating water pollution done for a significant urban area in the United States was prepared by the Anacostia Watershed Society for the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. It was published in December 2008. The Anacostia watershed is approximately 117,353 acres and is located in Prince George’s County and Montgomery County (both in Maryland) and in the District of Columbia. The primary land uses within the watershed are residential and forest, although much of the land in the District also includes industrial development. The watershed is 30 percent park and forest lands, including Anacostia Park and Greenbelt Park and the National Arboretum. The Anacostia survey is particularly useful because it included walking transects at quarterly intervals of all of the waterways, and windshield surveys of the streets that drain to those waterways; all of the surveys were repeated for each season of the year. The primary elements of the trash found in the Anacostia River itself were plastic bags (20+ percent), plastic food wrap from items such as candy bars, chips, etc. (25+ percent), and (10+ percent). In the tributary streams, plastic bags were the overwhelmingly dominant element (45+ percent), with food wrap as the runner up (25 percent). In an interesting contrast, the litter found on land upstream from these waterways also included substantial quantities of food wrap, but the largest category was paper, including things such as napkins and paper bags. Drink containers, glass, metal and plastic were also found on the streets and in the waterways. In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash types were more evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 36 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were prevalent on land. The City of Los Angeles did a waste characterization study in 2004 and found that plastic bags made up 25 percent by weight and 19 percent by volume of litter found in 30 storm drain catch basins.15 It should be noted in this context that storm drains flow into creeks and rivers in California, and from there to the Pacific Ocean in many cases (including Los Angeles and West Contra Costa County).16 Each year, Caltrans sweeps 184,000 highway lane miles to remove debris and litter. In 2005, Caltrans and the various Adopt-a-Highway groups picked up a total of 11.6 million pounds of trash. A breakdown was not done for that material, but a litter management pilot study done by Caltrans from 1998 through 2000 on a freeway in the Los Angeles area found that plastic film (including plastic carryout bags) made up 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the litter collected.17 Recent litter surveys done on land in nearby San Jose found substantial quantities of plastic, including an identifiable number of retail plastic bags (4.88 percent of the “large litter” category) and non-retail plastic bags (2.84 percent of the “large litter” category).18 Both miscellaneous paper (22.55 percent) and miscellaneous plastic (14.17 percent) were substantial categories. Given the presence of intact bags, there would also have been unidentifiable fragments of both plastic and paper shopping bags collected in the miscellaneous categories. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.19 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. In a pilot assessment of trash accumulation in waterways in Santa Clara County completed in early 2009, the SCVURPPP found that many of the pieces of trash found in the 19 stretches of San Jose waterways studied were plastic (46 percent of the total), with plastic bags comprising a substantial amount of the overall collected items (10 percent of the total). A focused collection was completed 15 Characterization of Urban Litter, prepared by the staff of the Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. June 18, 2004. 16 Drainage from Santa Clara County enters San Francisco Bay. The water from San Francisco Bay flows into the ocean through the Golden Gate. 17 California Department of Transportation, District 7 Litter Management Pilot Study. June 26, 2000. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-00-013.pdf. 18 City of San Jose. Litter Assessment. August 2009. 19 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 37 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 for a storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Stevens Creek is also one of the trash impaired waterways on the Regional Board’s 303(d) list. Plastic made up an overwhelming majority of the trash collected at this outfall (82 percent of the total), with plastic bags comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall collected items. There are variations in the percentages of plastic and plastic bags found in litter at different times and places. The Anacostia Watershed monitoring report states that the quantity of plastic bags in streams doubled over the year of monitoring, which started in summer and ended in spring. The study does not identify a cause for this substantial increase. It is possible that school being in session may have been a factor. The conclusion reached by reviewing these various documents is that plastic is a substantial element in litter found in most urban areas, including urban waterways, and plastic bags are commonly found in significant numbers in plastic litter. It is likely that single-use paper carryout bags were also an element in the paper litter, but there are far fewer single-use paper carryout bags given away in West Contra Costa County than single-use plastic bags (16.8 million versus 127.8 million annually), and most of the grocery carryout paper bags are bigger and heavier than the plastic carryout bags. The Anacostia surveys found paper including paper bags was the largest category of litter on land, but not in the waterways. The International Coastal Cleanup described in §3.1.2 of this EIR, found that plastic bags far outnumber paper bags in litter picked up during the national coastal clean-up day, including the litter picked up in Contra Costa County. 3.1.2 Visual and Aesthetic Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a significant aesthetics impact would occur if: have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of a site and its surroundings; or create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 3.1.2.1 Impacts from the Ordinance A significant reduction in the 143,600,000 single-use carryout bags handed out to shoppers in West Contra Costa County each year would directly result in a reduction in the quantity of litter on the ground and in the streams, Bay and ocean. The total number of single-use bags would decrease substantially as more people switch to reusable bags. As discussed at the beginning of Section 3.0, it is estimated that the total number of single-use carryout bags would be reduced by 76 percent. The highly visible, lightweight plastic bags given away in this part of Contra Costa County would be reduced by at least 95 percent – virtually eliminating a noticeable element in the litter stream. It is RecycleMore’s intention that the proposed program significantly reduce the number of all single-use carryout bags used in West Contra Costa County. The number of plastic bags will ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 38 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 decrease substantially immediately. If the number of single-use bags that become litter remains a constant percentage of the number used, the number of bags discarded outdoors will decline immediately and will continue to drop. The proposed ordinance would immediately reduce the total number of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County, and would thereby reduce the proliferation of plastic litter in the West County as well as from waterways in the County. Any substantial reduction in plastic litter would have a beneficial aesthetic impact. As the use of reusable bags increases, the number of single-use paper carryout bags purchased will decline, as will their presence in litter. The result will be a net improvement. 3.1.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would result in a net reduction in the amount of single-use bags that end up as visible litter on land and in waterways in West Contra Costa County, and would result in a beneficial aesthetics impact. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 39 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 3.2.1 Existing Setting As described in the Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, Measure C-1990 established a 65/35 Land Preservation Standard which limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and preserves at least 65 percent of land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990, as well as the General Plan, provide that the County shall, to the maximum extent feasible, enter into preservation agreements with cities in the County designed to preserve land for agriculture, open space, wetlands and parks. 3.2.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a significant aesthetics impact would occur if the project would: convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land [as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)], timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)]; result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. 3.2.2.1 Impacts to Agriculture and Forest Resources Litter is a contaminant that is found on agricultural land as well as in urban areas. Plastic that breaks into smaller pieces and remains in the soil reduces its fertility and permeability. Reducing the quantity of plastic litter generated in the urban areas of West Contra Costa County, especially wind blown plastic litter, will also reduce the quantity of plastic litter that contaminates the remaining farmland in and adjacent to the urban areas. Reducing the total number of single-use carryout bags, thus reducing the quantity of the litter that is made up of single-use carryout bags, will be a beneficial impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact any designated, planned or important farmlands. The project would likely reduce the quantity of litter on nearby agricultural lands, and would not impede or adversely impact any active agriculture. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 40 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Forestry Resources Impacts Resulting from the Project There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved there. Even if it is true, the San Francisco ordinance did not include any fee on single-use paper bags and is not directly comparable. Representatives of the plastic bag industry have alleged that there will be a substantial increase in single-use paper bag use right after any ban on single-use plastic bags becomes effective. There is no documented study or relevant example illustrating such an increase in the use of an item with a new charge placed on it, and the evidence available from both Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles County was that paper bag use has substantially decreased since the imposition of a charge or fee for single-use carryout paper bags was implemented. All of the relevant information on real-world bag programs in which bags must be paid for indicates that there will be an immediate decrease in the number of single-use paper bags distributed by retail businesses in West Contra Costa County. Charging for items that were previously free (or assumed to be free) usually causes a decrease in use. There is no evidence to support any assumption that trees will be cut down as a result of increased paper use associated with this ordinance. The proposed ordinance does require that all single-use paper carryout bags sold in West Contra Costa County will be a minimum of 40 percent post- consumer recycled content. While many bags used now contain some recycled content, the imposition of a mandatory minimum is assumed to reduce the use of “virgin” fiber (i.e. trees). (Beneficial Impact) Additionally, the paper used for most paper bags in the United States comes from wood grown for the purpose. When the trees are removed, they are replanted. Therefore, those lands are not converted to “non-forest use”. The proposed project will not, therefore, result in any significant impact as defined by the Thresholds of Significance. (Less Than Significant Impact) 3.2.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would result in a net reduction in the amount of single-use bags that end up as visible litter on land and in waterways in West Contra Costa County, and would result in a beneficial aesthetics impact. (Beneficial Impact) The ordinance requires that paper bags sold in the area subject to the ordinance must contain at least 40 percent post-consumer recycled content. This will further reduce the amount of fiber from virgin sources required to manufacture bags sold in West Contra Costa County. (Beneficial Impact) Because most paper bags manufactured in the United States, according to representatives of the paper bag industry, are made from wood grown for the purpose, those bags that continue to be purchased in West Contra Costa County are unlikely to contribute significantly to the conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 41 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.3 AIR QUALITY 3.3.1 Existing Setting Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determination of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sun light. West Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Three pollutants are known at times to exceed the state and federal standards in the Bay Area Air Basin: ozone, particulates (PM10), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PM10 are considered regional pollutants because their concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source congested intersections). The primary source of ozone precursors in the Bay Area is motor vehicle emissions. There are a number of sources of particulate matter in the Bay Area, including combustion (such as fireplaces), industrial processes, grading and construction, and motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are by far the greatest source of carbon monoxide in the Bay Area. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are also a source of growing concern throughout California. A significant source of TACs is diesel exhaust from diesel engine vehicles, which includes a substantial number of toxic particulate components. 3.3.1.1 Current Practices As discussed elsewhere in this EIR, the analysis is based on the assumption that nearly 127.8 million single-use plastic carryout bags are given away every year in West Contra Costa County. This averages to roughly 350,000 plastic bags per day distributed in the West County by existing businesses. Again, as explained elsewhere in this EIR, the analysis is assuming roughly 16.8 million single-use paper carryout bags are given away every year in West Contra Costa County. That number averages to roughly 46,000 bags per day given to customers. This scenario constitutes the Existing Setting against which changes caused by the proposed single- use bag reduction ordinance project are to be measured in order to identify project impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 42 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.3.2 Air Quality Impacts For the purposes of this EIR, an air quality impact is considered significant if the project would: conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Air quality impacts resulting from the distribution/use/sale of single-use carryout bags include the release of emissions during the manufacturing, transport, and disposal processes. Various life cycle assessments (LCAs) of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and many of them were consulted during the preparation of this EIR (refer to § 5.0 References and Appendix The LCAs analyzed the various levels of emissions from different types of bags as they might impact air quality issues such as acid rain oxides of nitrogen and sulfur), ground level ozone formation O3), and global climate change carbon dioxide equivalent). Most LCAs try to account for air emissions during all stages of product life, from product creation to disposal. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, and frequently use assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. According to LCAs prepared by consultants to the plastic bag industry, single-use paper bags generally result in higher levels of associated air quality emissions when compared to single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. This is attributed to several factors, including the manufacturing process, the effect of paper bag weight and bulk on the transportation process, and the release of greenhouse gas emissions as paper bags biodegrade. The findings from other LCAs seem to differ based on the study, and no comprehensive comparison of the studies has been made by a neutral third party. In addition no LCA was found that looked at the emissions associated with manufacture of 40 percent or 100 percent recycled content paper bags. The air emissions summary in one LCA (Boustead), for example, does not identify the specific benefits or impacts of recycled content (which include less need for use of chemicals, energy, and water) although they are said to have been “taken into account.” Additionally, heavier and larger single-use plastic bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which are often used by clothing and boutique stores, were found by some studies to have a greater impact on global climate change than both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE); the latter are the thin film bags typically used by grocery stores and large format retail stores in the United States. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 43 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Direct Air Quality Impacts For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that single-use plastic bags distributed to the customers of businesses in West Contra Costa County will be reduced by approximately 95 percent or more – from an average of roughly 350,000 bags per day to less than 17,500 bags per day. The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags per day. There is a quantity of emissions generated from the delivery of all types of bags to the stores where they are given away, and further emissions associated with picking up those that end up as litter, and with removing those that are discarded as solid waste. Since the preparers of this study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution of plastic (or paper) single-use bags to use as a basis of analysis, the exact increment of energy use or pollution associated with their delivery to the location where they are given to the public is unknown. Since the numbers of bags being delivered will be reduced for both types, the impacts from delivering the bags will also be reduced. This will therefore be a beneficial direct impact of the project. (Beneficial Impact) Indirect Air Quality Impacts The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags handed out per day. This will substantially decrease air pollution produced by manufacturing and transporting both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags for use in West Contra Costa County. The paper bags that are still available to be purchased and used will all be at least 40 percent post consumer recycled content, further reducing the remaining increment of air quality impact that is generated by the use of paper bags in West Contra Costa County. There will likely be an increase in reusable bags purchased and used in West Contra Costa County. It is not possible to predict, from the varied and growing market of such bags, which ones might be purchased and used in West Contra Costa County, or what the impacts of their manufacture and transport from unknown locations might be. The Master Environmental Assessment prepared in 2010 by Green Cities California (a coalition of 12 local governments) stated that: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits. According to the status report on the ordinance posted by the Department of Public Works in September 2012, there are reports of reusable bags now being manufactured locally in Los Angeles County. This may be, at least partially, an indirect result of the market encouraged by the ordinance, but it is assumed that all such new businesses undergo an appropriate level of CEQA review to ensure that impacts are less than significant or the impacts must be acknowledged and overridden by the responsible lead agency. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 44 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 The project ordinance as it is proposed will result in a reduction of both direct and indirect air quality impacts resulting from the manufacture, transport, and use of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. (Beneficial Impact) 3.3.3 Conclusion The proposed Ordinance will result in a net reduction of air pollution at whatever locations the single-use carryout bags currently being used in West Contra Costa County are manufactured and in the pollution produced by transporting single-use carryout bags to West Contra Costa County. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 45 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 Existing Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (described below). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U. the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states develop a list of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, establish priority rankings for waters on the list, and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), to improve water quality. The list of impaired water bodies is revised periodically (typically every two years). In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.20 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. In support of this conclusion, the staff report accompanying the recommendation stated that “plastic from trash persists for hundreds of years in the environment and can pose a threat to wildlife through ingestion, entrapment and entanglement, and this plastic can leach harmful chemicals to the aquatic environment.” This listing requires locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. It is currently understood that the programs for controlling litter will have to be funded by the jurisdictions in which the litter originates. 3.4.1.1 Existing Biological Setting Local streams in West Contra Costa County support ecologically valuable riparian vegetation that provides food, cover and nesting sites for birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. These waterways also serve as important migration corridors for wildlife. The San Francisco Bay and adjoining marsh habitats provide important biotic resources to the region. The salt marshes, sloughs, and creeks near the Bay provide food and shelter for fish and wildlife, improve water quality by trapping sediment and removing nutrients, and provide for the storage and passage of flood waters. 20 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 46 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 They also provide habitat for a number of special status species which are listed as endangered at the state and federal level. State and federally listed special status species in and around the creeks and marshes in West Contra Costa County include the California tiger salamander, Swainson’s hawk, tidewater goby, California black rail, central California coast steelhead, California clapper rail, California red-legged frog, and bank swallow. Litter in the creeks and waterways of West Contra Costa County has the potential to negatively impact these special status species. Plastic debris is common in marine habitats worldwide. Extensive scientific references document its presence in the deep sea and even at the poles. There are anecdotal references to its presence on the very highest mountains in the world.21 The government of Nepal is seeking to ban plastic bags in Sagamantha National Park near the base of Mt. Everest.22 Paper bags are also present in litter but paper does not survive as long or maintain its physical form in the natural environment. Heavy, large single-use kraft paper grocery sacks are not as easily windblown as single-use plastic bags. Lighter weight single-use paper bags are more easily windblown and also break down more quickly. Paper tears easily, especially when wet, and animals are not caught or entangled by paper. When paper degrades, it becomes wood fiber, an organic material. Dyes and inks on or in paper, like the dyes and inks on plastic film, can be either soy-based or petroleum-based and will contain chemicals that will enter the natural environment when the paper deteriorates. On the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, it is stated that direct impacts of plastic marine debris include ecosystem alteration. This results from harm done to plants and other immobile living organisms. An example given is the degree to which plants can be smothered by plastic bags with a photo illustrating a plastic bag caught on what appears to be coral.23 Another example is shown in a video created April 27, 2012 and posted online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1w4QPUKwyg. As many as 260 species of animals, including invertebrates, turtles, fish, and mammals, are known to ingest or become entangled in plastic debris. Plastic bags are frequently found inside dead animals and are routinely found as a substantial percentage of beach litter. Reports of their presence in ocean litter are found in the literature as early as 1987,24 and they were found in the necropsies of leatherback turtles dating back to the 1960’s.25 In addition to the physical risks of becoming entangled or eating plastic, chemical contamination of water, animals, and human beings has been traced to plastic waste. This is not just the presence of toxins such as Bisphenol A in plastic, it includes documentation of hazardous substances being transported great distances on pieces of plastic. There is no similar documentation of the widespread occurrence of animals suffering from the presence of paper debris. Studies and expeditions have documented the mass of trash formed in the Pacific Gyre (also sometimes called the North Pacific Gyre). A gyre is an area within which little wind and extremely high pressure weather systems combine to greatly reduce ocean circulation. The subtropical gyres (they are found in all oceans near the equator) contain the doldrums mentioned in historic texts. The 21 Powers, David, President, DJP&A. Personal communication, 1993. 22 http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/shouldering-waste-on-the-trek-down-mount-everest/ 23 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/marinedebris/md_impacts.cfm 24Henderson, John R. “Marine Debris in Hawaii, 1987. 25Mrosovsky, et al. “Leatherback Turtles: The menace of plastic”. 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 47 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Pacific Gyre contains a growing mass of floating garbage, much of which is plastic. The conditions in the gyre have been well documented since at least 1997 by photographers, biologists, meteorologists, and various governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations. Photo 25 was taken by Corbett Kroehler and is currently on his website with a notation that it was posted to Oceans, Pollution, Wildlife on Aug 13th, 2008. Gordon Moore, founder of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, sailed through the Pacific Gyre in 1997. Moore and his crew specifically identified plastic bags from “Sears, Bristol Farms, The Baby Store, El Pollo Loco, Fred Meyer, and Taco Bell ‘Chalupa’ bags”. The Taco Bell bags were the “T-shirt” bags with two hand-hold holes that were introduced in the United States in 1979. The garbage mass in the Pacific Gyre continues to grow and now reaches into the eastern Pacific and portions of the Hawaiian archipelago and the Papahnaumokukea Marine National Monument. This EIR is not alleging that there is a solid mass of plastic in the Pacific Gyre that looks like a continent, but is relying on numerous scientific studies that found that there is a thick floating concentration of trash of various sizes. Pieces of plastic, plastic film, plastic bags and other debris are now found in the oceans all over the world.26 This clarification is provided because a representative of the plastic industry has stated, in a letter dated August 24, 2012 objecting to the proposed ordinance, that there is no large concentration of plastic in the Pacific Gyre. The comment letter further alleges that a researcher with Scripps Institution of Oceanography stated that reports of the garbage mass were “exaggerated”. The same expert quoted in that letter, Scripps graduate student, Miriam Goldstein, was quoted in the San Jose Mercury-News in an interview in May 2012 saying that there has been a “very large increase” in the size of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”. The article found that the mass has grown, not in size but in density with roughly 100 times more pieces per cubic meter of water than was found in the 1970’s. Ms. Goldstein also states that the patch stretches for hundreds of miles and that most people who work on the issue agree that “prevention is the critical step” because “Once a piece of plastic is in the ocean, it is really hard and expensive to get it out again.”27 Research in both the Atlantic and Pacific Gyres have found substantial quantities of plastic whose concentrated locations move through the ocean and which reach to depths of at least 30 feet below the surface. A National Geographic expedition documented the following on October 15, 2012: We’re ten days and 690 nautical miles out from the nearest land in California. In that time, we’ve conducted 21 net deployments to collect and analyze plastic. We’ve counted a total of 3,190 pieces of plastic, most of it in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Here in this gigantic eddy-like “trap,” the concentration of floating plastic has increased exponentially. 26 See Barnes et al, Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, 2009; Arthur, et al, The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans, 2008; Nevins et al, Paper for Plastic Debris Rivers to the Sea Conference 2005: Seabirds as indicators of plastic pollution in the North Pacific. 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 49 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 We’re finding grain-size and quarter-size pieces of plastic in the net cod ends. Occasionally nets have counts as low as ten—versus counts of 1,372 pieces. Why? Because of the gyre’s patchiness, some places are loaded with plastic and others are not. On calm days, often times the plastic can be seen floating by the ship, other times the sea looks clear and free of plastic until you filter it and discover plastic pieces that are invisible to the human eye.28 Closer to West Contra Costa County, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has extensive documentation on contamination by plastic debris in all of the National Marine Sanctuaries. Three of the sanctuaries are located adjacent to the coast of Northern California and are, therefore, most likely to receive runoff from the San Francisco Bay area – Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay. From the NOAA website for Cordell Bank (which is just north of San Francisco Bay, as shown on Figure Levels of debris in both the ocean and at the land-sea interface are of growing concern. Marine debris poses a growing threat to marine life and biological diversity. Various types of debris are known to have adverse effects on marine species. Ingestion and entanglement are two of the largest problems associated with marine debris, which may cause injury and death to selected marine wildlife, including some endangered and protected species found in the Cordell Bank sanctuary. Marine debris originates from both land and ocean-based sources, although the majority of marine debris (approximately 80%) appears to come from land- based sources (U.S. Dept. of Commerce and U.S. Navy 1999). Land-based sources include: littering, storm water runoff, coastal municipal landfills, loss during garbage transport, open trash collection containers, industrial facilities, and beach-goers. Ocean-based sources include: commercial and recreational fishing, overboard disposal of passenger and commercial shipboard waste, and cargo containers falling off ships in high seas. The potential impact of floating marine debris on living resources in Cordell Bank sanctuary was highlighted by high rainfall in 2006, which flooded inland areas in the San Francisco Bay watershed and resulted in large amounts of debris washing 50 miles (80 km) to the northwest to Cordell Bank (Cordell Bank sanctuary, unpubl. data). While pictures of seals and turtles entangled with plastic bags have been widely publicized,29 NOAA also points out that: Plastics in the marine environment never fully degrade and recent studies show plastic is consumed by organisms at all levels of the marine food web. Given the quantities of plastic debris floating in the ocean, the potential for ingestion is enormous. For example, survival of endangered sea turtles is threatened by ingestion of plastic; studies have found that as many as 75% of sampled loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) had plastic debris in their digestive tracks (Tomas et al. 2002). Plastic marine debris also impacts many seabird species. Surface feeding seabirds, including albatrosses, shearwaters, fulmars, and storm-petrels are most 28 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/15/invasive-plastic-hitchhikers/ 29 See for example, the First Amendment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance prepared by the City of San Jose, October 2010. Pages 53 and 54. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 51 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 susceptible to plastic ingestion, with frequency of individuals with plastic in the stomach ranging from 50 to 80% (Nevins et al. 2005). For example, adult Black-footed Albatross often mistake floating plastic debris as food and ingest huge quantities of plastic bottle caps, plastic fragments, discarded cigarette lighters, and plastic toys…. When these adults return to their nests on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to feed their chicks, a high percentage of the meal is composed of plastic. Tagging studies have documented Black-footed Albatross crossing the eastern Pacific to feed in and around Cordell Bank sanctuary (Hyrenbach et al. 2006); it is unknown what proportion of plastic these birds ingest comes from within sanctuary waters. As stated in the earlier quote, plastic in the Cordell Bank sanctuary includes debris from the San Francisco Bay area communities. Additional research has specifically confirmed the role of plastic bags in causing impacts to sea turtles.30 Endangered species that occupy habitat within the Cordell Bank sanctuary include Pacific leatherback sea turtles, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales, black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), and short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus).31 South of the Cordell Bank sanctuary is the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, which includes breeding grounds for harbor seals, elephant seals, harbor porpoises, Pacific white-sided dolphins, rockfish and the largest breeding concentration of seabirds in the contiguous United States. The endangered blue whales and 26 other listed species are found within the Farallones sanctuary. Plastic bags continue to exist in ocean water for an unknown period of time, posing a hazard to marine life and seabirds. A picture on the website entitled “Water Science and Issues” shows a tern with a plastic bag wrapped around his neck. The text states that: Royal terns ( Sterna maxima ) are among several species of seabirds that dive from the air into the water to catch fish with their sharp beaks. A plastic bag floating at the surface would be invisible to the tern, and may even have attracted the fish in the first place. In this photograph, the tern's bill penetrated the plastic and left the bird wearing the bag around its neck like a shroud. The tern was treated at the University of Texas's Animal Rehabilitation Keep (ARK) and eventually was released back to the wild. Various pictures are frequently posted on the Internet to demonstrate this phenomenon of plastic bags persisting to exist in ocean waters all over the world, including: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2aSV2VBBE http://www.eng-forum.com/ME_News/Oct_08/Plastic_Waste.htm 30 Mrosovsky, N. et al, Leatherback Turtles: The menace of plastic, 2009. 31 NOAA. Cordell Bank National Martine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. June 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 52 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Plastic Litter in Water Bodies Studies done on the components of urban litter find that plastic is a substantial element. The Anacostia study cited previously in this EIR found plastic wrapping, plastic containers, and plastic bags present throughout their study area. Although plastic bags and food wrappers were present on the city streets and sidewalks that drained to the Anacostia watershed, they were not the primary constituents in the dry land environment. In the waterways, however, plastic bags and wrappers were a major component. This pattern is consistent with the earlier discussion which said that paper deteriorates more quickly in a natural environment than plastic; there is more paper litter on urban streets than there is in urban waterways because paper degrades quickly when wet. Plastic bags are not just a substantial component of litter in the Eastern United States. A characterization study of trash taken from stormwater catch basins by the City of Los Angeles in 2004 found that plastic bags and plastic film made up 25 percent by weight of the debris found, despite the relatively light weight of plastic film. A study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash types were evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were more prevalent on land areas compared to creek sites.32 A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with 32 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 53 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.33 Most of the concerns and issues with plastic in the environment revolve around the fact that plastic does not break down quickly and the items that enter the natural environment (bags, cups, plastic pellets, etc.) retain some aspect of their form for some time. Much of the ocean plastic has broken into smaller and smaller pieces, but is still recognizably pieces of plastic, as noted in the earlier National Geographic quote. Recent research has found that some plastics do degrade in the ocean environment. Specifically, certain hard plastics leach toxic chemicals (including bisphenol A or BPA) into the water and breaks down into three styrene oligomers that are not found in nature. BPA disrupts the hormone systems of animals, and the styrene oligomers are believed to be human carcinogens. Plastics that retain their form are primarily dangers to animals that mistakenly eat them as food or become caught or entangled with them. The plastics that break down or degrade in the ocean environment contaminate the sea water.34 There is no information available that identifies a likelihood that plastic bags would degrade in the ocean. There is anecdotal evidence from scientific observers that plastic bags retain their form for extended periods in the ocean environment such that they are mistaken for jellyfish and other food items and, as the pieces become even smaller, are eaten by smaller marine species that are themselves subsequently eaten. The infiltration of litter into the natural biotic system poses a substantial threat to wildlife. In assessing the degree of impairment of the West Contra Costa County streams evaluated, Water Board staff used the “threat to aquatic life” parameter. Staff stated that this was because the type of trash measured by this parameter is particularly problematic for wildlife (including aquatic life). The two primary problems that trash poses to wildlife are entanglement and ingestion. Mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and crustaceans all have been affected by entanglement in or ingestion of floatable debris, and many of the species most vulnerable to the problems of floatable debris are endangered or threatened. Entanglement is harmful to wildlife because it can cause wounds that can lead to infections or loss of limbs; it can also cause strangulation, suffocation, drowning, and limit escape from predators. Ingestion of trash can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the ingested items block the intestinal tract, preventing digestion, or if they accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel "full" and lessening its desire to feed. Ingested items can also block air passages and prevent breathing, thereby causing death. Parent birds that eat plastic or other trash will regurgitate the trash for their young, causing the chicks to starve to death.35 Photographic evidence of marine animals entangled with plastic bags, a turtle excreting a plastic bag, and plastic bags removed from the stomachs of marine animals during necropsies are available on internet sites. 33 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. 34 Bernstein, Michael. Plastics in Oceans decompose, release hazardous chemicals, surprising new study says. August 19, 2009; and Hard plastics decompose in oceans, releasing endocrine disruptor BPA. March 23, 2010. 35 An article in the Australian Daily Telegraph from October 23, 2009, shows a picture of a dead Laysan albatross chick with its belly opened to show that it was full of plastic trash. The same article said that one-third of the albatross chicks on Midway Atoll die from ingestion of plastic. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 54 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 There is no debate about whether or not plastic bags litter the creeks of West Contra Costa County. The question of exactly how many plastic bags are present in any one creek at any particular time is one that cannot be answered with information available. Plastic bag litter is clearly visible from public streets and private property, creates a risk to wildlife and a threat to endangered species, and helps to clog the catch basins and storm sewers that carry runoff to creeks that drain to the San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay, in turn, is an estuarine system that drains to the Pacific Ocean and is proximate to three National Marine Sanctuaries. The presence of paper shopping bags in creek litter is less well defined. There is paper in the creeks, but it is usually sufficiently altered such that its source cannot be identified. Most paper dissolves in water. Its presence adds to the nutrient loading in the creeks, and it is an undesirable contaminant. Because paper is made from wood fiber, it is organic and its dissolution in natural waterways will add to nutrient loading. No documentation was identified on the degree to which eutrophication from post-consumer paper litter is a significant problem in creeks or the ocean. However, an abstract of a scholarly presentation prepared in 1995 describes the multiple human causes of eutrophication in the coastal marine environment at a point in time before global warming and climate change were being widely discussed. The abstract identifies three primary causes of marine eutrophication: fertilizer, livestock waste, and human wastes (meaning sewage) that are present in the runoff from land. The increasing organic loading is identified as primarily resulting from nitrogen and phosphorus. The most recent addition causing increased nitrification is identified in the abstract as atmospheric oxides of nitrogen (NOx) generated by the burning of fossil fuels. No mention is made of paper litter as a factor.36 3.4.2 Biological Resources Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a biological impact is considered significant if the project would: have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or 36 Nixon, Scott W. “Coastal Marine Eutrophication: A Definition, Social Causes, and Future Concerns”, an abstract. February 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 55 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Direct Impacts from the Project The proposed ordinance would reduce the proliferation of both plastic and paper litter in the biotic systems of the West County because extremely large numbers of free single-use carryout bags would no longer be readily available. It is estimated that the ordinance would: eliminate approximately 95 percent of the roughly 350,000 plastic bags per day entering the physical environment of West Contra Costa County – the average number of single-use plastic bags given away to shoppers in the communities of West Contra Costa County each day; and eliminate at least eight percent of the roughly 46,000 paper bags per day also distributed freely each day in West Contra Costa County. The beneficial biological impact of banning plastic bags is that 332,500 fewer plastic bags will be available each day to become land or marine litter. That means fewer plastic bags that can smother coral or other marine plants, be eaten by sea turtles, caught around the neck or flippers of seals, or become entangled in the riparian vegetation along creek banks. A substantial reduction in the number of single-use carryout plastic bags will produce a reduction in plastic litter entering waterways and flowing to San Francisco Bay and then into the ocean. A reduction of plastic litter entering natural water bodies would have a beneficial impact on wildlife dependent upon those ecological systems, as well as on the visual quality of the stream and Bay, and the visual quality of the streets, parks and both public and private properties currently subject to impacts from plastic bag litter. It would also mean that 3,700 fewer paper bags will litter the communities, streets, beaches, and farmlands of West Contra Costa County. This reduction is the minimum anticipated effect of enacting a five-cent charge for a commodity previously available for free. It is likely the reduction will be greater as shoppers become accustomed to remembering to bring their reusable bags into stores, or decide that they don’t need to buy a bag for easy-to-carry purchases. A reduction of plastic litter entering natural water bodies as a result of the proposed ordinance would have a beneficial impact on wildlife dependent upon those ecological systems. (Beneficial Impact) Secondary Biological Impacts Resulting from the Project In addition to the ban on single-use carryout plastic bags, the proposed ordinance includes a five-cent fee for single-use paper carryout bags and requires that all the single-use carryout paper bags have a minimum of 40 percent recycled content. The reduction in manufacturing roughly 350,000 single-use plastic bags and 3,700 single-use paper bags per day would reduce the energy use and the generation of pollution associated with the manufacturing and distribution of those bags, and the secondary impacts which the energy generation ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 56 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 and materials manufacturing processes have on the natural environment (including wildlife and natural habitats) at locations other than West Contra Costa County. The exact effects of paper bag manufacturing at unknown locations cannot be quantified by RecycleMore. As in many industries, improvements have been made in recent years in response to environmental concerns and regulations. The life cycle analyses financed by the plastic industry usually identify significant impacts from the loss of substantial quantities of trees, and from the air and water pollution produced by paper manufacturing. The paper industry representatives point out that a substantial percentage of the trees used in paper making are grown for that purpose, that paper is widely recycled (nationwide, approximately 37 percent estimated by EPA and 63.4 percent estimated by the Paper Industry Association Council), and that most of the water used in paper manufacturing at the present time is captured, cleaned and returned, and not allowed to pollute the environment.37 However, even the loss of commercially grown trees adversely impacts the environment, including exposing land to erosion and causing habitat loss. While the loss of any trees would reduce forested habitat, commercially grown trees are unlikely to provide habitat for special status or listed species. Most of the trees are grown for paper and will be removed soon thereafter even if not used for single- use paper bags sold in West Contra Costa County. Recycling itself uses energy, water and other resources. Exactly what the specific net impacts of producing 40 percent recycled content paper bags would be, compared to producing plastic bags, is unknown. A comparative study of the differences in pollution when paper is made with recycled content is, however, discussed in § 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. Whatever might be the comparative impacts on the environment of using, discarding, or manufacturing plastic or paper bags, RecycleMore is not proposing to encourage the widespread use of single-use paper bags. The proposed ordinance is intended to facilitate and encourage the widespread use of reusable bags – bags that can be used multiple times, not once or twice and then discarded. There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved there. Representatives of the plastic bag industry have alleged that there will be a substantial increase in single-use paper bag use right after the ban on single-use plastic bags becomes effective. There is no quantified study illustrating such an increase resulting from charging for an item that was previously free. As stated earlier in this EIR, there have been documented decreases in the use of paper carryout bags in both Washington, D.C. and in Los Angeles County following the adoption of an ordinance requiring that a fee must be charged for them. All of the relevant information on real-world bag charge programs indicates that there will be an immediate decrease in the number of single-use paper bags distributed by retail businesses in West Contra Costa County. 37 Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates provided information from the Paper Bag Council; December 1, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 57 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Even if an increase in single-use paper carryout bag use were to occur, despite all evidence to the contrary, the preliminary analysis done for the Initial Study prepared and circulated for this project found that there would not be a significant impact. A copy of the Initial Study is available for review from the offices of Recycle More. A reduction by approximately 95 percent in the number of single-use carryout plastic bags given away in West Contra Costa County will reduce by approximately the same percentage the number of plastic bags that enter the litter stream in the West County and its immediate environs.38 This will substantially reduce the incidence of injuries to wildlife from plastic bag litter, including injuries to marine and riparian wildlife in and adjacent to the West County. The reduction in plastic bag litter entering the natural environment will also reduce the opportunity for associated injuries to wildlife, including marine animals, in San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. These impacts would be beneficial. (Beneficial Impact) The assumed decrease in the number of single-use recycled content paper bags would also result in an incremental decrease in litter. To the extent that paper litter that enters water bodies may contribute to degradation of the water quality, this effect would be reduced by the proposed ordinance. These effects would be less than the benefits resulting from a substantial reduction in single-use plastic carryout bags, but still beneficial overall. (Beneficial Impact) Impacts from Reusable Bags There has been speculation, including an article in the Wall Street Journal, that washing reusable bags will create new significant demands on water supplies and will add to the pollution stream entering natural waterways with detergents and dirty washwater. There are also statements made by representatives of the plastic bag manufacturers that reusable bags are virtually never washed. In a study of microbial contamination in reusable bags commissioned by Canadian plastic bag manufacturers (discussed in §4.8.3.1 of this EIR), almost all of the people who gave up their bags for testing said they had never washed them. This is also consistent with anecdotal information gathered during preparation of this EIR. Bags that are washed (usually when something leaks or is spilled on them) would typically be placed in a mixed laundry load and not washed by themselves, such that no additional water simply to wash bags alone would be used. Many of the polypropylene bags on the market contain labels suggesting that they be handwashed or cleaned with a sponge (which can also include wiping with a household disinfectant). Reusable polyethylene bags would also be surface cleaned. None of these cleaning techniques is likely to result in a measurable increase in water use or water pollution. Washing reusable bags will not result in a measurable increase in water pollution that could adversely impact wildlife. (Less Than Significant Impact) 38 Bags purchased outside West Contra Costa County and thrown as litter inside the West County would continue to exist until and unless adjacent jurisdictions adopt similar restrictions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 58 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.4.3 Conclusion The project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 59 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or cultural value for their historical significance. Cultural resources include a broad range of resources, examples of which include buried archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and buildings of architectural significance. For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA review [CCR Section 15064.5(a)], it must generally be 50 years or older and listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission; listed in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or formally recognized by a lead agency as constituting a historical resource. Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils representing snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Terrestrial sediments may contain fossils that represent such vertebrate land mammals as mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. 3.5.2 Cultural Resources Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a cultural resources impact is considered significant if the project would: • cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5; • cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; • directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or • disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The proposed project does not include physical development of any kind. No demolition, modification, or significant alteration is proposed to any historic building. No native soils would be disturbed by construction activities. As a result, the project would not result in impacts to cultural or paleontological resources. (No Impact) 3.5.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in impacts to cultural resources. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 60 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.6 GEOLOGY 3.6.1 Existing Setting Regional Geology Contra Costa County is divided by several fault systems, including the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Franklin, Concord, Antioch, and Greenville faults. Based on estimates from geologists, these faults have a probable earthquake magnitude of between 5.0 and 8.5 on the Richter Scale. The area has experienced a number of major earthquakes originating on faults both in the County and in the broader region, including most recently the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. Seismic activity associated with faults can also cause hazards such as liquefaction and soil settlement, slope failure, deformation of sidehill fills, ridgetop fissuring and shattering, and seiches, among others. 3.6.2 Geology and Soils Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a geological or soils impact is considered significant if the project would: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.); ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides; result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The ordinance does not propose or require construction of any kind and would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse risk involving geologic activities. For these reasons, the project would not result in any geology and soils impact. (No Impact) 3.6.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in geology and soils impacts. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 61 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.7.1 Existing Regulatory Context for Global Climate Change Global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is an emerging environmental concern being raised and discussed at the international, national, and statewide level. At each level, agencies are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.39 Regulatory efforts in California that apply to the project are summarized below. 3.7.1.1 State of California Executive Order S-3-05 In June 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified Cal/EPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. A multi-agency “Climate Action Team” was set up to implement Executive Order S-3- 05. Under this order, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and measures to reduce global warming were identified by the California Climate Action Team in 2006 and in the Climate Change Scoping Plan adopted in December 2008.40 3.7.1.2 Assembly Bill 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the global warming bill, was signed into law. AB 32 required the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt regulations by set dates to require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with the program. The bill requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, reducing greenhouse gas emission levels from 2020 to 1990 levels would require a 28 to 33 percent reduction of “business-as-usual” greenhouse gas emissions depending on the methodology used to determine the future emission inventories.41 Strategies identified by ARB to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include, but are not limited to, new vehicle emission standards, enforcement of diesel truck anti-idling requirements, capture of more 39 On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. The U.S. EPA has previously argued it lacked legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decision noted that greenhouse gases meet the Clean Air Act’s definition of an “air pollutant,” and the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. 40 California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.pdf; and California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. 41 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 62 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 methane from landfills, hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reduction strategies for the use and disposal of refrigerants, manure management in agricultural operations, and increased use of alternative fuels. As part of implementation of AB 32, a statewide 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory and 2020 Emissions Limit were adopted by the ARB in 2007. ARB’s mandatory reporting regulation was approved by the Board in December 2007, and became effective on December 2, 2008. Starting in 2009, facilities in several key industrial sectors, such as electricity generation, petroleum refineries and cement manufacturing, are required to report greenhouse gas emissions. The ARB also approved another key requirement of AB 32, the Climate Change Scoping Plan, on December 11, 2008.42 The Scoping Plan, developed by ARB with input from the Climate Action Team, proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health while creating new jobs and enhancing the growth in California’s economy. The ARB is currently working on additional regulations to implement the Scoping Plan. 3.7.1.3 Senate Bill 97 – Modification to the Public Resources Code On August 24, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) which requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. At the direction of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, ARB developed preliminary recommendations for statewide interim thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. ARB focused on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions – specifically industrial, residential, and commercial projects. These recommended approaches have not been adopted by ARB and additional workshops are not currently scheduled. 3.7.1.4 Senate Bill 375 – Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases SB 375 encourages housing and transportation planning on a regional scale, in a manner designed to reduce vehicle use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. Once plans and strategies are in place to meet the SB 375 targets, certain projects in these regions can be relieved of specific review requirements under CEQA. The targets apply to the regions in the State covered by the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC has developed the currently proposed Transportation 2035 Plan (January 2009) with the AB 32 GHG reduction targets in mind; however MTC’s RTP update for 2013 would be the first MTC plan subject to SB 375.43 42 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm 43 MTC. Draft EIR for the Transportation 2035 Plan(Transportation in Motion 2035). January 2009. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/EIR.htm. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 63 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional Transportation Plan that sets forth a vision for growth for the region while taking into account transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs. The SCS will be the blueprint by which the region will meet its GHG emissions reductions target if there is a feasible way to do so. The MPOs also will be required to prepare an alternative planning strategy with alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies to meet identified targets. Per SB 375, the ARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) on January 23, 2009, to provide recommendations on factors to be considered and methodologies to be used in ARB’s target setting process. The RTAC may consider any relevant issues, including, but not limited to, data needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and greenhouse gas emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of greenhouse gas reduction benefits from a variety of land use and transportation strategies, and appropriate methods to describe regional targets and to monitor performance in attaining those targets.44 3.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting Global Context This section provides a general discussion of global climate change and focuses on emissions from human activities that alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The discussion on global climate change and greenhouse gas emission is based upon the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32), the 2006 Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, and research, information and analysis completed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and the CAT. Global climate change refers to changes in weather including temperatures, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are modulated by naturally occurring and anthropogenic (generated by mankind) atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.45 These gases allow sunlight into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent heat from radiating back out into outer space and escaping from the earth’s atmosphere, thus altering the Earth’s energy balance. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor46, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are 44 California Air Resources Board. “SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee”. Accessed February 18, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/rtac.htm; and California Senate Bill No. 375. Accessed February 18, 2009. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf 45 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ 46 Concentrations of water are highly variable in the atmosphere over time, with water occurring as vapor, cloud droplets and ice Changes in its concentration are also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks rather than a direct result of industrialization or other human activities. For this reason, water vapor is not discussed further as a greenhouse gas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 64 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 also greenhouse gases, but are for the most part solely a product of industrial activities. The major greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, are briefly described below.47 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, respiration, and as a result of other chemical reactions manufacturing of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated Gases are strong greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases. High Global Warming Potential gases are emitted from a variety of industrial processes including aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission, and magnesium production and processing, and the production of HCFC-22, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon used as a refrigerant and in air conditioners. Human Influence on Climate The world’s leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway, is “very likely” caused by humans, and hotter temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries,” no matter how much humans control future emissions. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists and representatives concluded “the widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice- mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forces, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”48 Human activities have exerted a growing influence on some of the key factors that govern climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere and by modifying vegetation. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy production and transportation and the removal of forests and woodlands around the world to provide space for agriculture and other human activities. Emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased due to human activities. Carbon dioxide accounts 47 Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Accessed April 20, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Greenhouse Gases Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.giv/oa/climate/gases.html 48 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 65 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 for approximately 85 percent of total emissions, and methane and nitrous oxide account for almost 14 percent. Each of these gases, however, contributes to global warming at a different relative rate. Methane has a global warming potential 23 times that of carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide is 296 times that of the same amount of carbon monoxide. To account for these differences, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are often described in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). In 2007, the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of between two and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius) by the end of the 21st century under six different scenarios of emissions and carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations.49 Sea levels were predicted to rise by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (seven to 23 inches) during this time, with an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches possible depending upon the rate of polar ice sheets melting from increased warming. The IPCC report states that the increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 can likely be attributed to human- generated greenhouse gases. On a per person basis, greenhouse gas emissions are lower in California than most other states; however, California is a populous state and the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States and one of the largest emitters in the world.50 Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, followed by industrial sources and electric power generation.51 According to the Draft 2009 Climate Action Team Report52, the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century: Warming Trends. Increasing temperatures with summer warming increasing from about 0.9 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the first 30 years of the 21st century and from about 2.7 to 10.5 degrees F in the last 30 years of the 21st century. Precipitation. Changes in precipitation patterns and earlier melting of the Sierra snow pack that will have an effect on river flows, runoff, and water supplies in California. Sea-Level Rise. By 2050, sea-level rise could range from 11 to 18 inches higher and by 2100 sea-level rise could be 23 to 55 inches higher than in the year 2000. As sea level rises, major transportation infrastructure could be inundated and there also will be an increased rate of coastal flooding when high tides coincide with winter storms. Other impacts of sea-level rise include loss of coastal habitats (such as beaches and wetlands), direct impacts to coastal communities, and biodiversity reduction due to species loss. 49 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf 50 California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). 2006. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resources/res_04_an106.html 51 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm 52 California Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. April 1, 2009. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 66 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Agriculture. Increased challenges for the state’s agricultural sector from temperature and precipitation effects on crop yields, crop losses from extreme weather events, and changes to pest and weed ranges. Forestry. Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation, increased temperatures, wildfire frequency, and precipitation changes. Water Resources. Reduced reliability of State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply systems due to the interaction of projected growth, a warmer- drier climate resulting in reduced streamflows and reservoir storage, and salinity increases in the Delta. Coastal Areas. Coastal erosion of beaches (especially during severe winter storms), and impacts to property, infrastructure, and housing due to flooding in coastal areas and the San Francisco bay area (including due to levee breaching). Energy. Increased electricity demand, particularly in the Central Valley, during hot summer months and possible reductions in energy generation from hydropower systems due to changes in runoff patterns. Air Quality. Increased concentrations of ozone and particulate matter associated with higher temperatures and increased natural biogenic emissions, which could impact air quality (particularly in the South Coast and San Joaquin air basins). Public Health. Effects on public health due to an increased frequency, duration and severity of heat events, increased air pollution, wildfire outbreaks, and physical events such as flooding. Air pollution and increased wildfires have the potential to increase respiratory problems. The report concludes that extreme events from heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and bad air quality are likely to become more frequent in the future in California. Existing Context for Reusable Bags The activities involved in the production, transport, use, and disposal of single-use carryout bags release greenhouse gas emissions carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) into the environment. Of the various life cycle assessments (LCAs) that have been completed for different types of carryout bags, some have addressed greenhouse gas emissions. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, frequently are based on assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions, and none reflect current policies in the State of California. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. The findings of the LCAs are summarized below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 67 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage (Australia): Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts In 2002, a report was prepared for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage to analyze the impacts that might result from a number of different policy options being explored to reduce plastic bag usage. The report included an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced from a variety of different carryout bag types. The analysis was based on the greenhouse gas emissions of a household carrying approximately 70 grocery items home from a supermarket each week for a year using each type of bag. Plastic (HDPE) bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of two percent, while paper bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of 60 percent. No recycled content was assumed, except in the case of the 50 percent recycled plastic (HDPE) bag. A reusable woven HDPE plastic bag was assumed to last for 104 uses. A summary of the results of this analysis is presented in Table 3.7-1. Table 3.7-1: Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags (52 Shopping Trips per Year, Equivalent of 10 Plastic Bag Loads Per Trip) Bag Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kilograms of CO2 Per Year) Plastic Bag (HDPE) 6.08 Plastic Bag (HDPE) with 50 Percent Recycled Content 4.79 Plastic Bag (LDPE) 29.80 Reusable Plastic Bag (LDPE) 2.43 Reusable Cloth Bag 2.52 Reusable Plastic Bag (Woven HDPE) 0.63 Paper Bag 11.80 Biodegradable Plastic Bag 6.61 Boustead Consulting & Associates for the Progressive Bag Alliance (USA): Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags Boustead Consulting & Associates prepared an LCA for the Progressive Bag Alliance that evaluates the impacts of paper bags versus plastic bags; the report is undated but the peer review was completed in 2007. The LCA accounted for 30 percent recycled material in paper bags, and assumed that plastic bags were fully recyclable. The results of the LCA are summarized in Table 3.7-2.53 The LCA concluded that paper bags cause the release of approximately twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as plastic bags. Most emissions result from bag production, with plastic bags releasing more emissions during that stage. In the disposal stage, the following was assumed: 53 The assumptions upon which this LCA was based make its conclusions less than fully relevant for the evaluation of this project. The project is proposing to use paper bags made from 40 percent recycled material. The City of San Jose has not been able to successfully recycle a reliable percentage of the plastic bags collected. In addition, the ratio identified for carrying capacity (1:1.5) does not reflect actual practice or the functional capacity of the two kinds of bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 68 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 - Plastic Bags: 5.2 percent recycled, 13.6 percent incinerated, and 81.2 percent landfilled - Paper Bags: 21 percent recycled, 13.6 percent incinerated, 65.4 percent landfilled The 0.00 tons of CO2e related to disposal of plastic bags is due to the fact that plastic bags are assumed to not degrade, so the only end of life emissions result from incineration, which amount to less than 0.01 tons of CO2e. Paper bags release greenhouse gas emissions such as methane as they degrade, which is why the study identified higher emissions related to disposal. The LCA concluded that from all operations just prior to disposal, the resulting CO2 equivalents are more than 20 percent greater for the single-use plastic bag compared to the paper bag. The number for plastic bags is lower than reality, because plastic bags in West Contra Costa County are not recycled to the extent that Boustead assumed. Additionally, the assumed emissions for paper bags are too high because no paper bags are incinerated in the West County. The assumed paper bag recycling rate is likely too low, as well, considering the recycling rate of 65 percent in nearby Alameda County.54 The Boustead report does not include a life cycle assessment for reusable bags. It does, however, include the following statement: “This study did not examine the impacts associated with reusable cloth bags, so no comparison was made between the cloth bags and single-use polyethylene plastic bags. In other studies, however, cloth bags were shown to reduce environmental impacts if consumers can be convinced to switch. The author of the study also expresses his opinion that consumers do not appear likely to change their behaviors. Ecobilan for Carrefour: Évaluation des Impacts Environnementaux des Sacs de Caisse Carrefour In 2004, an LCA was prepared for the French retail chain Carrefour by Ecobilan. The bags analyzed included single-use HDPE bags, reusable LDPE bags, single-use paper bags, and biodegradable plastic bags. The LCA analyzed the impacts of the amount of bags needed to transport 9,000 liters of goods, which is an estimated annual purchase volume. The analysis in the report included an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions of the various bags, which is summarized in Table 3.7-3. The report concluded that paper bags produce 90 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than plastic bags, and that reusable LDPE bags used at least three times produce less emissions per use than either paper or plastic bags. The woven HDPE reusable bag listed in Table 3.7-1, however, must be used more times before it will generate benefits compared to a single-use HDPE bag. There is 54 StopWaste.Org. Mandatory Recycling and Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Draft EIR. August 2011. Table 3.7-2: Boustead Consulting & Associates LCA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Single-use Carryout Bags Bag Type/ Amount Life Cycle Stage Tons of CO2e 1,500 plastic bags Production 0.04 Disposal 0.00 Total 0.04 1,000 paper bags Production 0.03 Disposal 0.05 Total 0.08 1 CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 69 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 limited information available on the life cycle impacts of reusable bags. What is available, however, supports the conclusion that reusable bags that are used multiple times will produce fewer adverse impacts per use than either paper or plastic single-use bags. This is a logical conclusion. Some recent reports citing the Carrefour LCA have used a figure different than the one used in this EIR for comparing the greenhouse gas emissions related to paper and plastic bags. This EIR uses a figure from the Carrefour LCA showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single-use plastic bags, while most other reports citing the Carrefour LCA use a figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags. It is believed that those analyses are incorrect and the discrepancy appears to have arisen from a misunderstanding, perhaps related to the fact that the Carrefour LCA is written in French. The table from the Carrefour LCA reproduced in this EIR is one of several in the Carrefour LCA that compare impacts of paper and plastic bags in different scenarios. The data contained in Table 3.7-3 above comes from a table titled “Tableau 14: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (contexte francais de traitement des dechets)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performance of bags in the context of the French waste management system. It is located in a section titled “23.10 Resume des performances relatives des sacs”, which roughly means a summary of the relative performance of bags. This is the first of the several related tables presented in the Carrefour LCA, and was interpreted to provide an overview of bag-related impacts in France, where the report was completed. The data used in most other recent reports prepared in California, which shows paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the greenhouse gas emissions of single-use plastic bags, is titled “Tableau 18: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (avec mise en decharge des sacs usages)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performances of bags in a scenario where all used bags are landfilled. This table, as well as all the other similar tables other than the one used in this EIR, are in an entirely different section of the LCA titled “24 Analyses de sensibilite et simulations”, which roughly translates to sensitivity analysis and simulations. Other tables in this section compare bag-related impacts in several scenarios, such as partial reuse of plastic bags as garbage bags 65 percent of the time, partial reuse 32.5 percent of the time, and incineration of disposed bags for energy recovery. The tables in this section, including the one cited by most reports, represent simulations of very specific theoretical waste management scenarios, as opposed to the broad overview of the real-world situation in France provided by the table used in this EIR. Table 3.7-3: Ecobilan for Carrefour Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bag Type Ratio of Greenhouse Gas Emissions* Single-use HDPE Plastic Bag 1.0 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used two times) 1.3 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used three times) 0.9 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used four times) 0.7 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used twenty times) 0.1 Single-use Paper Bag 1.9 Biodegradable Plastic Bag 1.4 *Note: Numbers greater than one indicate a greater environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags and numbers less than one indicate a lesser environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 70 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Some of the discrepancy in the use of figures from the Carrefour LCA may also stem from information contained in a report prepared for the Scottish government regarding impacts related to proposed bag regulation policies, which contains one of the only English summaries of the Carrefour LCA.55 The Scottish report utilized a table from the Carrefour LCA showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags. However, the specific scenario portrayed in the table was chosen because the preparers of the Scottish report felt it best represented the waste management system in Scotland. The appendices of the Scottish report provide the rationale used: “For the base case considered here, we take the Carrefour sensitivity run where 100% of bags of all types go to landfill (emphasis added). Over 88% of all waste went to landfill in Scotland in 2002/03, around 2% was incinerated and around 10% was recycled [SEPA]. Most recycled material consists of paper, glass and metal. We do not have evidence to indicate whether paper bags are more likely to be recycled than plastic ones. The assumption that 100% of bags go to landfill is pessimistic. More recent figures show that recycling rates in Scotland increased in 2003/04 to an average of 12.3%. However, it is believed that plastic carrier bags will still be going to landfill or incineration, even though there will have been an increase in the recycling of newspapers, glass jars, tins, paper bags, etc. This reflects the fact that there are currently few facilities for, and little uptake of, plastic carrier bag recycling. It is unlikely that this situation will persist in Scotland given new environmental legislation such as the Landfill Directive that requires a move away from landfill and other measures to promote recycling. However, it is possible to adapt the analysis to alternative assumptions on waste management using the results of some of the sensitivity analysis presented in the Carrefour study.” This excerpt from the appendices to the Scottish report makes it clear that the figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags represents a theoretical scenario of 100 percent landfilling that does not actually exist in California, and would not accurately represent the situation in West Contra Costa County. The table used in this EIR, on the other hand, represents the actual real-world circumstances in France, with a mix of recycling and landfilling of paper bags. Since the figure showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single-use plastic bags, as opposed to 3.3 times greater, represents a realistic scenario, it is more applicable to circumstances in West Contra Costa County. Other studies going back to 1991 further support the benefits of reusable bags. An evaluation of life cycle energy intensity done by an economics professor found that the energy use for reusable nylon bag was far more efficient that either paper or plastic single-use bags, even if the single-use bags 55 Scottish Executive. Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment. August 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 71 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 were reused 10 times or more, and then 75 percent of them were recycled.56 Since the two largest sources of greenhouse gas generation are energy use and decomposition, and since reusable bags were found to have lower energy per use and are discarded less often, this is consistent with the findings in the Nolan-ITU and Ecobilan studies. 3.7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a significant greenhouse gas impact would occur if the project would: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Various life cycle assessments (LCAs) of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and many of them were consulted during the preparation of this EIR (refer to previous discussions, § 9.0 References, and Appendix Most LCAs try to account for greenhouse gas emissions that result from all stages of product life, from product creation to disposal. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, and frequently use assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. According to some LCAs prepared by consultants to the plastic bag industry, single-use paper bags generally result in greater greenhouse gas emissions when compared to single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. This is attributed to several factors, including the manufacturing process and the effect of paper bag weight and bulk on the transportation process, plus the eventual degradation of paper bags in landfills. The findings from other LCAs seem to differ based on the study, and no comprehensive comparison of the studies has been made by a neutral third party. In addition, no LCA was found that looked at the emissions associated with manufacture of 40 percent or 100 percent recycled content paper bags. Additionally, heavier single-use plastic bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which are often used by clothing and boutique stores, were found by some studies to result in greater greenhouse gas emissions than both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags made of high- density polyethylene (HDPE), which are most typically used by grocery stores and large format retail stores. Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that single-use plastic bags distributed to the customers of businesses in West Contra Costa County will be reduced by approximately 95 percent or more – from an average of roughly 350,000 bags per day to less than 17,500 bags per day. The project will 56 Fenton, Robert W. “Reuse versus recycling: a look at grocery bags”. Resource Recycling, March 1992. Page 105. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 72 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags per day. There is a quantity of emissions generated from the delivery of all types of bags to the stores where they are given away, and further emissions associated with picking up those that end up as litter, and with removing those that are discarded as solid waste. Since the preparers of this study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution of plastic (or paper) single-use bags to use as a basis of analysis, the exact increment of energy use or pollution associated with their delivery to the location where they are given to the public is unknown. Since the numbers of bags being delivered will be reduced for both types, the impacts from delivering the bags will also be reduced. This will therefore be a beneficial direct impact of the project. (Beneficial Impact) Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags handed out per day. This will substantially decrease air pollution produced by manufacturing and transporting both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags for use in West Contra Costa County. The paper bags that are still available to be purchased and used will all be at least 40 percent post consumer recycled content, further reducing the remaining increment of air quality impact that is generated by the use of paper bags in West Contra Costa County. There will likely be an increase in reusable bags purchased and used in West Contra Costa County. It is not possible to predict, from the varied and growing market of such bags, which ones might be purchased and used in West Contra Costa County, or what the impacts of their manufacture and transport from unknown locations might be. The Master Environmental Assessment prepared in 2010 by Green Cities California (a coalition of 12 local governments) stated that: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits. According to the status report on the ordinance posted by the Department of Public Works in September 2012, there are reports of reusable bags now being manufactured locally in Los Angeles County. This may be, at least partially, an indirect result of the market encouraged by the ordinance, but it is assumed that all such new businesses undergo an appropriate level of CEQA review to ensure that impacts are less than significant or the impacts must be acknowledged and overridden by the responsible lead agency. The project ordinance as it is proposed will result in a reduction of both direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions impacts resulting from the manufacture, transport, and use of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 73 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.7.4 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions related to the manufacture and use of carryout bags. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 74 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8.1 Existing Setting The manufacturing of single-use carryout bags, both paper and plastic, involves the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The EPA maintains a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. The TRI contents related to the paper and plastic industries is discussed below. According to the 1997 Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries, plastic resin manufacturing facilities in the U.S. released 64.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment and transferred 192 million pounds to other facilities for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal, for a total of 256.5 million pounds, in 1995. The top five chemicals released in terms of volume were ethylene, methanol, acetonitrile, propylene, and ammonia. Approximately 74 percent (48 million pounds) of the industry’s releases were to the air, 21 percent (13.3 million pounds) of releases were by underground injection, and the remaining five percent were released as water discharges and disposals to land. According to the 2002 Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd Edition, the pulp and paper industry in the U.S. released and transferred a total of approximately 263.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals in 2000. Methanol represented roughly 60 percent of all pulp and paper toxic chemical releases and transfers. Other common chemicals released by the industry include ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid. The pulp and paper industry released 66 percent of its total TRI poundage to the air, approximately 22 percent to water and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and nine percent was disposed on land (on site and off site). Single-use carryout paper and plastic bags comprise only a portion of the industries described above. Any change in demand related to single-use carryout bags would affect the release of toxic chemicals by these industries in a proportional manner. Suffocation According to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suffocation is the fourth leading cause of accidental death of toddlers (ages one to four) and is the most common cause of accidental death for infants. A number of accident prevention organizations and information sources warn that plastic bags are a frequent cause of suffocation in young children and advise parents and caregivers to “dispose of any plastic bags or keep them away from children less than 3 years old”, including dry cleaning bags, grocery bags, garbage bags, and even sandwich bags.57 The risk to children is that suffocation can take place either “because the child places a bag over their head, or because the plastic is flexible enough to form an airtight seal around their nose and mouth.” Thinner plastic film is more flexible and is therefore more of a risk than thicker plastic sheeting. 57 KidsHealth. “Household Safety: Preventing Suffocation”. http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstaid_safe/home/safety_suffocation.html; and “Suffocation Deaths: Prevention”. http://www.apsh.kpjhealth.com.my/Suffocation-Deaths-Prevention-article-3820.html. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 75 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Paper bags, which are thicker, coarser, and more porous, are not considered a suffocation risk. Cockroach Infestations An issue previously raised by a representative of the plastic bag industry was the degree to which paper bags attract and house cockroaches. Cockroaches can spread infectious diseases and their droppings can trigger asthmatic attacks. According to information provided by a number of sources online, including the City of New York Health Department, the University of Connecticut and the University of Nebraska, cockroaches will eat virtually any organic substance. This includes human food, grease, paper, pet food, garbage, the glue on can labels, and the detritus found on dirty clothes. Cockroaches are attracted to any location where there is food and moisture, and will live in the walls, cupboards, furniture, in piles of dirty laundry, under appliances, in garbage cans and recycling containers, within the seals on refrigerator doors, and in any pile of paper or cardboard, including paper bags and magazines. They can enter a home in boxes, bags, soft drink cartons, televisions, radios, used appliances and furniture, or they travel through tiny cracks in the walls or along plumbing. Different species of cockroaches will live in kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms, and basements. All of the advice provided for getting rid of cockroaches includes not allowing piles of cardboard or paper (including paper bags) to accumulate and putting all garbage and recycling in containers with tight fitting lids. 58 Heavy Metals Representatives of the plastic bag industry have repeatedly raised issues about the presence of heavy metal in reusable bags, including the fabric, bottom inserts, and printing on the outside of the bag. No evidence was found that anybody has ever experienced any injury or illness as a result of heavy metal in reusable bags. As stated previously, food rarely comes into direct contact with a reusable bag and anything that might do so (such as produce) would typically be washed and/or peeled after removal from the bag and prior to consumption. While reusable bags are much less of a risk to small children than plastic bags (due to suffocation hazards), it is reasonable to assume that parents would not generally allow children to chew on reusable bags or put them over their heads. That does not mean that such activity never occurs, but it is not assumed to be a means of routine or repeated exposure to heavy metals. Nevertheless, the proposed ordinance includes a stipulation that reusable bags within the defined jurisdiction(s) cannot contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metals in toxic amounts as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations. 58 Environmental Health Watch. “Cockroach Control Guide”. 2010. http://www.ehw.org/Asthma/ASTH_Cockroach_Control.htm; University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Management. “Integrated Pest Management for Cockroaches”. http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/homegrnd/htms/roach.htm; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “Cockroach”. 2010. and Barb Ogg, Ph.D., and Clyde Ogg. “Least Toxic Cockroach Control”. http://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/pest/factsheets/120-94.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 76 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.8.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this project, a hazards and hazardous materials impact is considered significant if the project would: • create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Potential for Hazardous Materials Impacts As described in the introduction to Section 3.0 of this EIR, the proposed ordinance is assumed to result in a decrease in the use of single-use carryout paper bags, including the commonly used bags made with brown Kraft paper. There would not, therefore, be any secondary or indirect impacts resulting from an increase in the amount of toxic chemicals transferred and released at unknown locations because of increased use of paper bags in West Contra Costa County, even the brown paper bags which do not require bleaching. The ordinance also requires that any single-use paper bags that are sold in the area must be 40 percent recycled content, which would further reduce any impacts resulting from the continued manufacture of any single-use paper bags for use in the project area. The proposed project will not, therefore, result in any increase in hazardous materials use, discharge or release, associated with the transport, use, disposal, emission of, accident, upset or release of hazardous materials in West Contra Costa County or elsewhere. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 77 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Potential for Microbiological Hazards Associated with Reusable Bags The proposed ordinance would likely lead to an increase in the use of reusable bags. Two studies were commissioned and paid for by plastic bag industry groups, one in Canada and one in the United States, on the potential for health risks associated with reusable bags. Both studies are discussed below. An incident in Washington associated with exposure to norovirus is also discussed below because it has been raised by representatives of the plastic bag industry. Canadian Study In 2009, the Environment and Plastics Industry Council (EPIC), a committee of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA), commissioned a study to test for the presence of bacteria and fungus in reusable and single-use shopping bags.59 The study involved a total of 25 used reusable bags and four control bags (three unused reusable bags and one unused single-use plastic bag) analyzed in two series of testing. The first series included one used reusable bag and one unused reusable bag as a control. The second series tested 24 used reusable bags and three control bags (two unused reusable bags and one unused single-use plastic bag). The 24 reusable bags tested in the second series were obtained through street intercepts throughout downtown Toronto, Canada. As shoppers left major grocery stores and shopping areas, they were approached and offered a new reusable bag as replacement for their existing bag. The bags intercepted ranged in age from one month to three years. The four control bags were purchased off-the-rack from grocery stores in Toronto. The bags were tested for ‘total plate count’ all readily grown, but not necessarily harmful, aerobic bacteria), total coliforms, Escherichia coli coli”), Salmonella, mold, and yeast. The unused control bags showed no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast or total coliforms.60 Out of the 25 used reusable bags tested, 16 (64 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria readily grown, but not necessarily harmful, aerobic bacteria), five (20 percent) contained yeast, and six (24 percent) contained mold. The study said that an “unacceptable total coliform count” was found in three (12 percent) of the reusable bags, indicating the possible presence of intestinal bacteria (no specific test, however, was done for fecal coliform). Of these three bags, one had been exposed to a meat spill and had never been washed, and all three had been in use for at least one to three years. No E. coli or Salmonella were detected in any of the bags in the study. When the reusable bags were intercepted from users for use in the study, almost all of the bag owners stated that their bags had never been washed. While 16 bags showed evidence of bacteria, only three bags showed bacterial exposure higher than the equivalent of handling the purchased items with unwashed hands, and two of those bags were at least two to three years old. None of the bacteria, mold, or yeast were found in quantities that exceeded any relevant standards. 59 Sporometrics. Grocery Carry Bag Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Reusable Bags and “First or Single- use” Plastic Bags. 2009. 60 Coliforms are defined as rod-shaped gram-negative non-spore forming organisms. Coliforms are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, and are also be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation. Coliforms are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal origin may be present. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 78 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 To put this information in a familiar context, two additional studies were consulted by the preparers of this EIR to identify the quantities of bacteria on everyday household surfaces and items. One study was published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology; it evaluated the presence of bacteria in 10 kitchens in the United States.61 The study tested sink basins, faucet handles, table tops, counter tops, refrigerator doors, oven controls, cutting boards, and sponges. The first scenario analyzed in the study tested surfaces in each household that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion, but without the use of a disinfectant. Out of 767 samples tested for bacteria, 758 (99 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria. Out of 799 samples tested for total coliforms, 371 (46 percent) showed the presence of some amount of total coliforms. The second scenario tested surfaces that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion with “casual use” of a disinfectant. Out of 606 samples tested for bacteria, 577 (95 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria. Out of 297 samples tested for total coliforms, 258 (87 percent) showed the presence of total coliforms. Table 3.8-1, below, compares results from this study to results from the study on reusable bags. For each study, only samples taken from a clearly defined, measurable area are shown. Another study evaluated the presence of bacteria on toothbrushes given to 10 individuals in Australia.62 Ten adults were given new toothbrushes of the same type and brand, along with identical tubes of toothpaste. After three weeks of use, the toothbrushes were analyzed for the presence of bacteria. The results showed that no toothbrush was bacteria-free, and the total bacterial presence ranged from 10,000 to 1,000,000 colony forming units (cfu) of bacteria. Small amounts of coliforms were found on three of the 10 brushes. The results of all three studies demonstrate that virtually every object exposed to routine human contact contains bacteria and other microbiological contaminants. The reusable bags were substantially lower in the quantities of such contaminants than surfaces and objects commonly found in the home, including kitchen surfaces where food is kept and prepared. Although levels of microbiological contaminants in used reusable bags could be higher than would be present in new, unused single-use plastic bags, proper cleaning of reusable bags, as with any other object that may come in contact with grocery products, would further reduce the potential for exposure of any food items to harmful bacteria. Additionally, most stores typically use plastic or paper bags to protect or contain meat, fresh produce, food prepared at the establishment, or other unpackaged goods that must be protected from moisture, damage, or contamination, and typically place the new bag containing such products inside a carryout bag at the point of sale, so that direct contact between food and reusable (or other carryout) bags rarely occurs. Although no paper bags were tested as part of the study on reusable bags, it can be assumed that unused single-use paper bags, like the unused control bags in the study, would show no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast or total coliforms. 61 Josephson, K.L., Rubino, J.R., Pepper, I.L. "Characterization and quantification of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in household kitchens with and without the use of a disinfectant cleaner". Journal of Applied Microbiology, Vol. 83 No.6, pp.737-50. 1997. 62 Taji, SS, Rogers, AH. “The microbial contamination of toothbrushes. A pilot study,” Australian Dental Journal, 43(2), pp.128-30. 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 79 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Table 3.8-1: Comparison of Microbiological Contamination on Reusable Bags and Household Surfaces Surface (size of area sampled) Total Samples Contaminated Samples % of Total Samples Contaminated Average cfu1 Present on Contaminated Samples Total Bacteria Used Reusable Bags2 (10 cm x 10 cm) 23 14 61% 1,010 Table Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 75 72 94% 52,600 Cutting Board3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 74 97% 67,500 Counter Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 73 96% 144,000 Sponge3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 72 95% 9,620,000 Total Coliforms Used Reusable Bags2 (10 cm x 10 cm) 23 2 9% 55 Table Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 28 36% 5,970 Cutting Board3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 24 31% 36,300 Counter Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 66 27 41% 22,300 Sponge3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 57 74% 2,430,000 Notes: 1 cfu = colony forming units 2 Only reusable bags with a measured sample area 10 cm x 10 cm) are included 3 Samples taken from surfaces that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion with “casual use” of a disinfectant ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 80 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 United States Study A study funded by the American Chemistry Council was very similar to the study done in Canada.63 It found that most users of reusable bags had not washed them. The study found bacteria and coliforms in most of the bags, and in 12 percent of the bags, E. coli was found. The likely source of much of the contamination was raw meat and/or other raw food. The danger the study warned of was allowing raw meat or meat juices to come into contact with food traditionally eaten raw (fruits and vegetables, for example). Since most people put produce into separate plastic bags that will not be regulated by this proposed ordinance, and many stores also put raw meat into a secondary plastic bag as well, the problem is not likely to become a significant one. This study also went one step farther than the Canadian study and evaluated the benefit of machine or hand washing the bags. It found bacteria levels reduced to almost nothing by washing. Conclusion from Studies The routine use of reusable bags as they are most commonly used, to carry packaged groceries and other purchases home from a store, would not expose users to unusual or excessive levels of harmful bacteria or other microbiological contaminants. Washing the bags when they become soiled would further reduce the likelihood of such exposure. (Less Than Significant Impact) Washington Norovirus Incident An unfortunate incident in October 2010 involved a group of Oregon teenagers and their chaperones attending a soccer tournament in King County, Washington. The incident was subsequently documented in a “cohort study” by an employee from the Oregon Public Health Division and a person from the Oregon Health and Science University, who had been apprised of the incident by people in public health agencies in Washington State. The report of their findings concluded that seven members of a group of 17 teenage girls and four adult chaperones who had traveled to Washington and shared rooms at a hotel there contracted norovirus.64 The study explained that exposure occurred because an open-top laminated woven polypropylene grocery bag that contained packaged cookies, chips, and fresh grapes was left in a hotel bathroom; the chips and cookies were still in the manufacturer’s packaging. One of the girls became sick during the night and had repeated bouts of vomiting and diarrhea, using the bathroom in which the bag was stored. Several of the group subsequently ate the cookies, chips, and grapes for lunch the next day. The researchers believed that the virus was aersolized from vomit and diarrhea and settled on the bag and its contents. This phenomenon is stated to be most intense when it occurs in a confined space such as a bathroom. The study never confirmed exactly how the virus was transmitted and could not evaluate touching the bag versus handling the food packaging versus eating the food—all seven 63 Gerba, Charles David Williams and Ryan G. Sinclair. Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags. June 9, 2010. 64 Repp and Keene, “A Point-Source Norovirus Outbreak Caused by Exposure to Fomites”; published electronically in The Journal of Infections Diseases. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 81 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 members of the group who got sick (not including the original “case 1” source of the illness) ate one or more of the foods in the bag. When the bag was tested two weeks after the outbreak, two of 10 swabs tested positive for some form of the virus group, but could not be sequenced. It should be noted in this context that the type of bag (reusable versus disposable) had no relevance to the outbreak. The published report mentions in the discussion that the incident “illustrates one of the less obvious hazards of reusable grocery bags”, but the comment appears to be speculative since no specific role in the outbreak was defined for the bag—the authors did not know how many of the seven people who contracted the illness had touched the bag itself and the report explicitly states that the illness was associated with “a composite exposure variable” to the items in the bag. The circumstances of this incident are sufficiently narrow that it is not assumed in this EIR to be a viable example of a common or recurring risk. An open grocery bag of food was left in a small bathroom, where someone was repeatedly sick with a contagious virus. This is contrary to all normal hygiene or even generally acceptable food storage practices. The outbreak would have occurred regardless of the type of bag (single-use or reusable), given the sequence of events. The subsequent test of the bag did not find a sufficient viable sample of the virus to confirm its genotype, and the role played by the bag itself in transmitting the illness (if any) is not known. There is no basis for finding that the use of reusable bags to carry groceries or other purchases home from a retail establishment would create any significant health risk. (Less Than Significant Impact) Other Hazards Suffocation The proposed project will decrease the availability of single-use carryout plastic bags, which are widely identified as a significant risk to young children. Thin plastic film is a source of very high risk for injury or death to infants and young children who can suffocate if the plastic is placed over or near their faces. To the extent these very thin film plastic bags pose a suffocation hazard for young children, the risk would be reduced because there will be fewer of them in homes. None of the reusable bags, including reusable plastic bags, are apt to be as great a risk as the thin HDPE single- use bags that they would be replacing. (Less Than Significant Impact) Cockroaches Residents of Contra Costa County who continue to use paper carryout bags should also continue to keep such bags in lidded containers as they need to do with their recyclables, or to not purchase them at the stores. Using paper bags with 40 percent recycled content instead of bags with less recycled content would not result in an increase in cockroach populations or the adverse conditions associated with cockroaches since the existence of paper bags is only one of dozens of attractive havens that can harbor roaches (including walls, attics, old furniture, old appliances, cardboard boxes, old books and magazines, etc.), none of which would be influenced by the ordinance. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 82 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Heavy Metals The presence of lead and other heavy metals has been found in some reusable bags, in the fabric of the bags, printing on the outside of the bags, and/or in the hard inserts in the bottoms of some bags. Representatives of plastic bag manufacturers have stated that “There are major toxicity issues associated with imported reusable bags.” This statement appears to be based on heavy metal found in some bags tested at various locations by newspapers and the plastic industry. When informed of the testing results, grocery stores or other users usually changed their bags or told the manufacturer to eliminate the heavy metal. At least one reusable bag manufacturer routinely certifies the safety of their bags (see http://www.chicobag.com/commitment-to-safety). The Environmental Protection Agency already limits the amount of lead in anything that would be landfilled. There is no means of predicting which bags will be used by people in West Contra Costa County in the near term or far term, nor is there any indication that substantial numbers of bags containing high concentrations of lead or other heavy metals are widely available in the area. Nevertheless, the proposed ordinance requires that reusable bags cannot contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.8.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 83 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9.1 Existing Setting 3.9.1.1 Regulatory Requirements The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities in West Contra Costa County to operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters via the cities’ storm sewer collection system. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the Municipal Regional NPDES Stormwater Permit on October 14, 2009, and included as co-permitees are: Contra Costa County, the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control The Stormwater Permit became effective December 1, 2009, and remains in effect through November 30, 2014. It specifies actions necessary to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable and effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into the municipal storm sewer system to protect local creeks and the Bay. 3.9.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting The Stormwater Permit regulates many areas and activities to prevent pollutants from impacting water quality in local waterways through such methods as stormwater treatment requirements for development, municipal operations Best Management Practices, public education and outreach, and water quality monitoring. The Stormwater Permit places a heavy emphasis on reducing trash loads to creeks and waterways. The Trash Load Reduction provision requires annual clean up of in-creek Trash Hot Spots and establishes phased goals to reduce trash loads from the storm sewer system by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. To demonstrate progress toward the 40 percent goal during its five-year term, the Stormwater Permit requires the following: • Development of a Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method; • Development of a Short-Term Load Reduction Strategy to meet the 40% goal by 2014; • Development of a Long-Term Trash Load Reduction Strategy to meet the 100% goal by 2022; and • Installation of full trash capture devices to treat runoff from a minimum drainage area equivalent to 895 acres. Possible approaches the cities in the West County will need to take to achieve this initial reduction goal include, but may not be limited to, the following: • Installation of additional full trash capture devices; • Enhancement of municipal maintenance activities such as street sweeping, inlet cleaning activities, and public litter can maintenance; • Product stewardship and source reduction actions targeting highly littered items (such as single-use disposable bags); and • Public Education and outreach designed to discourage littering behaviors. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 84 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Despite progress in reducing urban contributions to pollution of the waterways of the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.65 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. Litter and Waterways Marine debris ocean pollution) has been shown to have dramatic impacts on wildlife and habitat, and plastics comprise more than 60 percent of such debris. Single-use plastic shopping bags have been identified in marine animal carcasses, floating in the concentration of garbage that accumulates in and around the North Pacific Gyre, and are identified at various marine locations noted in many of the documents listed in the references for this EIR. Plastic bags and film plastic contribute to a persistent litter problem that is of growing concern for the health of waterways locally and worldwide. Land-based sources, such as stormwater runoff from urbanized areas, are the dominant contributors. The 2008 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC), produced by the Ocean Conservancy, found that plastic bags were the second most common debris item collected worldwide during the annual one- day coastal cleanup event. Paper bags were the ninth most common debris item collected.66 In 2009, the Coastal Cleanup again found plastic bags were the second most commonly littered item on beaches, but paper bags had fallen to tenth place. In the U.S. in 2008, plastic bags were the fourth most common item littered on beaches, and paper bags were in tenth place. In 2009, plastic bags continued to be the fourth most common item of litter on beaches, but paper bags rose one notch, to ninth most common. In California in 2008, plastic bags were also the fourth most common item of litter found on beaches, and paper bags were ninth. In California in 2009, plastic bags rose to third and paper bths to seventh. Locally 39,590 items of trash were collected in Contra Costa County, of which 3,107 (7.9 percent) were plastic bags and 1,562 (four percent) were paper bags.67 In Ireland, where a fee had already been levied on plastic bags, out of 10,142 total items collected, 118 (1.2 percent) were paper bags and only 67 (0.7 percent) were plastic bags. Specific numbers were not available by county for 2009. 65 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. 66 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It). 2009. 67 Allison Chan, Save the Bay via Ocean Conservancy. Email Communication. December 9, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 85 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 The 2008 Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan completed by the District of Columbia Department of the Environment discovered that plastic bags made up 21 percent of the trash in the main river and 47 percent of the trash in tributaries.68 A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in selected storm drain catch basins, by weight.69 Most local waterways drain to San Francisco Bay; when the tide goes out, the water in San Francisco Bay moves into the ocean. Therefore, trash in Bay Area creeks and rivers can end up in the Pacific Ocean. The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) recently finalized its Implementation Strategy for the OPC Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. The strategy cites the elimination of packaging wastes that contribute to litter, including single-use carryout bags, as a priority, and recommended that a price be placed on single-use paper and plastic bags as an incentive for the use of reusable bags.70 A study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. 71 The City of San Jose estimates that implementation of an expanded litter control program to protect creeks, as required in the new permit, will cost the City approximately two to four million dollars annually.72 In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash 68 Anacostia Watershed Society for the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. December 2008. Available at: http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/cwp/view,a,1209,q,499180.asp 69 Ad Hoc Committee on the Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Characterization of Urban Litter. Staff report dated June 18, 2004. 70 California Ocean Protection Council. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. November 20, 2008. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf 71 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Lessons Learned from Pilot Trash Sources and Pathways Assessment. February 25, 2009. Personal Communication with Chris Sommers, Managing Scientist at Eisenberg, Olivieri, and Associates, March 11, 2009. 72 Since the program is not yet designed, this cost estimate is preliminary. It is provided only to give an order of magnitude to the impact this new program will have on the service delivery capacity of a City already dealing with substantial budget shortfalls and experiencing layoffs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 86 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 types were evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were more prevalent on land areas compared to creek sites.73 A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.74 As discussed in §3.4.1.1 of this EIR, recently released research reports have identified products of plastic degradation in the ocean, including the endocrine disruptor BPA and certain styrene oligomers (chemical products of degradation). Research released by the American Chemistry Society has identified evidence that plastic can and does degrade in the natural environment. While these chemical pollutants have been found in increasing concentrations in ocean water, none of them are believed to be associated with plastic bags. However, there is emerging evidence that that one of the organic contaminants transported by plastic in the ocean is phenanthrene, a aromatic hydrocarbon.75 It binds to three types of plastic, including polyethylene. Polyethylene was found in a NOAA study to have the highest apparent distribution coefficient (a measure of how much contaminant binds to a surface) for phenanthrene.76 The study also states that the plastic pieces can release the contaminants to living organisms that ingest the plastic. Since polyethylene is the primary material used in making single-use plastic carryout bags, there may be a connection between plastic bags and exposure of the animals that eat the plastic debris to toxic substances. The paper was released in 2008 and the research it discusses was still ongoing. The Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, issued on October 14, 2009, includes trash load reduction. The trash reduction provision includes requirements for cities to annually clean up “trash hot spots” in creeks and establishes phased goals to reduce trash loads from the storm sewer system by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. This sets an ambitious target for trash reductions, and will require significant resources to implement. Possible approaches to achieve this initial reduction goal include, but may not be limited to, installation of additional trash capture devices, enhancement of street sweeping and inlet cleaning activities, additional maintenance of public litter cans, product stewardship and source reduction actions targeting highly littered items, public education and outreach, and increased enforcement of anti-littering laws. 73 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf 74 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. 75 Phenanthrene is a suspected but not confirmed human carcinogen and has been found to cause reproductive problems and birth defects in mice. It is a chemical used in the manufacture of various products, including plastic. 76 NOAA. The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans. September 3, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 87 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.9.2 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, an hydrology and water quality impact is considered significant if the project would: violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The proposed ordinance would reduce the ongoing proliferation of plastic bag litter into waterways, since an estimated 95 percent of the nearly 350,000 plastic bags currently given away daily (on average) to customers by local businesses would no longer be available. It is likely that 95 percent fewer plastic bags will enter the storm sewers in West Contra Costa County and the creeks in the area. Fewer plastic bags will clog catch basins in the public streets. The West County will contribute less plastic to the pollution in San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and fewer bags to endanger fish, turtles and birds in local creeks and the Bay and Ocean. A reduction in the amount of plastic litter in the creeks and waterways of the West County would result in a beneficial hydrology and water quality impact. (Beneficial Impact) The ordinance will increase use of reusable bags. Many types of reusable bags are made from woven cloth or netting, and can be laundered. Many of the newer reusable bags being given out by local merchants (refer to Photos 10-15) are plastic, frequently polypropylene. These durable plastic bags can be wiped clean with a sponge; some can also be laundered (labels sometimes recommend hand washing). As discussed in §4.8.3.1, the plastic bag industry has stated that most people don’t wash their reusable bags very often, if at all. It is unlikely that most bag users would dedicate entire laundry loads to shopping bags, or that such loads (if they ever occur) would be done frequently. Since any reusable bags that are washed would be part of a larger laundry load, the increase in water use and detergents resulting from bag ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 88 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 laundering would be negligible, particularly compared to water used in the manufacturing process for plastic and paper bags. (Less Than Significant Impact) Indirect Impacts As described in §4.0 of this EIR, a ban on plastic bags and a $.05 charge for paper bags could result in the elimination of roughly 121.4 million plastic bags from West Contra Costa County’s environment annually, and a decrease of 1.31 million single-use paper carryout bags each year. If an 80 percent reduction in single use bags is achieved, which was the estimated maximum reduction achieved by a similar bag reduction program in Washington D.C. with a $.05 store charge for bags, the project would result in a net reduction of nearly two million gallons of water use. Using data from the Carrefour LCA and the conservative estimate of a 50 percent reduction in bag use also indicates that a $.05 fee could result in a net annual reduction of water use.77 Reductions in the use of both paper and plastic single-use carryout bags anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in any increase in water use or water pollution in West Contra Costa County or elsewhere. (No Impact) It must be reiterated that estimates extrapolated from any specific LCA cannot be applied directly to the situation in West Contra Costa County. The Initial Study prepared for this project prior to the release of information from Los Angeles County assumed that there might be an increase in paper bags because plastic bag manufacturers insisted that such a scenario must be evaluated in the absence of evidence to the contrary. That analysis could not identify a significant impact from water use, even if paper bag use in West Contra Costa County were to increase. (The Initial Study is attached to this EIR as Appendix Since the use of paper carryout bags is not predicted by this EIR to increase as a result of adoption of this ordinance, there would be no adverse impact associated with an increase. (No Impact) 3.9.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in significant hydrology and water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 77 According to the Carrefour LCA, manufacturing paper bags requires 3.3 times the amount of water as manufacturing plastic bags. Since the number of plastic bags reduced is more than 3.3 times the highest estimate of increased paper bags, there could be a net reduction in water use even if paper bag use increased, contrary to the assumptions of this study. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 89 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.10 LAND USE 3.10.1 Existing Setting Under existing conditions, most retail businesses in West Contra Costa County, whether in cities or in the unincorporated area, offer customers a free bag in which to place their purchases prior to leaving the store. The bags are offered at the check-out counter and, in most cases, the purchases are placed in the bag by store employees. For those stores where customers are expected or allowed to bag their own purchases, the only free bags offered are plastic. The following discussion refers frequently to acronyms for different types of plastic used in making bags. A brief description of each type of plastic can be found in Figure 3. More information on the various types of plastic can be found at the American Chemistry Council website: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF In the recent past, most grocery stores in California offered customers a choice of paper or plastic single-use carryout bags.78 Some grocery stores now have only plastic available. A few grocery stores offer only paper. Some grocery and other stores offer a token refund if a customer brings their own reusable bag. Other stores, including clothing and department stores, drug stores, and specialty retail stores, offer plastic bags of various sizes and shapes. Some also offer paper bags, and some offer only paper bags. Most of the plastic bags used in grocery stores are HDPE and most of the plastic bags used in large format retail and department stores are LDPE. The former are thin and very lightweight; the latter tend to be sturdier and are frequently reused by the consumer, at least once or twice. The paper bags offered in most grocery stores are unbleached brown kraft paper; the paper bags offered at other retail stores vary widely, including brown and white (bleached) and various shades in between (see Figure In recent years, a significant number of stores began offering reusable bags for sale. There is no statistical information available as to which bags are most popular, or how many different kinds are currently for sale locally or on the Internet. Based on observation of stores in the San Francisco Bay Area, the more commonly seen reusable bags are canvas (cotton, cotton/PET blend, or PET), polypropylene, and polyethylene (both HDPE and LDPE). Some stores offer several different kinds of bags for sale. There is a very wide variety of reusable bags available locally throughout West Contra Costa County and on the Internet. In addition, giving away reusable shopping bags has become a popular form of advertising for environmental organizations, businesses in related fields, public television stations, etc. Whole Foods implemented a program similar to one found in Ireland (and called there a “Bag for Life”) in which a bag made of recycled soda bottles (PET) is sold for a nominal price ($0.99 at Whole Foods) and is replaced at no charge when it breaks or wears out. Virtually all of the reusable bags listed above are recyclable and are accepted in some curbside programs in the state. Based on the state’s waste management heirarchy, however, the preferred 78 According to Wikipedia, single-use carryout plastic bags were introduced to retail businesses in the United States in the late 1970’s and were taken up by the major grocery chains in the Midwest starting in 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag [consulted on 11/19/12] ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 91 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 method for getting rid of bags no longer wanted by their owners is to donate them to charitable re-use organizations (Salvation Army, Goodwill, etc.). Bags no longer suitable for reuse can then be recycled as rags. The variety of bags and bag types, and of the materials they are made from, the free movements of goods across county, state, and national borders, and the large selection of products available on the Internet make it impossible to accurately estimate which reusable bags would be used by whom, which would be the most used in West Contra Costa County as a result of this ordinance, where they would come from, and what might be the impacts caused by their manufacture or transport. The open market on this type of merchandise is growing quickly and evolving in a variety of directions. Many, but not all of the bags are manufactured outside the United States. Staff of the Los Angeles County Public Works Department refers to an increase in local manufacturing of reusable bags occurring after implementation of the County ordinance banning the single-use carryout plastic bags and requiring a charge for single-use carryout paper bags.79 The proposed ordinance would limit the distribution of free single-use carryout bags at retail establishments within the five Member Agencies of RecycleMore: El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, as well as unincorporated areas within West Contra Costa County. The Member Agencies and unincorporated areas have a combined population of 243,640. As it is presently drafted (see Appendix the proposed ordinance prohibits the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale check-out) for all commercial retail businesses in West Contra Costa County except restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. Single-use paper bags with a minimum 40 percent post-consumer recycled content would be exempt from the prohibition, but would have to be sold for a minimum charge of $.05. Reusable bags, regardless of type, would also have to be sold for a minimum charge of $.05. Restaurants would be completely exempt from the ordinance. There is no specific estimate from any reliable source of how many single-use plastic carryout bags are used in West Contra Costa County, so the number used in this EIR (127.8 million) was extrapolated from the statewide number provided by CalRecycle (which was originally generated by plastic bag manufacturers). The single-use carryout bags handed out to customers are purchased by the businesses from various sources and are delivered to the stores. Stores contacted indicated that bags are delivered in mixed shipments with other merchandise. No business said that a truck carrying only plastic and/or paper bags delivered bags to their store. Most existing commercial development was constructed pursuant to the site and architectural review processes that apply in the city in which the business is located or, in the case of unincorporated territory, in the County. Existing development is therefore assumed to conform to building and zoning standards for the jurisdiction. In older communities, there are some existing commercial buildings built prior to adoption of zoning or other development standards. Although legally nonconforming, those older buildings may have inadequate parking and substandard waste 79 http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/aboutthebag/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 92 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 enclosures, by current standards. Larger commercial buildings, including most grocery stores and malls, are constructed with loading docks or loading doors through which shipments are received. Those that are not so designed have well-established systems for receiving shipments of merchandise, including supplies necessary to do business. 3.10.2 Land Use Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this project, a land use impact is considered significant if the project would: physically divide an established community; conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; 3.10.2.1 Direct Land Use Impacts If it is assumed that West Contra Costa County consumers receive a proportional share of the single- use carryout bags handed out annually in California, then approximately 127.8 million plastic bags and 16.8 million paper bags are distributed free to consumers in the West County each year (the number of paper bags is estimated based on the discussion at the beginning of §3.0 of this EIR). With the implementation of the ordinance, it is assumed that the total number of single-use carryout bags handed out in the West County will be reduced, and the quantity of such bags present in litter, storm drains, and waterways will also be reduced. The ordinance would prohibit single-use carryout plastic and paper bags being handed out free at checkout in retail establishments. An exception would be made for exempt paper bags containing at least 40 percent post-consumer recycled content. Retail businesses could offer their customers exempt bags, but would be required to charge for them. Nonprofit charitable reuse retailers and restaurants would be completely exempt from the ordinance. With implementation of the proposed ordinance, the following changes may be assumed: Ban on single-use plastic carryout bags except at restaurants and charitable reuse stores Single use carryout plastic bags would cease to be given away free in most West Contra Costa County retail stores and the number of such bags being distributed in the West County would drop sharply. Assuming that five percent of the total single-use plastic carryout bags are used in facilities that will be exempt from the ordinance (restaurants and charitable reuse stores), the ordinance would result in roughly 121.4 million fewer single-use plastic carryout bags being distributed for free in retail stores in the West County each year. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 93 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Ban on single-use paper carryout bags having less than 40 percent recycled content and a five-cent charge for bags with 40 percent recycled content. Using a conservative estimate that as few as eight percent of customers who presently use paper bags would refuse to pay for a bag they are accustomed to getting without charge, the result would be at least 1.31 million fewer single-use paper carryout bags being distributed for free in retail stores in West Contra Costa County each year. Particularly in light of the survey of nearby San Jose residents, the future use numbers for paper bags are likely to be conservatively high. Additionally, the numbers will drop as shoppers become accustomed to the ordinance and remember to bring the reusable bags with them, which is what is also occurring in Los Angeles County. Recent anecdotal experiences from cities in California that have already implemented such an ordinance have seen a tendency for customers in non-grocery stores that sell smaller items (bookstores, drugstores, etc.) to refuse a bag and walk out with purchases in-hand. In stores where the clerks ask if a customer would like to purchase a bag, customers are less apt to do so, compared to stores where clerks merely ask if a customer would like a bag. These types of variations are impossible to control for in forecasts. The reductions in single-use carryout bags identified are only the initial estimates. It is not RecycleMore’s goal to increase the use of paper bags but to increase the community’s acceptance of reusable bags. It is RecycleMore’s expectation based on implementation of other environmental programs requiring behavior change, such as curbside recycling, over time people will become accustomed to using reusable bags and will rely on their use by choice. As discussed earlier in this EIR, here is not a great deal of directly comparable past experience to rely on in predicting exactly how and when behavior might change. The imposition of a fee on both plastic and paper single-use carry bags by Denmark in 1994 resulted in a 66 percent reduction in use of both types of bags.80 In 2001, Ireland imposed a fee on single-use plastic carryout bags which resulted in a reduction of over 90 percent in the number of plastic bags used.81 Washington D.C. saw a 50 to 80 percent reduction in the use of single-use plastic bags after the imposition of a five-cent fee in 2010. The difference in effectiveness between the Irish and Danish programs likely was the result of differences in the two programs; the Danish tax was assessed on the bags sold to businesses, who presumably passed on the costs in various ways to their customers (including charging them for bags). The tax on single-use bags was just one of a number of “green” taxes assessed by the Danish government during that time period so the Danish population would have been well aware of the purpose and need for the taxes. The Irish fee was assessed on the customer at the time of purchase and was specifically assessed to reduce plastic litter in a country dependent on tourist-generated revenues (a purpose that the Irish people themselves appeared to understand and agree with). 80 Australia Department of Environment and Heritage. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts, Final Report. December 2002. 81 Government of Ireland, Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government website. Plastic Bags. 2007. http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 94 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Because there were substantial reductions in the number of single-use carryout bags resulting from all of these programs, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a substantial reduction in West Contra Costa County of the number of single-use carryout bags under the proposed ordinance. Because there would be an immediate net reduction of approximately 95 percent of the single-use carryout plastic bags and eight percent of the single-use carryout paper bags given away annually in the West County, the number of such bags that become litter would be reduced accordingly. This would be an immediate beneficial environmental impact. (Beneficial Impact) 3.10.2.2 Indirect Land Use Impacts Because the Irish fee was only assessed on plastic carryout bags, there was some increase in use of paper carryout bags. Irish businesses reported that the increase in paper bag use was not equivalent to the previous use of plastic carryout bags. Among other factors, the paper bags are bigger and can carry more. In comparisons made between single-use paper and plastic bags by the preparers of this report, the typical single-use paper shopping bag would hold between one and a half and twice the volume of the typical single-use plastic shopping bag used in grocery stores (see photos in Appendix It is estimated that a minimum of between one and a half and three times the number of plastic bags are needed to carry the same volume as the paper bags. Clerks in grocery stores are sometimes seen double bagging purchases. This occurs using double plastic bags, double paper bags, or one of each (plastic inside paper or vice versa). It is not a uniform phenomenon, however, and is considered too speculative to try to predict. It has been reported that plastic bag use increased “significantly” after the Irish fee was imposed. This is untrue. The story may have resulted from an increase in the sale of “bin liners” or “kitchen tidy bags” – plastic bags sold as garbage bags. Increases as high as 77 percent were reported by some retailers, but the base numbers of sales of these bags were very small compared to plastic shopping bags. There were no increases reported in the larger garbage and garden bag sales. There may be an increase in sale of wastebasket liners in West Contra Costa County, for those customers who previously used freely distributed carryout bags to line wastebaskets, but the number sold will never approach the 127.8 million plastic bags presently being given away in the West County each year. Wastebasket liners are unlikely to end up as litter in either a land or marine environment because they are typically filled with household or commercial rubbish and are therefore too heavy to become airborne by the time they leave the home or office. If most carryout bags had been used as wastebasket liners, there would currently be no concerns about their contribution to litter. An increase in the sale of wastebasket liners is not likely to result in any increase in litter and has not been so large in other areas that an environmental impact would occur. The same assumptions would be true for the small plastic bags distributed in dog parks and other public places for use in picking up and disposing of animal feces. There may be some increase in their use, but there is virtually no possibility of that increase approaching the volume of freely distributed plastic retail carryout bags, and bags used to dispose of animal feces (which by the nature of the use are heavy after use) are also unlikely to end up as litter. The sale of plastic trash bags would not result in any adverse secondary land use impact. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 95 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Impacts at the Retail Stores Long term, the proposed ordinance would create a substantial reduction in the total number of single- use carryout bags, paper and plastic, handed out in West Contra Costa County. Physical impacts to the stores (changes in storage required and litter) would be minimal, and they will likely decline over time as customers become accustomed to using reusable bags. The total number of plastic and paper bags would not have to be stored in the same quantities, using up less internal space. There would be much less plastic bag litter in the immediate vicinity of the stores and smaller reduction in paper bag litter near the stores. Since the customer will have just paid for that paper bag, there may also be less of a tendency to discard it immediately. People making small purchases (such as soda or snacks) may choose to not purchase a bag and will therefore not have one to discard. Reusable bags offered for sale could occupy the storage space in stores currently used for single-use carryout bags. Single-use carryout bags given away or sold by grocery and other stores in West Contra Costa County are shipped and delivered to stores in mixed loads with other products. As described above, it is assumed that fewer or no single-use plastic carryout bags would be delivered to the stores after the ordinance is adopted, although exempt paper bags could still be delivered, as would the plastic bags used for produce and other exempt purposes. The same trucks would still be making the same rounds since those trucks that deliver carryout bags also deliver other merchandise to the stores. It is likely that the vendors would stock other merchandise for delivery to the same retail stores, or they might add other stores to the same routes, if the arrangement allows for more efficient routing. No physical changes would be required to the stores, their delivery arrangements, or the outside layouts of the business sites. There is no reason to assume that the proposed project will directly result in the creation of any new buildings, permanent structures or other permanent physical changes in the natural or man-made environment other than a reduction in the presence of single-use plastic and paper bags in litter found in and around West Contra Costa County. A reduction in litter would not be a barrier nor would it constitute a division of a community. As discussed above, regulating single-use carryout bags would be compatible with the West County’s long-established plans, policies, and programs for promoting the use of reusable products over single-use ones. No physical changes in the built environment are anticipated or likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. No physical change would need to occur at the retail stores that would cease to give away single-use plastic carryout bags at the point sale, and would offer exempt bags to customers for a store charge. (No Impact) Land Use Impacts from Reusable Bags Reusable bags, because they are purchased by a user and because they are made of heavier materials, are less likely than single-use bags to be discarded outdoors. Obviously, any portable object can become litter (clothes, toys, etc.), but people place more value on things they purchase and a reusable bag by its nature has value as a useful object. Unlike lightweight single-use bags, reusable bags are more substantial, have stronger handles and are less likely to be carelessly dropped or thrown from ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 96 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 car windows. Just as handbags, briefcases, and luggage are not frequently seen as littered items, reusable bags are not likely to occur in litter and would never be discarded as litter to same extent as single-use bags (paper or plastic). No other potentially significant land use impacts associated with increased use of reusable bags was identified. (Less Than Significant Impact) 3.10.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not result in any significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 97 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11.1 Existing Setting In 1975, the California legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). This act provides for the reclamation of mined lands and directs the State Geologist to classify (identify and map) the non-fuel mineral resources of the state to show where economically significant mineral deposits occur and where they are likely to occur based upon the best available scientific data. The non-fuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron and copper; industrial minerals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt and dimension stone; and construction aggregate which includes sand and gravel, and crushed stone. These materials occur in unique geological settings and, therefore, must be mined where they are found. The most prominent mineral resources that are currently mined in the County include crushed rock near Mt. Zion, on the north side of Mt. Diablo, in the Concord area; shale in the Port Costa area; and sand and sandstone deposits, mined from several locations, but focused in the Byron area of the Southeast County. Mineral resource extraction in West Contra Costa County is minimal. 3.11.2 Mineral Resources Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a significance impact to mineral resources would occur if the project would: result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The ordinance does not propose physical development of any kind and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. For these reasons, the project would not result in any mineral resources impacts. (No Impact) 3.11.3 Conclusion The project would not result in any impact to the availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 98 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.12 NOISE 3.12.1 Existing Setting Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a “decibel” (dB) scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the weighted” decibel or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early morning, or late evening. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and sleeping) and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods such as Leq, DNL, or CNEL.82 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher when a jet is taking off from an airport or a leafblower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower during lulls in traffic flows on I-880 or in the middle of the night). The only noise condition that can be identified in West Contra Costa County related to single-use and reusable bags would be truck noise from the transport of bags to stores. 3.12.2 Noise Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a noise impact is considered significant if the project would result in: exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 82 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with 10 dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Generally, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 99 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The proposed single-use bag reduction ordinance does not include physical development of any kind and would not create any circumstance that might expose persons to excessive noise or groundborne vibration levels. Based on existing patterns of distribution, it is unlikely that there would be little or no change in the number or routes of truck trips delivering bags to retail stores in West Contra Costa County (see §4.16 Transportation). Any additional truck trips related to the transport of reusable bags would not occur in great enough quantities, if at all, to result in a measurable increase in noise levels on local roadways. Reusable bags are available in the retail stores currently giving away single-use bags, in other retails stores (such as department stores), and at many websites on the internet (such as Reusablebags.com). No concentration of traffic delivering such merchandise can be identified. (Less Than Significant Impact) 3.12.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not lead to a measurable increase in noise. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 100 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.13.1 Existing Setting According to 2010 Census figures, the combined population of the five Member Agencies of RecycleMore along with the unincorporated areas of West Contra Costa County is 243,640. 3.13.2 Population and Housing Impacts Thresholds of Significance induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project would not induce any population growth, nor would it displace any number of people or housing units. 3.13.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would have no impact on population and housing. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 101 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.14.1 Existing Setting 3.14.1.1 Police and Fire Services Public services, such as police and fire protection, schools, parks, and public facilities, in the incorporated areas of West Contra Costa County are operated and maintained by the individual jurisdictions that comprise the member agencies of RecycleMore: the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo. 3.14.2 Public Services Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a public facilities and services impact is considered significant if the project will result in: substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. The proposed project is designed to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. The reduction of single-use carryout bags will lead to a reduction of litter in public parks and recreational areas in the West County, including waterways. Although the reduction of litter in recreational areas and on the grounds of other public facilities may lead to an incremental increase in use of some of these facilities (such as running or bicycle trails use and sightseeing), the project would not increase the service area or population and any increase is therefore unlikely to be so large that adverse physical effects would result. To the extent that the proposed project may incrementally reduce the dedication of resources required to keep litter cleaned up on school campuses, in public parks, and on the grounds of other public facilities in the landscaping and on the grounds of libraries, fire stations, etc.), it may free up staff and funding to maintain other parts of the same or similar facilities. The proposed project would not increase the demand for public services, nor would it require construction or expansion of any other public facilities. (No Impact) 3.14.3 Conclusion The project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with a need for new public safety, recreational or educational facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 102 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.15 RECREATION 3.15.1 Existing Setting Parks within the incorporated areas of West Contra Costa County are operated and maintained by the individual jurisdictions that comprise the member agencies of RecycleMore: the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo and Contra Costa County. 3.15.2 Recreation Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a recreation is considered significant if the project will result in: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed project aims to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. The reduction of single-use carryout bags would likely lead to a reduction of litter in public parks and recreational areas in the West County, including waterways, which would be a beneficial effect (see Section 4.1.3). Although the reduction of litter in recreational areas may lead to an incremental increase in use of these facilities (such as running or bicycle trails use and sightseeing), the project would not expand the service area or population and any such increase resulting from cleaner facilities would not be so large that adverse physical effects would result. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (No Impact) 3.15.3 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to recreation facilities within West Contra Costa County. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 103 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.16 TRANSPORTATION 3.16.1 Existing Setting Single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County arrive at stores from a variety of locations. According to industry representatives, roughly 85 percent of plastic bags in the U.S. are produced domestically, while the rest are imported.83 Typically, bags are transported from the manufacturing plant to regional or subregional distributors, which then provide the bags to local stores. The vast majority of product deliveries to stores are provided by trucks. A life cycle assessment (LCA) prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance by Boustead Consulting & Associates included an analysis of the transportation phases of the overall product life of plastic and paper grocery bags. The analysis assumed weights of 13.15 pounds per 1,000 plastic bags (or 0.21 ounces per bag) and 114 pounds per 1,000 paper bags (or 1.82 ounces per bag). The LCA concluded that the gross energy involved in the transport of single-use bags is 11 megajoules (MJ) per 1,000 polyethylene plastic bags and 34 MJ per 1,000 paper bags.84 The heavier weight and overall bulk of paper bags contributes to the higher energy requirement for transportation when compared to plastic bags. It can be deduced from this finding that more truck trips are required to transport a given number of paper bags compared to the same number of plastic bags transported the same distance. While bags may be delivered in dedicated loads to regional distributors, they are delivered to users as part of larger mixed loads. It is not clear whether the energy use reflected in the Boustead LCA reflected that pattern and, if it did, how the amount of energy required to deliver part of a mixed load was allocated. The information in that LCA is provided only for background purposes. 3.16.2 Transportation Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, a transportation impact is considered significant if the project would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses farm equipment); 83 Save the Plastic Bag. An American Success Story Under Threat. Accessed October 19, 2009 at http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/. 84 A megajoule is an international unit of work, equivalent to 737.582.5 foot-pounds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 104 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Result in inadequate emergency access; Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. With the proposed ordinance, at least 95 percent of the single-use plastic bags currently given away by commercial businesses would not be transported to West Contra Costa County businesses. Additionally, experience in other jurisdictions has found that single-use paper carryout bag use will also decline with imposition of a fee. There would, therefore, be a reduction in the transportation capacity (assumed to be primarily truck trips) needed to move single-use bags to West Contra Costa County. Within Contra Costa County itself, there would either be a reduction in truck trips necessary to deliver fewer paper bags, the vendors will deliver other merchandise (such as reusable bags) or increasing routing efficiencies could be used. The project would either result in a beneficial impact from reduced truck trips, or no impact at all. (No Impact) 3.16.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in any adverse transportation impacts. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 105 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.17.1 Existing Setting 3.17.1.1 Water Supply The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides domestic water supply to 20 incorporated cities and 15 unincorporated communities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including all of West Contra Costa County. EBMUD supplies water to approximately 1.34 million people within its estimated 332-square-mile service area, which extends from Crockett in the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. EBMUD's water supply system begins at the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada and extends 90 miles to the East Bay. The EBMUD water supply system consists of a network of reservoirs, aqueducts, treatment plants, and distribution facilities. On average, 90 percent of the water delivered by EBMUD comes from the Mokelumne River watershed, with the remaining ten percent originating as runoff within the service area. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to a maximum of 325 million gallons of water per day (mgd), subject to the availability of Mokelumne River runoff and prior water rights of other users. Please see Section 3.9.3 of this EIR for a discussion of water use impacts likely to result from this project. 3.17.1.2 Stormwater The implementation of drainage facilities in Contra Costa County falls under the jurisdiction of cities for incorporated areas, the County for unincorporated areas, or the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which has adopted plans which serve both cities and the County. All three groups generally use the same design criteria in sizing and evaluating drainage systems. The cities and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District have developed regional drainage plans in many areas to guide developers in the implementation of new drainage systems serving development, and to provide the basis for local and federal flood control projects. Local drainage infrastructure is provided by developers as part of the land development process. The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities in West Contra Costa County to operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters via the cities’ storm sewer collection system. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the Municipal Regional NPDES Stormwater Permit on October 14, 2009, and included as co-permitees are: Contra Costa County, the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 106 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.85 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. 3.17.1.3 Wastewater Sewer service in Contra Costa County is the responsibility of several municipalities and service districts. The largest sewage treatment agencies are Central Contra Costa Sanitary District which serves most of the central portion of the County; Delta Diablo, which serves the Pittsburg-Antioch area; West County Waste District, which serves a portion of Richmond, El Sobrante, and San Pablo; and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which serves Kensington, El Cerrito, and a portion of Richmond. Sewer service consists of the transmission of municipal and industrial wastewater to a treatment facility, treatment, and then disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids. As with water service, several cities operate their own local sewage collection system and contract with the larger agencies to treat the effluent. Other cities operate their own collection systems as well as treatment plants. 3.17.1.4 Solid Waste The California Integrated Waste Management Act, known generally as AB 939, requires cities and counties to adopt and implement waste diversion programs for source reduction, recycling and composting. RecycleMore, also referred to as the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, is a joint powers agency created by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo and Contra Costa County to implement AB 939. RecycleMore is responsible for providing waste processing services of the franchised waste stream in West Contra Costa County, which includes landfilling, recyclables processing, composting, and management of household hazardous waste. West Contra Costa County met the 50 percent waste diversion goal mandated by AB 939 in 2006, and RecycleMore continues to work to maintain this level of diversion. In 2008, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now part of the Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling) updated the system for determining diversion goals for each city. At present, per capita landfill disposal limits are determined each year and RecycleMore works with the West County jurisdictions to meet these goals. Fines of up to $10,000 per day may be imposed if the State decides that good faith efforts are not being made to implement the approved plan or other actions to achieve the State mandated reduction in landfill disposal of trash. 85 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 107 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 AB 939 established an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide the state and local agencies in its implementation, in order of priority: source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. That hierarchy was later abbreviated to “reduce, reuse, recycle”, with emphasis on the overarching goal of reducing materials that are sent to disposal. Waste collected in West Contra Costa County is landfilled at Keller Canyon Landfill. Only the City of El Cerrito collects plastic bags for recycling purposes.86 The City does not have information on what percentage of bags used in the City are collected or what percentage of those collected are recycled. All of the member agencies collect paper bags in their recycling programs. No information is available on what percentage of the bags used are collected, or what percentage is actually recycled. 3.17.2 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts For the purposes of this EIR, a utilities and service systems impact is considered significant if the project would: Thresholds of Significance Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed; Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed ordinance will lead to a reduction in the quantities of single-use carryout plastic bags and single-use carryout paper bags in the waste stream. This would mean a small reduction in the quantity of paper bags currently disposed, recycled, or littered. Virtually all of the single-use plastic bags currently go to landfills or end up as litter. The primary effects of the ordinance will, therefore, be a reduction in landfilled waste and litter. 86 According to the RecycleMore website: “Plastic Film and Wrapping- bagged and tied off at the top- clean grocery bags, bread bags, cling wrap, etc ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 108 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.17.2.1 Stormwater and Drainage A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in selected storm drain catch basins, by weight. A recent study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008 as part of a pilot study commissioned by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP). Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.87 A substantial reduction in the total quantity of plastic and paper bag litter would reduce the quantity of that litter that enters municipal storm drains and catch basins. Less litter would reduce localized flooding from backups in the storm drains and catch basins, and would lessen the pollution and clogging of the stormwater lines that drain public streets and private property throughout the West County, as well as the quantity of plastic conveyed by stormwater runoff to creeks in the West County and eventually to the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. (Beneficial Impact) 3.17.2.2 Water Supply and Wastewater The proposed project aims to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County and increase the use of reusable bags. Some types of reusable bags can be laundered. An increase in the laundering of reusable bags could lead to an increased use of potable water. Since few if any families have (or are likely to ever have) a large supply of reusable shopping bags that would all require laundering at once, most bags are and will continue to be washed in mixed loads as one is soiled. Additionally, such bags are not washed often (the most frequent washing identified anecdotally has been once a month). The incremental impact of adding a few shopping bags to mixed laundry loads a few times a year will not substantially increase the use of potable water or the 87 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 109 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 generation of wastewater. Further reducing the likelihood of the ordinance causing a significant increase in water use, most of the new reusable bags being distributed by local businesses are plastics that can be easily cleaned with a damp sponge. (Less Than Significant Impact) 3.17.2.3 Solid Waste A significant reduction in the numbers of single-use carryout bags used in West Contra Costa County, both paper and plastic, will reduce the quantity of materials collected in the garbage and recycling programs, and the amount of material that decomposes in the environment as litter, and the quantity of materials landfilled. The changes in the recycling programs will be minimal and non- disruptive. Noticeable effects at the landfill would be limited to a reduction in wind-blown plastic bag litter. None of these effects would be adverse and some would be beneficial. (Less Than Significant Impact) 3.17.4 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not result in any significant adverse utilities and service systems impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 110 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.18 ENERGY This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) and Appendix G (Energy Conservation of the Guidelines), which require that EIRs include a discussion of the energy impacts of proposed projects with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The information in this section is based largely on data and reports produced by the California Energy Commission and the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. 3.18.1 Existing Setting Energy consumption is analyzed in an EIR because of the environmental impacts associated with its production and usage. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) and emissions of pollutants during both the production and consumption phases. Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (Btu).88 As points of reference, the approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a cubic foot of natural gas, and a kilowatt hour (kWhr) of electricity are 123,000 Btu, 1,000 Btu, and 3,400 Btu, respectively. Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products the program) and transportation fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code sets forth energy standards for buildings, provides rebates/tax credits for the installation of renewable energy systems, and promotes conservation in multiple areas through the Flex Your Power program promotes conservation in multiple areas. 3.18.1.1 Energy Use Associated with Single-Use and Reusable Bags Various life cycle assessments (LCA) of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and have been reviewed as part of the analysis in this EIR (refer to § 9.0 References and Appendix The LCAs analyzed the various levels of energy requirements for different types of bags, including reusable bags. Most LCAs account for energy requirements during all stages of product life, from product creation to disposal. LCAs do not have identical methodologies, and frequently have assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. The findings of the LCAs as they relate to energy use are summarized below. 88 The British Thermal Unit (BTU) is the amount of energy that is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 111 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Boustead Consulting & Associates for the Progressive Bag Alliance (USA): Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags Boustead Consulting & Associates prepared an LCA for the Progressive Bag Alliance that evaluates the impacts of paper bags versus HDPE plastic bags; the report is undated but the peer review was completed in 2007. The LCA accounted for 30 percent recycled material in paper bags, and assumed that plastic bags were fully recyclable. It was also assumed that the carrying capacity of one paper bag is equal to 1.5 plastic bags. The LCA concluded that paper bags require approximately 3.4 times the amount of energy as plastic bags. (At a 1:1 capacity ratio, the LCA concluded that paper bags require 5.15 times the amount of energy.) These conclusions are not directly relevant to the proposed project since the Agency has found that plastic bags are not readily recyclable; plastic bags do not have the same capacity as paper bags; and the proposed project will require that paper bags have at least 40 percent recycled content. Since bags with more than 40 percent recycled content are already being used in the West County, the average recycled content will be more than 40 percent after the ordinance is implemented. Ecobilan for Carrefour: Évaluation des Impacts Environnementaux des Sacs de Caisse Carrefour In 2004, an LCA was prepared for the French retail chain Carrefour by Ecobilan. The bags analyzed included single-use HDPE bags, reusable LDPE bags, single-use paper bags, and biodegradable plastic bags. The LCA analyzed the impacts of the amount of bags needed to transport 9,000 liters of goods, which is an estimated annual purchase volume. The results of the LCA, as they relate to energy, are summarized in Table 3.9-1. The analysis also reflected the differences in size (capacity). Table 3.9-1: Ecobilan for Carrefour Consumption of Non-Renewable Primary Energy for Carryout Bags Bag Type Ratio of Energy Use* Single-Use HDPE Plastic Bag 1.0 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used two times) 1.4 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used three times) 0.9 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used four times) 0.7 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used twenty times) 0.1 Single-Use Paper Bag 1.0 Biodegradable Plastic Bag 0.9 *Note: Numbers greater than one indicate a greater environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags and numbers less than one indicate a lesser environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags. The LCA concluded that single-use paper bags require approximately the same amount of non- renewable primary energy as single-use HDPE plastic bags. Reusable LDPE plastic bags used at least 20 times require approximately 90 percent less energy than single-use paper and plastic bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 112 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 The relevant measure in this context is no longer what resources are required to make the bag, but how many resources are required per use. Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage (Australia): Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts In 2002, a report was prepared for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage to analyze the impacts that might result from a number of different policy options being explored to reduce plastic bag usage. The report states that the embodied energy in one average HDPE single-use bag, weighing 6 grams, is approximately 0.48 MJ, including the production of the polymer, bag manufacturing and transport. For the purposes of comparison, the amount of fuel consumed by driving a car one kilometer (approximately 0.6 mile) is 4.18 MJ, which is equivalent to 8.7 bags. The report included an analysis of primary energy use associated with a variety of different carryout bag types. The analysis was based on the energy use of a household carrying approximately 70 grocery items home from a supermarket each week for a year using each type of bag. Plastic (HDPE) bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of two percent, while paper bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of 60 percent. No recycled content was assumed, except in the case of the 50 percent recycled plastic (HDPE) bag. None of the recycling assumptions are relevant to the United States. Additionally, paper bags were considered to have the same capacity as plastic bags, which does not reflect real-world conditions. The results of the LCA are summarized in Table 3.9-2. Table 3.9-2: Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Primary Energy Use Associated with Carryout Bags Bag Type Primary Energy Use (MJ) Single-use Plastic Bag (HDPE) 210 Single-use Plastic Bag (HDPE) with 50 Percent Recycled Content 117 Single-use Plastic Bag (LDPE) 957 Reusable Plastic Bag (LDPE) 78 Reusable Cloth Bag 160 Reusable Plastic Bag (Woven HDPE) 18.6 Polypropylene/Nylon Reusable Bag 46.3 Single-use Paper Bag 721 Single-use Biodegradable Plastic Bag 61.3 This analysis found that single-use paper bags require approximately 3.4 times the amount of energy as single-use HDPE plastic bags. The heavier duty plastic bags (LDPE), which are frequently used in department and other specialty stores, but not usually in grocery stores, were found to require the greatest amount of energy, while woven HDPE reusable plastic bags required the least. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 113 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 3.18.2 Energy Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this project, an energy impact would be considered significant if the project would: use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner; result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies; or result in longer overall distances between jobs and housing. 3.18.2.1 Energy Discussion According to some LCAs prepared by consultants to the plastic bag industry, single-use paper bags generally have higher levels of energy use when compared to single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. This is attributed to several factors, including the manufacturing process and the effect of paper bag weight and bulk on the transportation process. The findings from other LCAs seem to differ based on the study, and no comprehensive comparison of the studies has been made by a neutral third party. In addition no LCA was found that looked at the emissions associated with manufacture of 40 percent or 100 percent recycled content paper bags. The energy summary in one LCA (Boustead), for example, does not identify the specific benefits or impacts of recycled content (lower water use, less chemical use, less energy use) although they are said to have been “taken into account.” Additionally, heavier single-use plastic bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which are often used by clothing and boutique stores, were found by some studies to have greater energy requirements than both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which are most typically used by grocery stores and large format retail stores. 3.18.2.2 Energy Impacts Resulting from the Project For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that single-use plastic bags distributed to the customers of businesses in West Contra Costa County will be reduced by approximately 95 percent or more – from an average of roughly 350,000 bags per day to less than 17,500 bags per day. The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags per day. There is a quantity of emissions generated from the delivery of all types of bags to the stores where they are given away, and further emissions associated with picking up those that end up as litter, and with removing those that are discarded as solid waste. Since the preparers of this study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution of plastic (or paper) single-use bags to use as a basis of analysis, the exact increment of energy use or pollution associated with their delivery to the location where they are given to the public is unknown. Since the numbers of bags being delivered will be reduced for both types, the impacts from delivering the bags will also be reduced. This will therefore be a beneficial direct impact of the project. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 114 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County and a decrease of at least 3,500 single-use paper bags handed out per day. This will substantially decrease energy use related to manufacturing and transporting both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags for use in West Contra Costa County. The paper bags that are still available to be purchased and used will all be at least 40 percent post consumer recycled content, further reducing the remaining increment of energy use impact that is generated by the use of paper bags in West Contra Costa County. There will likely be an increase in reusable bags purchased and used in West Contra Costa County. It is not possible to predict, from the varied and growing market of such bags, which ones might be purchased and used in West Contra Costa County, or what the impacts of their manufacture and transport from unknown locations might be. The Master Environmental Assessment prepared in 2010 by Green Cities California (a coalition of 12 local governments) stated that: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits. According to the status report on the ordinance posted by the Department of Public Works in September 2012, there are reports of reusable bags now being manufactured locally in Los Angeles County. This may be, at least partially, an indirect result of the market encouraged by the ordinance, but it is assumed that all such new businesses undergo an appropriate level of CEQA review to ensure that impacts are less than significant or the impacts must be acknowledged and overridden by the responsible lead agency. 3.18.3 Conclusion The project ordinance as it is proposed will result in a reduction of both direct and indirect energy use impacts resulting from the manufacture, transport, and use of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 115 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Currently, several jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area have enacted programs regulating bag use. In 2007, San Francisco banned single-use plastic bags in supermarkets and chain pharmacies. In 2009, Palo Alto (a city in Santa Clara County) banned the distribution of single-use plastic bags at supermarkets. In 2010, San Jose banned the distribution of single-use plastic bags at all retail establishments, and imposed a charge on single-use paper bags. In 2010, the County of Santa Clara, adopted an ordinance similar to San Jose’s, as did Alameda County in 2011. Marin County recently adopted an ordinance that is currently being challenged in court, and San Mateo County and several cities in and adjacent to San Mateo County have adopted or are considering a similar ordinance. In southern California, the Cities of Santa Monica, Long Beach, Carlsbad, Dana Point and the County of Los Angeles have adopted ordinances similar to the San Jose ordinance, with a ban on plastic bags and a charge for paper bags. The City of Manhattan Beach had adopted a similar ordinance which was appealed to the state Supreme Court and recently upheld. Nationally, Washington D.C. recently enacted a fee on all single-use bags distributed in the District. Other municipalities throughout the U.S., such as Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas, are considering or have adopted their own bag regulation programs. A more complete list of jurisdictions that have adopted bag ordinances, links to the ordinances themselves, and updates on the status of legal challenges can be found here: www://plasticbaglaws.org/ While some of these programs differ in their specifics, most if not all have similar goals: to decrease reliance on single-use bags and increase the use of reusable bags. Some programs, such as the ones in San Francisco and Palo Alto, target only plastic bags, while others, such as the one in Washington D.C., target both paper and plastic equally. Programs that target only plastic bags will reduce plastic bag use but might lead to an unknown increase in paper bag use (although no fact-based evidence has been provided on the occurrence of such a change). Programs that ban plastic bags and place a charge on paper bags reduce plastic bag use and paper bag use. Programs that target both bags equally will likely lead to comparable reductions in both paper and plastic bag use, similar to what is occurring in Washington, D.C. The overall cumulative increase or decrease of paper and plastic bag use resulting from this wide array of programs would require a degree of speculation that would be inconsistent with the purpose of CEQA. As reflected throughout this EIR, there is no solid basis for assuming any substantial negative consequences from adoption of the proposed ordinance. The goals of the various programs are similar: to reduce single-use plastic bags in the environment and to replace the use of single-use bags with reusable bags. There has been speculation by representatives of the plastic bag industry that a significant increase in paper bag use would occur if plastic bags are prohibited. That has not occurred. However, it is likely that the cumulative effect of more jurisdictions banning and/or regulating single-use carryout plastic and paper bags will be that more people will use reusable bags more consistently. A frequently heard reason for not using reusable bags is that people forget to take them into the store. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 116 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 As more people use them, more people will see other shoppers carrying the reusable bags from car to store (or walking out of the store carrying their purchases in their arms) and will remember to take bags with them into the stores. This phenomenon was noticeable during the start-up period for curbside recycling programs – people who saw neighbors putting out recycling or saw recycling set out in front of their neighbors’ homes remembered to put out their own. In cities that already have an ordinance in place, signs in parking lots and on shopping carts remind people to bring their reusable bags. It is reasonable to assume that the overall impact of these ordinances will be to accomplish their mutual goals of reducing the use of all single-use carryout bags and their presence in the environment. Since no adverse effects could be identified as reasonably likely to occur from adoption of the proposed ordinance and most of the effects identified will be beneficial, the cumulative effects of all anticipated similar ordinances is also unlike to result in a significant adverse environmental impact. There may be significant cumulative beneficial impacts, but CEQA does not require discussion of beneficial effects. There are no direct project impacts that could create a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant adverse environmental impact. The extent to which there might be cumulatively considerable secondary adverse impacts from increased use of reusable bags, and the extent to which the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County could contribute to these secondary impacts, are discussed in further detail below. 4.1 CUMULATIVE SECONDARY IMPACTS Issues identified in this EIR with which some degree of impact might be associated, albeit indirectly and less-than-significant, include the following: • Washing reusable bags – increased water use and water pollution • Heavy metal contamination in the fabric or printing on the fabric of reusable bags • Harmful bacteria or other microbiological contaminants on reusable bags • Transmission of contagious diseases by reusable bags • Landfilling reusable bags • Suffocation hazards from reusable bags • Littering of reusable bags • Noise from increased traffic to transport reusable bags As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, there is no fact-based evidence that any of these impacts will occur in measurable or noticeable quantities at all. In many of the circumstances that would have to occur for there to be a measureable and actual impact, people would need to behave in an unusual or irresponsible fashion over and over again. Most of these hypothetical impacts (the first five in the list above) have been raised by Save the Plastic Bag representatives, based on isolated incidents, unsupported statements by others, or conjecture. 1. Washing reusable bags is not done very often by everyone, but can be done by anyone. Many of the reusable bags now on the market are washable. No one has been identified that does entire laundry loads of reusable bags, either frequently or at all. It is assumed that, like most durable household goods, they will be washed when they are dirty or smell bad (such as when contaminated ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 117 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 by meat drippings or dairy spills). Bags that are not machine washable (some plastics) can be wiped down with a sponge or cloth and can also be disinfected. There is no basis for assuming that any real or measurable impacts in terms of water used or water pollution could or will occur from washing reusable shopping bags in West Contra Costa County, alone or in combination with other parts of the Bay Area or California. 2. Reusable shopping bags are typically used to transport groceries (most of which are in packages, cans, jars, or other plastic bags), other purchases (clothes, books, tools, office supplies, etc.). People do not put such bags in their mouths, and would not typically allow children to do so either. It is not clear how heavy metals that may be found by chemical analysis in fabric or printing could or would be transferred somewhere else (rubbing off, absorption when wet, etc.). No mechanism has been identified by which any heavy metal in bag fabric or in the printing on such bags has ever been found to be eaten or otherwise transmitted to humans in such a way as to create a risk of any kind. The ordinance requires that reusable bags not contain unsafe levels of heavy metals. 3. Harmful bacteria was found in reusable bags in two studies commissioned by the plastic bag industry. In neither case were the levels of contamination excessive or unusual, and in all cases, washing the bags would remove the contamination. Nothing in excess of typical conditions found in homes and on human hands was ever identified. Encouraging the use of reusable bags would not create a significant adverse cumulative impact associated with dirty reusable bags. 4. In a single event, someone put food in a bag and left it in a hotel bathroom where someone else was violently ill, with vomiting and diarrhea, several times in one night. Whatever the reason for leaving the food in the hotel bathroom, it is not something that most people do. The transmission of the virus was not related to the type of bag the food was in, and there was never a direct relationship established between the bag itself and the people who became ill it was never established that the people who got sick had even touched the bag), although they had all eaten the food in the bag. There is no nexus for identifying a propensity for spreading illness as an outcome of the proposed ordinance. 5. Most reusable bags are useful and have value. In addition to shopping, people use them as gym bags, toy bags, diaper bags, litter bags (in cars), sewing bags, and for multiple other purposes. Most are made with recyclable materials and used bags are accepted for reuse and recycling by charities such as the Salvation Army and Goodwill.89 It is highly unlikely that landfill capacity would be significantly impacted by a sudden surge in discarded reusable bags, especially in a region such as the Bay Area with well-established recycling programs. The proposed ordinance would not create a cumulatively significant impact on landfill capacity from landfilled bags. 6. Suffocation hazards are created by film plastic that can adhere closely to a child’s face, or become entangled around their head. By definition in the ordinance, reusable bags must be made of thicker film, reducing the risk. Also, because they can be reused, there would be fewer bags in the home environment than would occur if multiple new additional bags were brought home after each 89 In West Contra Costa County, textiles are recycled by a company called American Textiles located in Richmond. Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries and similar organizations collect material for reuse. worn reusable bags are suggested to be reused, but items too worn for reuse can be recycled by the ragging business similar to what American Textiles creates. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 118 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 shopping trip. The risk of children suffocating is therefore reduced by the proposed ordinance. 7. As discussed in the EIR text, reusable bags are heavier and must be paid for. They are far less likely to be littered than single-use paper or plastic bags. The likelihood that they might be thrown from cars or dropped by shoppers returning home frequently enough to create litter is highly speculative and is highly unlikely to ever create a cumulatively significant impact. 8. As discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation of this EIR, few if any additional truck trips will be needed to deliver reusable bags after implementation of this ordinance. Even if similar ordinances are adopted all over the Bay Area, there would never be so many additional trucks converging on one location that significant noise impacts would be created. Traffic must double to create an increase in traffic noise that is perceptible to the human ear. There would not be a cumulatively significant noise impact from trucks delivering reusable bags to every community in the Bay Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 119 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 5.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines [Section 15126.2(d)] requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in a surrounding area. Projects which could remove obstacles to population growth (such as a major public service expansion) must also be considered in this discussion. The proposed ordinance would apply within West Contra Costa County and would not result in an expansion of urban service areas. It would not open additional undeveloped land to further growth. The proposed project, therefore, would not result in significant or adverse growth inducement. Conclusion: The project would not directly result in population growth in West Contra Costa County or induce new growth through the extension of new utilities or infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 120 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the EIR should identify alternatives that “will feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of this section is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope or location that will substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,” or are more expensive. [Section 15126.6] In order to comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts that are anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and to try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The Guidelines emphasize a common sense approach the alternatives should be reasonable, should “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and should focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. The discussion of alternatives should include enough information to allow a meaningful evaluation and comparison with the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines state that if an alternative would cause one or more additional impacts when compared to the effects of the proposed project, the discussion should identify the additional impact, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project. Discussion of a No Project Alternative is required by CEQA. Also included below is an alternative that might further reduce those less than significant alternatives that might occur from implementation of the proposed ordinance. 6.1 NO PROJECT If the proposed ordinance is not adopted by the member agencies of RecycleMore, the current conditions in which 127,780,000 single-use plastic carryout bags and 16,807,000 single-use paper carryout bags are given away free in West Contra Costa County will continue to exist. The benefits identified for the project, including substantial reductions in litter, contamination of local streams and San Francisco Bay, and hazards to marine wildlife would not occur. This alternative would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 6.2 ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS This DEIR does not identify any significant impacts from the proposed project. There are circumstances in which some adverse effects might occur under certain narrowly defined conditions (see discussion in Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts). These include the following: • Washing reusable bags – increased water use and water pollution • Heavy metal contamination in the fabric or printing on the fabric of reusable bags • Harmful bacteria or other microbiological contaminants on reusable bags ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 121 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 • Transmission of contagious diseases by reusable bags • Landfilling reusable bags • Suffocation hazards from reusable bags • Littering of reusable bags • Noise from increased traffic to transport reusable bags. None of these effects would be direct impacts from implementation of the proposed ordinance, but they are identified as highly speculative secondary effects that might occur if some users of reusable bags were to behave in non-typical and/or unsafe ways. The proposed ordinance already includes a requirement that reusable bags must not contain significant percentages of heavy metals or other toxic substances. Since some of the actions might be avoided by reminding people not to do certain things, bags could be printed with instructions for users. It is almost impossible to ensure that the language for these instructions would or could reduce the likelihood of the behaviors occurring, but presumably it could be designed to meet the objectives of further reducing the potential for less than significant impacts occurring. The warnings could include: Wash bag when soiled Do not allow children to play with bag Do not store bag in bathrooms Recycle or donate instead of disposing of used bag Do not litter. The instructions could also be more detailed and include explanations for why they are provided. It is highly unlikely, however, that people would read a lot of writing on a shopping bag. Since there is no basis for concluding that the above-listed less than significant impacts would occur, there is also no way to foretell whether or not printing these instructions on the bags sold in member jurisdictions would have any impact on human behavior. It cannot, therefore, be determined that this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 122 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 7.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2(c), which requires a discussion of the significant irreversible changes that would result from the implementation of a proposed project. Significant irreversible changes include the use of nonrenewable resources, the commitment of future generations to similar use, irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project, and irretrievable commitments of resources. The proposed project will reduce the use of nonrenewable resources in the long term and therefore will not cause further significant irreversible environmental changes through continued use of oil for an ephemeral purpose. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 123 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 8.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS If the project is implemented as proposed, it would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 124 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES Randall, Paul. EOA, Inc. Email communication. March 11, 2009. Weise, Barry J.D. Legislative & Regulatory Analyst, District Department of the Environment. Email Communication. June 2, 2010. Ad Hoc Committee on the Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Characterization of Urban Litter. Staff report dated June 18, 2004. Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Pelagic Plastic. April 9, 2007. Anacostia Watershed Society for the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. December 2008. Available at: http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/cwp/view,a,1209,q,499180.asp Andrady, Tony L. Ph.D. “Plastics in the Marine Environment: A Technical Perspective”. Center for Engineering Technology RTI International. Arthur, Courtney, Holly Bamford and Joel Baker. “The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration White Paper prepared for a workshop held 9/9-10/08. September 3, 2008. Australia Department of the Environment and Heritage. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts, Final Report. December 2002. Barb Ogg, Ph.D., and Clyde Ogg. “Least Toxic Cockroach Control”. http://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/pest/factsheets/120-94.htm Barnes, David K. Francois Galbani, Richard C. Thompson, and Morton Barlaz. “Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (7/27/2009) 364:1985-1998. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guidelines, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Accessed July 5, 2012. Available at: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm Bernstein, Michael. Plastics in Oceans decompose, release hazardous chemicals, surprising new study says. August 19, 2009 Hard plastics decompose in oceans, releasing endocrine disruptor BPA. March 23, 2010. Boustead Consulting & Associates. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Peer Reviewed in 2007. California Energy Commission. 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. November 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 125 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf. California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm “SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee”. Accessed February 18, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/rtac.htm California Department of Transportation, District 7 Litter Management Pilot Study. June 26, 2000. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-00-013.pdf [Last accessed on September 27, 2010] California Energy Commission. 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC-100-2007-008CMF). Energy Almanac. California’s Major Sources of Energy. July 1, 2008. http://energy/almanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html. Energy Almanac. Historic Statewide California Electricity Demand. August 29, 2008. http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/historic_peak_demand.html Energy Almanac. Overview of Natural Gas in California. http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/naturalgas/overview.html. California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Guidelines. 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.pdf Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. April 1, 2009. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/ California Integrated Waste Management Board. Overview of Results of CIWMB 2005 Targeted Waste Characterization Studies, Plastics Interested Parties Meeting. June 2, 2006. Zero Waste California, Recycle Plastic Grocery Bags. November 15, 2007. http://zerowaste.ca.gov/plasticbags/default.htm Margo Reid Brown, Board Chair. Recycling for the Environment. July 2, 2007. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/blog/issue/margo-reid-brown-bag-recycle-blog/general Statewide Waste Characterization Study. December 2004. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). 2006. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resources/res_04_an106.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 126 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 California Ocean Protection Council. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. November 20, 2008. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf California Senate Bill No. 375. Accessed February 18, 2009. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351- 400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf Calrecycle. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/ch9a62.htm Chalmers Industriteknik. Life Cycle Assessment of Distribution in Four Different Distribution Systems in Europe. October 2000. City of El Cerrito. http://el-cerrito.org/index.aspx?NID=718 City of Los Angeles, Inter-Departmental Correspondence. Los Angeles River Plastics Industry Task Force – Final Report. August 3, 2005. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Policy Tools for Reducing Impact of Single-use, Carryout Plastic Bags and EPS Food Packaging”. June 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.ci.la.ca.us/san/solid_resources/recycling/CityStaff/PDF/2008/Plastics_Report.pdf City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation Watershed Protection Division. “High Trash-Generation Areas and Control Measures”. January 2002. City of Pinole. http://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/planning/generalplan.html City of Richmond. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2608 City of San Pablo. http://www.sanpabloca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/669 City of San Jose. Case Studies of Industrial Water Conservation in the San Jose Area. February 1990. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance. July 2010. John Stufflebean. Memo to the Transportation and Environment Committee: Reduction of Single-use Carryout Bags. January 20, 2009. ---Kerrie Romanow. Memo to the Transportation and Environment Committee: Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance Implementation Results and Actions to Reduce EPS Foam Food Ware. November 20, 2012. Litter Assessment. August 2009. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR. June 2010. Contra Costa County General Plan http://contra.napanet.net/depart/cd/current/advance/GeneralPlan/General%20Plan.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 127 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 County of Los Angeles. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County. August 2007. --County Staff Update, September 20120. http://www.dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/aboutthebag ---Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags In Los Angeles County - Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 2010. Day, Robert H. and David G. Shaw and Steven E. Ignell. “The Quantitative Distribution and Characteristics of Neuston Plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1985-1899. Publ. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS, 1990. Delgado, Renee. “Is Soy Ink Better Than Conventional Ink”. http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Soy-Ink- Better-Than-Conventional-Ink?&id=3457161 Eagle-Tribune. “Derry twins clean up litter filled wetlands area”. March 24, 2010. http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x794086340/Derry-twins-clean-up-litter-filled- wetlands-area Ecobilan. Evaluation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse Carrefour. February 2004. EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf EuroCommerce. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. September 2004. European Plastics Recyclers. Press Release - OXO Degradable Additives are Incompatible with Mechanical Recycling. June 10, 2009. Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator. Available at: http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/ Environmental Health Watch. “Cockroach Control Guide”. 2010. http://www.ehw.org/Asthma/ASTH_Cockroach_Control.htm Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Accessed April 20, 2009. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport09.html Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. August 2002. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. November 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 facts and Figures. November 2008. Office of Compliance. Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries. September 1997. Office of Compliance. Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd Edition. November 2002. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 128 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 European Plastics Recyclers. Press Release - OXO Degradable Additives are Incompatible with Mechanical Recycling. June 10, 2009. Franklin Associates. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. 1990. Gerba, Charles David Williams and Ryan G. Sinclair. Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags. June 9, 2010. Goffredi, Shana Charles K. Paull, Kim Fulton-Bennett, Luis A. Hurtado, and Robert C. Vrijenhoek. “Unusual benthic fauna associated with a whale fall in Monterey Canyon, California”. May 20, 2004. Elsevier Direct. Green Cities California. Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. March 2010. Green Seal. http://www.greenseal.org/Portals/0/Documents/Standards/GS-16%20Stn%20Dev/gs- 16_reusable_bag_proposed_revised_standard.pdf Gregory, Murray R. “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 364, 2013-2025. 2009. Hall, Aron J. DVM, Jan Vinje PhD, Benjamin Lopman PhD, Catherine Yen MD, Nicole Gregoricus, MSPH, Umesh Parashar, MBBS. “Updated Norovirus Outbreak Management and Disease Prevention Guidelines”, published March 4, 2011 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Henderson, John R. “Marine Debris in Hawaii”; Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fisherman’s Conference on Marine Debris, Alverson, DL and June, JA (eds). October 13-16, 1987, p. IB9-206. The Fisheries Management Foundation. (Available from Natural Resources Consultants, 4055-21st Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199) Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 1. January 29, 2008. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 2, January 29, 2008. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. City of San Jose Single-use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis. June 22, 2010. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ Ireland Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government, Plastic Bags, 2007. http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 129 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Josephson, K.L., Rubino, J.R., Pepper, I.L. "Characterization and quantification of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in household kitchens with and without the use of a disinfectant cleaner". Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 83 No.6, pp.737-50. 1997. Mrosovsky, Geraldine D. Ryan, Michael C. James. “Leatherback Turtles: The menace of plastic”. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2009 287-289. MTC. Draft EIR for the Transportation 2035 Plan (Transportation in Motion 2035). January 2009. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/EIR.htm National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Life Cycle Assessment of North American Unbleached Grocery Bags – Final Report (Draft). February 5, 2010. National Geographic, “Invasive Plastic Hitchhikers”, by Jonathan Waterman. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/15/invasive-plastic-hitchhikers/ National Marine Sanctuaries. “Cordell Bank 2009 Condition Report – Pressures on the Sanctuary”. 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Greenhouse Gases Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.giv/oa/climate/gases.html Nevins, Hannah, David Hyrenbach, Carol Kelper, Jenny Stock, Michelle Hester, and Jim Harvey. “Paper for Plastic Debris Rivers to the Sea Conference 2005: Seabirds as indicators of plastic pollution in the North Pacific”. [Provided by personal communication from Jim Harvey.] New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “Cockroach”. 2010. New York Times. Accessed July 7, 2010. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/shouldering- waste-on-the-trek-down-mount-everest/ Nixon, Scott W. “Coastal Marine Eutrophication: A Definition, Social Causes, and Future Concerns”, an abstract. February 1995. NOAA. Cordell Bank National Martine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. June 2009. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. “Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia simuls): Western North Atlantic Stock”. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/dwarfspermwhale.htm NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps): Western North Atlantic Stock”. Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It), 2009. Available at: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 130 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2011 Report: Tracking Trash, 25 Years of Action for the Ocean. 2011. Available at: http://act.oceanconservancy.org/images/2010ICCReportRelease_pressPhotos/2010_ICC_Rep ort.pdf Accessed October 31, 2012. Office of Planning and Research. “OPR Calendar, Announcements, Events.” CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases. Available at: http://opr.ca.gov/. Accessed September 7, 2009. Press, Daniel. Toxic Releases from Paper Made With Recovered Wastepaper versus Virgin Wood Fiber: A Research Note. Published by Springer-Verlag, NY. 1996. Repp, Kimberly K. and William E.Keene, “A Point-Source Norovirus Outbreak Caused by Exposure to Fomites”; published electronically in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 8, 2012. Sadove, Samuel S. and Stephen J. Morreale, Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, Inc. “Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Encounters with Marine Debris in the New York Bight and the Northeast Atlantic”. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (eds). April 1989, Honolulu Hawaii. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS, 1990. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Gross Pollutants, Trash and Debris in Bay Area Storm Drain Channels, Creeks, Wetlands and San Francisco Bay. 2007. Resolution No. R2-2009-0008 Recommending Changes to the List of Water Bodies as Required in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, February 11, 2009. Staff Report – Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions for the San Francisco Bay Region – Proposed Revisions to Section 303(d) List, February 2009. ml San Francisco Chronicle. “Adding Up the Cost of Bags,” January 25, 2005. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/25/BUGCJAVPAI1.DTL San Francisco Department of the Environment. November 18, 2004 Bag Cost Analysis: Costs Associated with Paper and Plastic Bags. November 18, 2004, http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfenvironment_page.asp?id=28374. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Lessons Learned from Pilot Trash Sources and Pathways Assessment. February 25, 2009. Personal Communication with Chris Sommers, Managing Scientist at Eisenberg, Olivieri, and Associates, March 11, 2009. Save the Plastic Bag. An American Success Story Under Threat. Accessed October 19, 2009 at http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/. Scottish Executive. Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment. August 2005. Scripps Institution of Oceanograph, Miriam Goldstein; ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 131 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 Spear, Larry David G. Ainley & Christine A. Ribic; “Incidence of Plastic in Seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984-91: Relation with Distribution of Species, Sex, Age, Season, Year and Body Weight”; Elsevier Science Limited 0141-1136/95. August 16, 1994. Page 123. Sporometrics. Grocery Carry Bag Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Reusable Bags and “First or Single-use” Plastic Bags. 2009. StopWaste.Org. Mandatory Recycling and Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Draft EIR. August 2011. Taji, SS, Rogers, AH, “The microbial contamination of toothbrushes. A pilot study,” Australian Dental Journal, 43(2), pp.128-30, 1998. Thompson, Richard Charles J. Moore, Frederick S. vom Saal and Shanna H. Swan. “Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (2009) 1, 1-14. United States Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. N.d., http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html. University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Management. “Integrated Pest Management for Cockroaches”. http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/homegrnd/htms/roach.htm Washington Post. “D.C. bag tax collects $150,000 in January for river cleanup”. March 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903336.html Water “Pollution of Streams by Garbage and Trash”. Accessed May 24, 2010. Yoshida, Howard O. “Marine Debris: A Growing Concern”. A brief summary of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris held in November 1984 in Honolulu, Hawaii. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/marinedebris101/reference_non.html Persons Contacted: Aldrich, Bob. State of California Energy Commission. Personal Communication, March 28, 2007, Data available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use.pdf. Chan, Allison. Save the Bay via Ocean Conservancy. Email Communication, December 9, 2009. Kaufman, Debra, StopWaste. Personal communication. March 9, 2010. Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates. Email Communication. Provided information from the Paper Bag Council, December 1, 2009. Powers, David. President, DJP&A. Personal communication, 1993. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 132 Draft EIR RecycleMore January 2013 SECTION 10.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS LEAD AGENCY RecycleMore Chris Lehon, Executive Director CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Michelle Yesney, Vice President/Principal Project Manager Michael Lisenbee, Project Manager Zach Dill, Graphic Artist ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Draft Ordinance ---PAGE BREAK--- Model Local Bag Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance of the City/County Code, relating to regulating the use of plastic carryout bags and recyclable paper carryout bags and promoting the use of reusable bags within the City/County. The City Council/Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: hereby added to read as follows: Definitions. The following definitions apply to this ordinance: 1. “Carryout Bag” means a bag other than a Reusable Bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. Carryout Bags do not include bags without handles provided to the Customer to transport produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department with in a store to the point of sale. 2. "Customer" means any person purchasing goods from a Retail Establishment. 3. “Nonprofit Charitable Reuser” means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. 4. "Operator" means the person in control of, or having the responsibility for, the operation of a Retail Establishment, which may include, but is not limited to, the owner of the Retail Establishment. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized. 6. "Plastic Bag" means any bag made predominantly of plastic derived from either petroleum, ethylene derived from natural gas, or a biologically-based source, such as corn or other plant sources, which is provided to a Customer at the point of sale. Plastic bags includes: compostable and biodegradable bags but does not include Reusable Bags, Produce Bags, or Product Bags. 7. “Public Eating Establishment” means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives 90% or more of its revenue from the sale of Prepared Food to be eaten on or off its premises. 8. "Postconsumer Recycled Material" means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. "Postconsumer Recycled Material" does not include materials and by-products generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and ---PAGE BREAK--- fabrication process. 9. “Prepared Food” means foods or beverages which are prepared on premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, and which require not further preparation to be consumed. Prepared Food does not include any raw, uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped, squeezed or mixed. 10. "Produce Bag" or "Product bag" means any bag without handles used exclusively to carry produce, meats, or other food items to the point of sale inside a Retail Establishment or to prevent such food items from coming into direct contact with other purchased items. 11. "Recyclable" means material that can be sorted, cleansed, and reconstituted using available recycling collection programs for the purpose of using the altered form in the manufacture of a new product. "Recycling" does not include burning, incinerating, converting, or otherwise thermally destroying solid waste. 12. "Recycled Paper Bag" means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment and that meets all of the following requirements: contains no old growth fiber, is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable overall and contains a minimum of forty percent (40%) Postconsumer Recycled Material; displays the words “Reusable and Recyclable" in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag; and displays the percentage of Postconsumer Recycled Material used; and the name and location of the manufacturer. 13. "Reusable Bag" means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet;; is machine washable or capable of being cleaned and disinfected; does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts as defined by applicable State and Federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick. 14. “Retail Establishment” means any commercial establishment that sells perishable and nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food and personal items directly to the Customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical city/county limits of the City/County of (insert name). Retail Establishments does not include Public Eating Establishments or Nonprofit Charitable organizations. 15. “Single-Use Carryout Bag” means a bag other than a Reusable Bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. Single-Use Carryout Bags do not include bags without handles provided to the Customer to transport produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department with in a store to the point of sale. ---PAGE BREAK--- Plastic Carryout Bags Prohibited. 1. No Retail Establishment shall provide a Single-Use Carryout Bag to a Customer at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provide in this Ordinance. 2. This prohibition applies to bags provided for the purpose of carrying away goods from the point of sale and does not apply to Produce Bags or Product Bags. Permitted Bags. All Retail Establishments shall provide or make available to a Customer only Recycled Paper Carryout bags or reusable bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this ordinance. Nothing in this ordinance prohibits Customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the Retail Establishment themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag, in lieu of using bags provided by the store. Regulation of Recycled Paper Carryout Bags. 1. Any Retail Establishment that provides a Recycled Paper Carryout Bag or Reusable Bag to a Customer must charge the Customer a minimum charge of 5 cents ($0.05) for each bag provided, except as otherwise provided in the ordinance. 2. Two years after the ordinance is enacted a Retail Establishment may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag for a minimum charge of ten cents ($0.10) 3. All Retail Establishments must indicate on the Customer receipt the number of Recycled Paper Carryout Bags provided and the total amount charged for the bags. 4. All monies collected by a Retail Establishment under this ordinance will be retained by the Retail Establishment and may be used for any of the following purposes: a. costs associated with complying with the requirements of this ordinance, b. actual costs of providing Recycled Paper Carryout Bags, or c. costs associated with a Retail Establishment's educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags, if any. d. fund reusable bags giving-aways during limited-time store promotions. 5. All Retail Establishments must report to the City Manager (or Other Designee), on an annual basis, the total number of Recycled Paper Carryout Bags provided, the total amount of monies collected for providing Recycled Paper Carryout Bags, and a summary of any efforts a Retail Establishment has undertaken to promote the use of reusable bags by Customers in the prior year. Such reporting must be done on a form prescribed by the City Manager, and must be signed by a responsible agent or officer of the Retail Establishment confirming that the information provided on the form is accurate and complete. All reporting must be submitted no later than 45 days after the end of each calendar year. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. If the reporting required is not timely submitted by a Retail Establishment, such Retail Establishment shall be subject to the fines set forth. Use of reusable bags. 1. All Retail Establishments must provide Reusable Bags to Customers, either: a. for sale; or b. at a minimum charge of 10 cents ($0.10) per bag during limited-time store promotions. c. Exemptions would be made for sanctioned reusable bag giveaway events that are intended to promote the use of reusable bags. 2. Each Retail Establishment is strongly encouraged to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging Customers to use reusable bags. Exempt Customers. A Retail Establishments must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or Recycled Paper Carryout Bags or both, at the Retail Establishment's option, to any Customer participating either in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code or in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the State Department of Social Services Food Stamp program, other government-subsidized purchase programs for low-income residents. Operative date. This ordinance shall become operative six months from the date that it is adopted. Enforcement and violation-penalty. 1. The City Manager and/or his/her agent have primary responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this ordinance, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines and entering the premises of any Retail Establishment during business hours. Other City/County staff may assist with this enforcement responsibility by entering the premises of a Retail Establishment as part of their regular inspection functions and reporting any alleged violations to the City Manager. 2. If the City Manager determines that a violation of the ordinance has occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Operator of a Retail Establishment that a violation has occurred and the potential penalties that will apply for future violations. 3. Any Retail Establishment that violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of the ordinance after a written warning notice has been issued for that violation shall be guilty of an infraction. 4. If a Retail Establishment has subsequent violations of the ordinance that are similar in kind to the violation addressed in a written warning notice, the following penalties will be imposed and shall be payable by the Operator of the Retail Establishment to the City/County of (insert name): a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after ---PAGE BREAK--- the written warning notice is given; b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the written warning notice is given; or c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any subsequent violations after the written warning notice is given. 5. A fine shall be imposed for each day a violation occurs or is allowed to continue. 6. All fines collected pursuant to the ordinance shall be deposited in the Solid Waste Management Fund to assist the department with its costs of implementing and enforcing the requirements of the ordinance. 7. Any Retail Establishment Operator who receives a written warning notice or fine may request an administrative review of the accuracy of the determination or the propriety of any fine issued, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Manager no later than 30 days after receipt of a written warning notice or fine, as applicable. The notice of appeal must include all facts supporting the appeal and any statements and evidence, including copies of all written documentation and a list of any witnesses that the appellant wishes to be considered in connection with the appeal. The appeal will be heard by a hearing officer designated by the City Manager. The hearing officer will conduct a hearing concerning the appeal within 45 days from the date that the notice of appeal is filed, or on a later date if agreed upon by the appellant and the City/County of (insert name), and will give the appellant 10 business a days prior written notice of the date of the hearing. The hearing officer may sustain, rescind, or modify the written warning notice or fine, as applicable, by written decision. The hearing officer will have the power to waive any portion of the fine in a manner consistent with the decision. The decision of the hearing officer is final and effective on the date of service of the written decision, is not subject to further administrative review, and constitutes the final administrative decision. Severabilty. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (insert) hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid. No conflict with federal or state law. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to create any requirement, power or duty that is in conflict with any federal or state law. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Summary of Available Information On Reusable Shopping Bags ---PAGE BREAK--- A SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON REUSABLE SHOPPING BAGS Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. For RecycleMore January 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 REUSABLE BAGS Because the proposed project is intended to result in an increase in the number of reusable bags used in West Contra Costa County, and a decrease in the proliferation of single-use (disposable) bags, RecycleMore examined the likely effects of there being a substantial increase in reusable bags in the West County. RecycleMore is not proposing to specify which bags can be used in the West County, and there are a wide variety of reusable bags available for purchase, both locally and on the Internet. This discussion therefore summarizes what RecycleMore has been able to independently determine and verify. Unlike both paper and plastic bags, there is no commercial entity espousing the use of reusable bags and providing substantial quantities of information about all of them. The reusable bags identified during preparation of this Initial Study and available for sale to the general public include a variety of plastics, fabrics, and combinations of materials. The popular alternative bag in the United States 15 years ago was cotton canvas. The canvas bags last many years and are still in common use. String bags made of cotton, hemp, and other fibers are widely available in Europe and are increasingly available in the U.S. Reusable bags made of plastics including PET, polyester, LDPE, and polypropylene are becoming widely available and are offered for sale at a wide variety of stores in West Contra Costa County. The impacts of reusable bags, compared to the impacts of single-use bags, would include the impacts of manufacturing (both the manufacturing of the source material and the formulation of the bags from the plastic pellets or others source), the impacts of transporting bags from manufacturer to user, the impacts of using the bags, and the impacts of disposing of the bags. Because RecycleMore is unable to ascertain or evaluate sufficient reliable information to prepare an impact analysis of the bags most likely to be used if the project is implemented, the following is provided for information purposes only. This is a summary of what is known about reusable bag alternatives and the likely effects of encouraging their use in West Contra Costa County. Manufacturing Reusable Bags RecycleMore is unable to document all of the impacts of manufacturing all of the different kinds of bags that might be purchased by shoppers in West Contra Costa County. There are a variety of sources for the materials used to make these bags, including recycled materials (especially for the PET and polyester bags), cotton grown in California and elsewhere using both organic and standard farming methods, and “virgin” plastic made from oil and other feedstocks. As the market for reusable bags expands, the products available will also expand and RecycleMore cannot predict which bags shoppers in West Contra Costa County will prefer, or what will be available in the future. To do any kind of thorough analysis of the impacts of manufacturing, distributing, and using reusable bags would be virtually impossible and highly speculative. The plastics industry in Europe has, however, prepared ISO 14025 compliant life cycle inventories (LCIs) for a number of plastic resins.1 These analyses identify the impacts from production of various types of plastics. The LCIs do not include the impacts of turning the plastic pellet feedstocks into completed bags, but they do allow for a comparison of the impacts of making each of the types of plastic that are most commonly used for both single-use and reusable bags. The reports state that 1 ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14025:2006 establishes principles for the use of environmental information, primarily intended for use in business-to-business communication, but their use in business-to-consumer communication under certain conditions is not precluded. ---PAGE BREAK--- the information was gathered on European processing, which may or may not be the same as all of the processing done for all of the bags available to American buyers of reusable bags made of the same materials. For example, the LCI for LDPE states that LDPE can be produced from a “petrochemical source”, or from alternative sources like syngas and biomass. It is not known if the mix of sources for European production is similar to that identified by the American plastic bag industry as currently prevailing in the U.S. As is also true in the U.S., the LCI for PET states that PET is widely recycled in Europe. The information is provided because it is the best available for all of the plastic bag feedstocks under discussion, and to allow comparison between the materials; it is not comparable to the complete life cycle analyses discussed elsewhere in this Initial Study, which generally address more than just the source materials. It is included in this Initial Study only to give the reader some grasp of the comparative impacts of making these different kinds of plastic. The formulation of the plastic resins into bags is also less likely to produce the significant impacts from hazardous wastes and resource consumption than is the creation of the plastic resin. Table C-1: Excerpts from Life Cycle Inventories Plastic Comparisons Indicator LDPE HDPE PP PET Non-renewable materials •Minerals 4.2g 2.6g 1.8g 2.9g • Fossil fuels 1,591.3g 1,595.7g 1,564.5g 1,715.0g •Uranium 0.009g 0.006g 0.005g 0.009g Renewable materials (biomass) 10.787g 8.704g 5.129g 15.339g Water use in processing 2,934g 3.378g 4.788g 4,828g Non-renewable energy resources as upper heating value •For energy 25.3MJ 21.7MJ 20.4MJ 42.5 MJ •For feedstock 51.6MJ 54.3MJ 52.6MJ 39.8 MJ Renewable energy resources (biomass) •For energy 1.2MJ 0.8MJ 0.4MJ 0.6MJ •For feedstock 0 0 0 0 Waste •Non-hazardous 0.034kg 0.032kg 0.024kg 0.089kg •Hazardous 0.005kg 0.006kg 0.005kg 0.004kg Global Warming Potential 2.13kg CO2eq 1.96 kg CO2eq 2.00kg CO2eq 3.49 kg CO2eq Ozone Depletion Potential n/a n/a n/a n/a Acidification Potential 7.74g SO2eq 6.39g SO2eq 6.13g SO2eq 15.59g SO2eq Petrochemical Ozone Creation Potential 1.19g ethene eq 1.23g ethene eq 0.92g ethene eq 2.43g ethene eq Nutrification Potential (eutrophication) 0.50g PO4eq 0.43g PO4eq 0.74g PO4eq 1.03g PO4eq Dust/Particulate Matter 0.69g PM10 0.64g PM10 0.59g PM10 1.94g PM10 Total Particulate Matter 0.70g 0.64g 0.60g 1.95g g = grams kg = kilograms mj = megajoules eq = equivalent n/a = entries are below quantification limit ---PAGE BREAK--- The information identified in the top half of the Table A-1 shows environmental performance indicators associated with the manufacture of one kilogram (kg) of each of the types of plastic indicated. The bottom half of the table lists what the LCI calls “output parameters”, or environmental pollutants. It is not possible, based on information available to RecycleMore, to state conclusively that one of these four plastics results in much greater environmental impacts from its manufacturing. There is no context for any of the manufacturing activities and the LCI simply summarizes the processes at a wide number of facilities. It can be inferred, however, that the manufacturing of PET requires more non-renewable energy resources for energy purposes but consumes less as feedstock than the processes for each of the other three plastics. PET also generates more dust and hazardous waste than the other three types of plastic. Also relevant is that PET appears to have greater global climate change impacts, a higher acidification potential, and worse eutrophication impacts than the other three plastic manufacturing processes. However, PET is the most widely and intensively recycled plastic in both the United States and Europe. The most recent EPA study on the make-up of solid waste in the U.S. found that in 2007, 18 percent of PET was recovered. Of the PET used for soda bottles, over 36 percent was recovered. Therefore, the impacts of making PET are likely to be at least somewhat offset by the inclusion of recycled content although RecycleMore does not have the information to quantify the differences. Capacity and Physical Size The information above compares the impacts of manufacturing a specified quantity (one kilogram) of four different kinds of plastic. Another criterion that would determine the effects of a bag made from any one of those kinds of plastic is the amount of the plastic used to create a bag, and the capacity (a measure of usefulness) of the bag created. The other important criteria in measuring usefulness is the number of times a bag can be used, which is discussed in the next subsection. Obviously bags can be made in any style and size desired. The information on capacity that is illustrated in the pictures and summarized here is based on the sizes of bags that are widely available right now (2011). The capacity was measured using tennis balls, a widely available unit. The same tennis balls were used to fill several different bags. The balls were not squeezed or forced into the bags and all of the bags were capable of being carried while they were full of tennis balls.2 Photo 16 shows a single-use HDPE grocery bag of a size commonly found in grocery stores in West Contra Costa County. It held 57 tennis balls in this picture. Photo 20 shows a reusable PET shopping bag sold at Whole Foods. It is similar in size to other reusable bags sold in various grocery, department and specialty stores in the County. It holds 114 tennis balls. Photo 22 shows a reusable nonwoven polypropylene bag of a size that is also commonly available in grocery stores and other retail outlets in West Contra Costa County. It held 87 tennis balls. Photo 24 illustrates a reusable LDPE bag sold at Lucky’s. The bag complies with the state definition of a reusable bag and is similar to reusable LDPE bags sold by several grocery stores. The bag is shown holding 94 tennis balls. If the reusable bags are compared to the single-use bag, the unit of capacity represented by the single-use HDPE bag (57 tennis balls) is defined as one. The capacities of the other bags are therefore described by the following ratios: 2 The use of tennis balls as a unit of measure for comparing capacities was utilized in a Zero Waste presentation to the Santa Clara County Waste Reduction and Recycling Task Force in February 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bag Capacity Bag Tennis Capacity Weight Balls HDPE Plastic (Safeway): 57 5g LDPE Plastic (Target) 70 (1.2) 10g Kraft Paper 14x12x7 (Safeway): 86 (1.5) 45g Kraft Paper 17x12x7 (Whole Foods): 114 65g Polypropylene (Nijya): 87 (1.5) 100g Cloth Mesh: 70 (1.2) 80g PET (Whole Foods) 114 105g LDPE Reusable (Lucky’s): 94 (1.6) 35g Polyester (Abitibi): 87 (1.5) 315g Cotton (Fur Free): 82 (1.4) 180g Nylon (Olive Smart) 84 (1.5) 55g Polyester (Reisenthel) 67 (1.2) 80g Nylon (Baby Baggu) 35 (0.6) 25g Bags can be made in any size. If people are buying bags, however, there is a tendency for purchasers to want bigger bags because they will carry more. As described above, all of these types of bags are widely available to citizens of West Contra Costa County. Virtually all of these bags hold substantially more than the single-use bag. The next factor to take into account in the relationship between impacts and usefulness is the amount of material (in this part of the discussion, the amount of different plastic resins) needed to make a bag. The only information available on the quantity of plastic used in making each bag, for the bags identified above, is their weight, which is shown in the list above. All of these reusable bags are substantially heavier than the single use HDPE bag and it is assumed that all of the bags contain substantially more plastic than the single use HDPE bag. The LDPE Lucky’s bag is the lightest of the reusable bags and appears to be very close to the minimum standard for a reusable bag as defined by existing state law. Useful Life As discussed in the Initial Study in relation to its presence in litter, plastic can continue to exist in recognizable form for many years. Even when subjected to the elements (sun and rain), plastic remains plastic. Depending on how they are used and stored, plastic bags can also be used as plastic bags for many years. To compare the useful life of a single use HDPE bag with that of other plastic bags, it is necessary to identify both the capacity of each bag and the number of times it could be used to move the same amount of cargo. If the single use HDPE bag is the basis of comparison, you can multiply the weight of the HDPE in a single use bag (5 grams) by the capacity ratio of the reusable bag that is being compared. If the comparison is between the single use HDPE bag and the nonwoven polypropylene bag discussed above, the weight of the HDPE bag is multiplied by the relative capacity of the polypropylene bag: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 x 1.5 = 7.5 grams This means you would need 7.5 grams of HDPE to transport the same amount of cargo as a polypropylene bag. The polypropylene bag weighs 100 grams, which is 13.3 times the weight of a single use HDPE bag. If the impacts of making a gram of HDPE were equivalent to making a gram of polypropylene, you would need to use the polypropylene bag about 13 times to balance the impacts of using the HDPE bag once and throwing it away. This of course assumes that both bags are always filled to capacity, and does not include any consideration of the impacts from disposing of the plastic bag, whether legally or illegally. If it is assumed that these ratios are reasonable, each of the bags illustrated and described above would need to be used the number of times indicated to “compensate for” the impacts of manufacturing the additional amount of plastic contained in these reusable bags compared to a single use HDPE bag. Polypropylene 13.3 times PET 10.5 times Polyester/PET 42 times LDPE 4.2 times If a family goes shopping once a week, it would take from one to three months to “amortize” the polypropylene, PET and LDPE bags. It would take most of a year to amortize the polyester bag, based solely on the amount of plastic in each of the bag types. Some of these plastic bags may have other or additional impacts associated with the conversion of the plastic resin to bags, and with their transport to markets. The bigger, heavier bags could not be transported in the same numbers in the same number of trucks or railroad cars as the thinner HDPE bags. However, a family of three that uses only four HDPE bags a week (well below the average of 1.4 per person per day in West Contra Costa County) consumes 208 single use HDPE bags a year. They would need only two or three of the bags listed above for the entire year, and none of these reusable bags is likely to end up as litter in the urban landscape, creeks, Bay or ocean. After the polypropylene bag has been carried to the store 14 times (about once a week for three months), its use would have substantially fewer impacts than using an HDPE bag, based on this extremely conservative calculation. In addition, since the bag was purchased for a specific purpose and is too heavy to be easily windblown, it is highly unlikely to be discarded outdoors and end up as litter. Cotton and Polyester Polyester is usually a fiber made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The discussion above illustrates the impacts involved in producing a kilogram of PET. It can be used alone to create fabric or it can be mixed with another material such as cotton to create a blend. There are a variety of canvas bags available as reusable shopping bags made of cotton alone, PET alone, and a blend of the two. Cotton is grown all over the world, using a variety of agricultural methods. When it is grown in California (whether as organic or inorganic), cotton crops must be irrigated. According to the website maintained by Cotton Incorporated3: As cotton has been bred to be a drought-tolerant crop, in many parts for the world, it is grown without any supplemental irrigation and relies solely on rainfall. For example, only 35% of the 3 Cotton Incorporated is an industry association that provides research, information, and technical support to the cotton industry. ---PAGE BREAK--- US cotton crop is produced on irrigated land…Partially due to lack of affordable water resources, the amount of cotton produced in California, Arizona, and New Mexico has been steadily declining for the last decade as higher value crops and land uses have displaced cotton west of Texas. Cotton crops grown by traditional agricultural methods require use of a number of chemicals (fertilizers, pest control, defoliants) that may result in secondary environmental impacts. Cotton grown by organic methods would not involve use of the chemicals. Organic cotton grown on non- irrigated land will have substantially fewer and less significant environmental impacts than cotton grown by traditional methods on irrigated land. Fabric that is processed and dyed can also result in environmental impacts from the fabrication and dying; fabrics created from organic sources that are not colored using chemical dyes will result in less impact. RecycleMore cannot predict how popular fabric shopping bags are likely to be in the future, or what kinds of fabrics will be used the most (cotton or blends). However, canvas bags are generally long lived and can be used dozens or hundreds of times. The ratio of environmental impacts per time of use per bag becomes substantially less, the longer the bag is used. The impacts of producing natural fiber bags, whether cotton, hemp, wool, silk, or other will vary according to the way the fiber was grown and processed. Fiber bags that can be used for years and are used repeatedly will, however, have substantially fewer and less significant impacts per use than single use bags. The environmental impacts of producing a canvas bag from a blend of traditionally grown cotton and polyester may be substantially greater than the impacts of producing a single-use HDPE bag or a reusable LDPE bag. The canvas bag can and likely will be used many more times than the single use HDPE bag and will carry a much heavier load then the reusable LDPE bag shown in the photographs. The impacts over the lifetime of the bag (or per ounce of payload carried) would then be less than the impacts of the single use HDPE bag over its lifetime. Depending on the quality of construction and thickness of the material used, it could last substantially longer than some of the reusable plastic bags, reducing its impacts even below those of the reusable plastic bags. Analyses of Reusable Bags from LCAs Various LCAs of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and have been evaluated and some of their information included in the analysis of this Initial Study (refer to §5.0 References and Appendix C of the Initial Study). Few LCAs, however, analyze impacts associated with reusable bags. In addition, LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, and frequently have assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts associated with reusable bags does not, therefore, rely on LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. The findings of relevant LCAs are summarized below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage: Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts In 2002, a report was prepared for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage to analyze the impacts that might result from a number of different policy options being explored to reduce plastic bag usage. The report included a “streamlined LCA” to analyze the environmental impacts of various bags, both single-use and reusable. The analysis was based on the environmental effects of a household carrying approximately 70 grocery items home from a supermarket each week for a year using each type of bag. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table A-2. Table C-2: Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Analysis of Single-Use and Reusable Bags Bag Type Assumed Bags per Year Assumed Relative Capacity Material Consump -tion (kg) Litter (m2/year) Greenhouse Gases (CO2 equiv.) Primary Energy Use (MJ) Single-use HDPE 520 1 3.12 0.72 6.08 210 50% recycled single-use HDPE 520 1 3.12 0.72 4.79 117 Boutique LDPE (single-use) 650 0.8 11.77 0.975 29.8 957 Reusable LDPE 26.8 1.5 0.96 0.0603 2.43 78 Calico/Cotton 9.1 1.1 1.14 0.0819 2.52 160 Woven HDPE 1.65 3 0.22 0.00743 0.628 18.6 Polypropylene fiber ‘Green Bag’ 4.15 1.2 0.48 0.00934 1.96 46.3 Kraft paper – handled (single- use) 520 1 22.15 0.078 11.8 721 Biodegradable - starch based (Mater-Bi) 520 1 6.5 0.078 6.611 61.3 The results of the analysis show that over the course of a year, virtually any type of reusable bag is environmentally superior to single-use bags. Although some types of reusable bags result in greater impacts than others, the level of impact for each bag is closely correlated with the amount of raw materials it requires. Bags that require more raw materials over the course of a year generally result in greater impacts. This reinforces the principle that when fewer raw materials are required to transport goods to and from stores over a period of time, fewer negative environmental impacts result. Reusable bags, when reused a sufficient amount of times, require less raw materials than multiple single-use bags used once and then disposed, and, as a result, are environmentally preferable to single-use bags. This LCA supports a conclusion that any change in consumer behavior away from single-use bags towards reusable bags would be environmentally beneficial. ---PAGE BREAK--- Ecobilan for Carrefour: Évaluation des Impacts Environnementaux des Sacs de Caisse Carrefour In 2004, an LCA was commissioned by the international retail store chain Carrefour to assess the environmental impacts of different bags distributed at their stores. The bags analyzed include a single-use HDPE bag, a reusable LDPE bag, and a single-use paper bag. The results of the LCA are summarized in Table A-3. The analysis shows environmental impacts of various bag options compared to single-use HDPE bags, which are used as the baseline Table C-3: Carrefour LCA Relative Performance of Bags Studied (French Context of Waste Treatment) Environmental Indicator Disposable HDPE Reusable LDPE Paper Bag Biodegradable Plastic Bag 2 Uses 3 Uses 4 Uses 20 Uses Primary Non- renewable Energy Consumption 1 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.9 Water Consumption 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 3.3 1.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.9 1.4 Atmospheric Acidification 1 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.8 1.6 Photochemical Oxidant Formation 1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.4 Eutrophication 1 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.1 12.0 11.0 Solid Waste Generation 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.8 1.1 Risk of Litter High Medium-low Low Medium-low The results of the analysis show that although reusable bags may result in greater impacts than single-use bags in a bag-to-bag comparison, once they are reused a sufficient amount of times they become the superior option for every environmental indicator analyzed. For this specific type of bag (LDPE), once it is used four times it results in fewer environmental impacts than disposable bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- REFERENCES This summary of existing information was based on the same references that are listed in the Initial Study on RecycleMore’s proposed ordinance to ban single-use plastic bags in retail establishments in West Contra Costa County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Summary of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) ---PAGE BREAK--- A SUMMARY OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS (LCAs) Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. For RecycleMore January 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool used to assess the environmental impact of a given product throughout its lifespan. A LCA assesses the raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal (including all intervening transportation steps) of a given product.1 The methodology for completing a LCA is standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). LCAs are useful because they provide specific analysis and quantifiable results for the purpose of assessing environmental impacts of a given product. However, the LCA process is complex and involves many variables that can differ from report to report. Each LCA assumes different parameters and system boundaries in its calculations, and utilizes a unique set of data to reach its conclusions. Often, LCAs are completed in different regions of the world that have unique environmental factors that do not apply elsewhere. For these reasons, the results contained in LCAs consulted for this Initial Study do not precisely reflect conditions in West Contra Costa County. Due to the variations and limitations involved in the LCA process, direct comparisons between the results of two or more LCAs involve a level of uncertainty. However, by comparing the results of several LCAs, it is possible to get a reasonable range of the likely impacts associated with a given product over the course of its lifetime. Summaries of the relevant LCAs consulted in this Initial Study are provided below. 1International Organization for Standardization. “ISO standards for life cycle assessment to promote sustainable development”. July 7, 2006. Accessed March 23, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Boustead Consulting & Associates: Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper Author: Boustead Consulting & Associates Sponsor: Progressive Bag Alliance (now known as the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Council) Date: 2007 Bags Analyzed: HDPE Plastic, Degradable Plastic, Kraft Paper Functional unit: Consumer use and collection of 1,000 paper bags and 1,000/1,500 plastic bags (the 1,500 plastic bag unit accounts for the larger capacity of paper bags). Impact Categories: Global Warming, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Acid Rain, Municipal Solid Waste, Conservation of Fossil Fuels, Electricity Use, Water Use Summary: The LCA analyzed 1/6 Bbl (standard grocery bag) sized HDPE plastic bags, paper bags containing 30 percent recycled content, and degradable bags consisting of 65 percent EcoFlex, 10 percent polylactic acid (PLA), and 25 percent calcium carbonate. According to the LCA, the “…scope of the study is a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment which begins with the extraction of all raw materials used in each of the bags through to the ultimate disposal of the bags after consumer use, including all the transport associated with the delivery of raw materials and the shipping and disposal of final product.” The analysis was broken down into the impact categories listed above. Detailed quantifications of energy use, fossil fuel use, feedstocks, water resources, raw materials, air emissions, water emissions, and solid waste generation were used to form the impact analysis. These quantifications are available in table form in the report. The study concluded that for most environmental indicators, HDPE plastic bags result in less impacts than both paper bags and degradable bags. Table B-1 contains a summary of the results, as shown in the LCA. Table: D-1 Boustead Consulting & Associates LCA Impact Summary of Various Bag Types Paper Compostable Plastic HDPE Plastic Total Energy Use (MJ) 2,622 2,070 763 Fossil Fuel Use (kg) 23.2 41.5 14.9 Municipal Solid Waste (kg) 33.9 19.2 7.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons CO2e) 0.08 0.18 0.04 Fresh Water Usage (Gal) 1,004 1,017 58 Note: Figures based on impacts of 1,000 paper bags and 1,500 plastic bags to account for differences in capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Limitations in Application of the LCA to West Contra Costa County: While the Boustead LCA is the most recent LCA of bags completed in the U.S., many of the assumptions used in the LCA do not correlate directly with the situation in West Contra Costa County. Recycling rates of plastic bags given in the report are higher than have been estimated for California and West Contra Costa County. Additionally, the report is unclear on the definition of “feedstock” and the methodology for estimating its contribution to the overall energy requirements. Energy requirements attributed to feedstock are implied in different instances in the report to include either the energy required to harvest the raw materials used to make the bags, or the embodied energy within the bag itself wood used to make paper has embodied energy that is released when burned). Also, the environmental impact of litter is not analyzed or taken into account in the report’s conclusions. The LCA assumes a paper bag recycling rate of 21 percent. This statistic is taken from a 2005 EPA waste characterization study. The 2007 version of the EPA study, however, lists paper bag recovery at 36.8 percent, which is significantly higher.2 The assumed rate of recycling affects the results of the LCA, particularly in the area of global warming. The LCA concluded that, assuming paper bags have 1.5 times the capacity of plastic bags, “...from all operations just prior to disposal, the resulting CO2 equivalents are more than 20% greater for the recyclable plastic bag compared to the paper bag.” This result suggests that much of the global warming emissions for paper bags are related to disposal, likely due to the fact that paper bags break down and release their stored carbon into the atmosphere while plastic bags do not. An increased rate of recycling above what is assumed in the LCA, as is likely the case in West Contra Costa County, would result in lower global warming emissions. For the reasons listed above, it is unclear how closely estimates derived from the information in this report would correlate with the real world situation in West Contra Costa County. 2 Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 Facts and Figures. November 2008. Page 39. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Nolan-ITU: Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts Author: Nolan-ITU PTY LTD Sponsor: Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Date: 2002 Bags Analyzed: Single-Use HDPE, 50% Recycled Single-Use HDPE, Single-Use LDPE, Reusable LDPE, Calico (Cotton), Woven HDPE Reusable, Polypropylene Reusable, Kraft Paper, Polypropylene “Smart Box”, Biodegradable Starch-Based Functional unit: 52 shopping trips per year with 10 average plastic shopping bag loads each trip. Impact Categories: Material Consumption, Litter, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Primary Energy Use Summary: In 2002, a report was prepared for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage to analyze the impacts that might result from a number of different policy options being explored to reduce plastic bag usage. The report included a “streamlined LCA” that analyzed the environmental impacts of a household carrying approximately 70 grocery items home from a supermarket each week for a year using several different types of bags. Single-use plastic (HDPE) bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of two percent, while single-use paper bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of 60 percent. No recycled content was assumed, except in the case of the 50 percent recycled plastic (HDPE) bag. The streamlined LCA found that over the course of a year, single-use paper bags resulted in greater impacts than single-use paper bags in every category except the persistence of litter over time. The LCA also found that every type of reusable bag resulted in less impacts than both single-use paper and plastic bags over the course of a year. Table B-2 contains a summary of the results, as shown in the LCA. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Table D-2: Nolan ITU Assessment of Alternatives Alternative Material Consumption (kg) Litter Litter (m2) Litter (m2 Greenhouse (CO2 equiv) Primary Energy Use (MJ) Singlet HDPE 3.12 15.6 0.144 0.72 6.08 210 50% recycled singlet HDPE 3.12 15.6 0.144 0.72 4.79 117 Boutique LDPE (single use) 11.77 58.8 0.195 0.975 29.8 957 Reusable LDPE 0.96 4.8 0.0121 0.0603 2.43 78 Calico 1.14 5.7 0.0041 0.0819 2.52 160 Woven HDPE swag 0.22 1.1 0.00148 0.00743 0.628 18.6 PP fibre ‘Green Bag’ 0.48 2.4 0.00187 0.00934 1.96 46.3 Kraft paper – handled 22.15 111 0.156 0.078 11.8 721 Solid PP ‘Smart Box’ 0.42 NA NA NA 1.1 38.8 Biodegradable -starch based (Mater-Bi) 6.5 32.5 0.156 0.078 6.611 61.3 Note: Figures based on 52 shopping trips per year with 10 average plastic shopping bag loads each trip. Limitations in Application of the LCA to West Contra Costa County: A major limitation of this LCA is that it was completed to reflect the situation in Australia, not the U.S. As a result, many of the factors that determine environmental impacts differ from what would be found in West Contra Costa County. For example, the report states that “around two thirds of the HDPE bags consumed in Australia are imported from south-east Asia, where the primary source of HDPE is oil; the primary source for the locally produced bags is natural gas.” According to industry representatives,3 roughly 85 percent of plastic bags used in the U.S. are produced domestically, most often using ethane, which is a byproduct of natural gas refining. The degree to which disparities between conditions in Australia and the U.S. affect the results of the analysis is unknown. Another limitation of this LCA is that it is considered “streamlined”. According to the report, the streamlined LCA was completed “…using SimaPro software with a combination of Australian data (where available) and international data. This data is the result of a streamlined study using existing data, rather than data from the actual processes used for each specific bag. The results should 3 Save the Plastic Bag, An American Success Story Under Threat, Accessed October 19, 2009 at http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 therefore be used with caution, as indicative data rather than a full scientific study of relative impacts.” Because it is not considered a full LCA, the results cannot be given the same weight as those found in LCAs that follow the ISO standardized practices. Despite its limitations, this LCA is useful for its analysis of reusable bags. The breakdown of impacts associated with reusable bags is the most robust found in any of the LCAs that were reviewed, specifically because of the wide range of reusable bags analyzed. While this LCA does not precisely reflect the situation in West Contra Costa County, it provides a useful contrast of the impacts of single-use bags against the impacts of a variety of reusable bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Ecobilan: Évaluation des Impacts Environnementaux des Sacs de Caisse Carrefour 4 Author: Ecobilan Sponsor: Carrefour Date: 2004 Bags Analyzed: Single-Use HDPE Plastic, Paper, Biodegradable Plastic (50 percent corn starch and 50 percent polycaprolactone compostable plastic), Reusable LDPE Plastic Functional unit: Bags needed to transport 9,000 liters of goods (estimated annual purchase volume) Impact Categories: Non-Renewable Energy Consumption, Water Consumption, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Atmospheric Acidification, Photochemical Oxidants, Eutrophication, Residual Solid Waste, Littering Probability. Summary: This LCA was commissioned by the international retail store chain Carrefour to assess the environmental impacts of different bags distributed at their stores. The LCA found that reusable LDPE bags, when used at least four times, were superior to the other bag types in every environmental indicator. Single-use HDPE plastic bags were found to be superior to single-use paper bags in every indicator except three: primary energy consumption, in which they were equivalent; atmospheric acidification, in which paper bags were superior; and risk of litter, in which paper bags were superior. Table B-3 contains a summary of the results, as shown in the LCA. Carrefour is undertaking an effort to eliminate plastic bags in their stores by 2012 as a result of the LCA. 4 Because the report is in French, much of the information contained in this Initial Study was obtained from summaries of the LCA in The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context (EuroCommerce, September 2004), Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment (Scottish Executive, August 2005), Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags (Green Cities California, March 2010), and Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items - Volume II, Appendices (Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., January 2008). ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Table D-3: Carrefour Relative Performance of Bags Studied (French Context of Waste Treatment) Environmental Indicator Disposable HDPE Reusable LDPE Paper Bag Biodegradable Plastic Bag 2 Uses 3 Uses 4 Uses 20 Uses Primary Non- Renewable Energy Consumption 1 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.9 Water Consumption 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 3.3 1.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.9 1.4 Atmospheric Acidification 1 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.8 1.6 Photochemical Oxidant Formation 1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.4 Eutrophication 1 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.1 12.0 11.0 Solid Waste Generation 1 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.8 1.1 Risk of Litter High Medium-low Low Medium-low Many recent reports citing the Carrefour LCA have used a figure different than the one used in this Initial Study for comparing the greenhouse gas emissions related to paper and plastic bags. This Initial Study uses a figure from the Carrefour LCA showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single use plastic bags, while most other reports citing the Carrefour LCA use a figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single use plastic bags. The discrepancy likely stems from the fact that the Carrefour LCA is written in French. The table from the Carrefour LCA represented in this Initial Study is one of several in the Carrefour LCA that compare impacts of paper and plastic bags in different scenarios. The data contained in Table 3.4-3 above comes from a table titled “Tableau 14: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (contexte francais de traitement des dechets)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performance of bags in the context of the French waste management system. It is located in a section titled “23.10 Resume des performances relatives des sacs”, which roughly means a summary of the relative performance of bags. This is the first of the several related tables presented in the Carrefour LCA, and was interpreted to provide an overview of bag-related impacts in France, where the report was completed. The data used in most other recent reports, which shows paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the greenhouse gas emissions of single use plastic bags, is titled “Tableau 18: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (avec mise en decharge des sacs usages)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performances of bags in a scenario where all used bags are landfilled. This table, as well as all the other similar tables other than the one used in this Initial Study, are in an entirely different section of the LCA titled “24 Analyses de sensibilite et simulations”, which roughly translates to sensitivity analysis and simulations. Other tables in this section compare bag-related impacts in several scenarios, such as partial reuse of plastic bags as garbage bags 65 percent of the time, partial reuse 32.5 percent of the time, and incineration of ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 disposed bags for energy recovery. The tables in this section, including the one cited by most reports, represent simulations of very specific theoretical waste management scenarios, as opposed to the broad overview of the real-world situation in France provided by the table used in this Initial Study. Some of the discrepancy in the use of figures from the Carrefour LCA may also stem from information contained in a report prepared for the Scottish government regarding impacts related to proposed bag regulation policies, which contains one of the only English summaries of the Carrefour LCA.5 The Scottish report utilized a table from the Carrefour LCA showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single use plastic bags. However, the specific scenario portrayed in the table was chosen because the preparers of the Scottish report felt it best represented the waste management system in Scotland. The appendices of the Scottish report provide the rationale used: “For the base case considered here, we take the Carrefour sensitivity run where 100% of bags of all types go to landfill. Over 88% of all waste went to landfill in Scotland in 2002/03, around 2% was incinerated and around 10% was recycled [SEPA]. Most recycled material consists of paper, glass and metal. We do not have evidence to indicate whether paper bags are more likely to be recycled than plastic ones. The assumption that 100% of bags go to landfill is pessimistic. More recent figures show that recycling rates in Scotland increased in 2003/04 to an average of 12.3%. However, it is believed that plastic carrier bags will still be going to landfill or incineration, even though there will have been an increase in the recycling of newspapers, glass jars, tins, paper bags, etc. This reflects the fact that there are currently few facilities for, and little uptake of, plastic carrier bag recycling. It is unlikely that this situation will persist in Scotland given new environmental legislation such as the Landfill Directive that requires a move away from landfill and other measures to promote recycling. However, it is possible to adapt the analysis to alternative assumptions on waste management using the results of some of the sensitivity analysis presented in the Carrefour study.” This excerpt from the appendices to the Scottish report makes it clear that the figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single use plastic bags represents a theoretical scenario of 100 percent landfilling that does not actually exist, and would not accurately represent the situation in West Contra Costa County. The table used in this DInitial Study, on the other hand, represents the actual real-world circumstances in France, with a mix of recycling and landfilling of paper bags. Since the figure showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single use plastic bags, as opposed to 3.3 times greater, represents a realistic scenario, it is more applicable to circumstances in West Contra Costa County. 5 Scottish Executive. Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment. August 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Limitations in Application of the LCA to West Contra Costa County: A major limitation of this LCA is that it was completed to reflect the situation in France, not the U.S. As a result, many of the factors that determine environmental impacts, such as energy sources and waste management operations, likely differ from what would be found in West Contra Costa County. The degree to which disparities between conditions in France and the U.S. affect the results of the analysis is unknown. For these reasons, it is unclear how closely estimates derived from the information in this report would correlate with the real-world situation in West Contra Costa County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Franklin Associates: Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks Author: Franklin Associates Sponsor: N/A (hosted on the American Chemistry Council website under “Publications”) Date: 1990 Bags Analyzed: Single-Use Polyethylene Plastic (representing both high molecular weight high- density polyethylene (HMW-HDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) Resins), Unbleached Paper Functional unit: Equivalent of 10,000 paper bags Impact Categories: Energy, Solid Waste, Atmospheric Emissions, Waterborne Wastes Summary: The LCA analyzed 1/6 Bbl (standard grocery bag) sized polyethylene plastic bags and unbleached kraft paper bags in a cradle-to-grave assessment. It does not appear that the bags contained recycled content. The results of the LCA show that in each category, plastic bags were preferable to paper bags. Plastic bags were found to contribute 74 to 80 percent less solid waste, 63 to 73 percent less atmospheric emissions, 90 percent less waterborne wastes, and require 20 to 40 percent less energy than paper bags. Increasing the recycling rate of the bags was found to mostly reduce the disparities in impacts between the two bags. However, the difference in waterborne wastes was found to increase with more recycling. Table B-4 contains a summary of the results of the LCA. Table D-4: Franklin Environmental Discharge Data and Energy Requirements for 1/6 Barrel Grocery Sacks (Per 10,000 Equivalent Uses) Solid Waste (cu. ft.) Atmospheric Emissions (lbs.) Waterborne Wastes (lbs.) Energy Requirements (million BTU) 1.5:1 Plastic to Paper Ratio Polyethylene Sack 0% Recycle 9.1 17.9 1.8 9.7 25% Recycle 6.9 16.9 1.7 9.1 50% Recycle 4.9 15.8 1.6 8.4 75% Recycle 2.9 14.8 1.5 7.7 100% Recycle 0.9 13.7 1.5 7.0 Paper Sack 0% Recycle 45.8 64.2 31.2 16.3 25% Recycle 35.3 56.2 34.3 14.5 50% Recycle 24.7 48.2 37.6 12.7 75% Recycle 14.2 40.2 40.7 10.9 100% Recycle 3.7 32.2 43.9 9.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Table D-4: Franklin Environmental Discharge Data and Energy Requirements for 1/6 Barrel Grocery Sacks (Per 10,000 Equivalent Uses) Solid Waste (cu. ft.) Atmospheric Emissions (lbs.) Waterborne Wastes (lbs.) Energy Requirements (million BTU) 2:1 Plastic to Paper Ratio Polyethylene Sack 0% Recycle 12.1 23.9 2.4 13.0 25% Recycle 9.4 22.5 2.3 12.1 50% Recycle 6.6 21.1 2.2 11.1 75% Recycle 3.9 19.7 2.0 10.2 100% Recycle 1.2 18.3 1.9 9.3 Paper Sack 0% Recycle 45.8 64.2 31.2 16.3 25% Recycle 35.3 56.2 34.3 14.5 50% Recycle 24.7 48.2 37.6 12.7 75% Recycle 14.2 40.2 40.7 10.9 100% Recycle 3.7 32.2 43.9 9.1 Limitations in Application of the LCA to West Contra Costa County: A major limitation of this LCA is that it was completed in 1990. It is possible that in the 20 years since this report was written, many factors that were used to calculate the results, such as the manufacturing process and composition of the bags studied, may have changed. For this reason, it is unclear how closely estimates derived from the information in this report would correlate with the real-world situation in West Contra Costa County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 NCASI: Life Cycle Assessment of North American Unbleached Grocery Bags Author: NCASI Sponsor: American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and Forest Product Association of Canada (FPAC) Date: 2010 Bags Analyzed: Unbleached Kraft Paper Functional unit: One Bag Impact Categories: Global Warming, Acidification, Carcinogenics, Non-Carcinogenics, Respiratory Effects, Eutrophication, Ozone Depletion, Ecotoxicity, Smog, Fossil Fuel Depletions, Abiotic Depletion, Photochemical Oxidation Summary: The LCA analyzed 1/6 Bbl (standard grocery bag) sized unbleached kraft paper bags. It is unclear how much recycled content was assumed to be in each bag, but effects from the production of recycled pulp are taken into account in the model. A cradle-to-grave approach was used for the analysis, and per-bag emissions were calculated for each of the impact categories listed above. Two separate LCA methods, CML (USA) and TRACI (Europe), were used for comparative purposes, and the results of each method are presented separately. Tables B-5 and B-6 contain summaries of the results, as shown in the LCA. Table D-5: NCASI Cradle-to-Grave LCIA Results per Functional Unit (CML Method) Impact Category Unit/Bag Total Fiber Procure- ment Unbleached Bag and Sack Paper Production Bag Manu- facturing Transport and Use of Bags End-of- Life Abiotic Depletion kg Sb eq. 4.64E- 04 16.0% 52.4% 25.6% 2.9% 3.1% Acidification kg SO2 eq. 5.87E- 04 15.4% 61.8% 18.5% 1.8% 2.5% Eutrophication kg PO4 3- eq. 1.29E- 04 13.0% 17.9% 6.1% 1.5% 61.5% Photochemical Oxidation kg C2H4 eq. 5.37E- 05 8.3% 60.5% 8.8% 0.9% 21.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Table D-6: NCASI Cradle-to-Grave LCIA Results per Functional Unit (TRACI Method) Impact Category Unit/Bag Total Fiber Procure- ment Unbleached Bag and Sack Paper Production Bag Manu- facturing Transport and Use of Bags End- of-Life Storage in Use and in Landfills Global Warming kg CO2 eq. 0.0725 16.9% 30.1% 15.8% 3.0% 66.4% -32.2% Acidification H+ moles eq. 0.0308 17.7% 58.7% 18.2% 2.4% 3.1% Carcinogenics kg benzene eq. 1.21E- 03 1.2% 36.7% 0.9% 0.1% 61.2% Non- Carcinogenics kg toluene eq. 25.1 0.9% 6.7% 0.8% 0.1% 91.5% Respiratory Effects kg PM2.5 eq. 1.40E- 04 8.9% 74.1% 14.0% 0.6% 2.4% Eutrophication kg N eq. 2.41E- 04 6.3% 6.4% 2.2% 0.3% 84.9% Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 4.05E- 09 8.8% 74.0% 9.3% 0.8% 7.1% Ecotoxicity kg 2,4-D eq. 0.784 2.0% 7.0% 1.5% 0.2% 89.4% Smog kg NOx eq. 2.59E- 04 30.7% 29.3% 23.5% 6.2% 10.3% Fossil Fuel Depletions MJ surplus 0.102 15.9% 48.0% 28.5% 3.9% 3.7% Limitations in Application of the LCA to West Contra Costa COunty: A major limitation of this LCA is that it only analyzes paper bags, with no comparison of the environmental effects of paper bags to the effects of plastic bags. While this LCA provides a useful set of data related to paper bags, with breakdowns of the degree to which individual stages of the paper bag life cycle result in particular environmental effects, it cannot be directly compared to other LCAs because each LCA is unique in its method and model inputs. The analysis in this LCA adds to the range of environmental effects related to paper bags considered in this Initial Study, but cannot be used beyond that capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 PlasticsEurope: Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers Author: PlasticsEurope Sponsor: PlasticsEurope Date: 2008 Types of Plastic Analyzed: LDPE, HDPE, PP, and PET Functional unit: One kilogram (kg) of each type of plastic Impact Categories: Non-Renewable Materials (minerals, fossil fuels, uranium), Renewable Materials (biomass), Water Use in Processing, Non-renewable Energy Resources, Renewable Energy Resources (biomass), Waste ( non-hazardous, hazardous), Global Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion Potential, Acidification Potential, Petrochemical Ozone Creation Potential, Nutrification Potential (eutrophication), Dust/Particulate Matter, Total Particulate Matter Summary: The plastics industry in Europe prepared ISO 14025 compliant life cycle inventories (LCIs) for a number of plastic resins.6 These analyses identify the impacts from production of various types of plastics. The LCIs do not include the impacts of turning the plastic pellet feedstocks into completed bags, but they do allow for a comparison of the impacts of making each of the types of plastic that are most commonly used for both single-use and reusable bags. Table B-7 contains a summary of the results of the LCIs. 6 ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14025:2006 establishes principles for the use of environmental information, primarily intended for use in business-to-business communication, but their use in business-to-consumer communication under certain conditions is not precluded. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Table D-7: Excerpts from Life Cycle Inventories Plastic Comparisons Indicator LDPE HDPE PP PET Non-renewable materials •Minerals 4.2g 2.6g 1.8g 2.9g • Fossil fuels 1,591.3g 1,595.7g 1,564.5g 1,715.0g •Uranium 0.009g 0.006g 0.005g 0.009g Renewable materials (biomass) 10.787g 8.704g 5.129g 15.339g Water use in processing 2,934g 3.378g 4.788g 4,828g Non-renewable energy resources as upper heating value •For energy 25.3MJ 21.7MJ 20.4MJ 42.5 MJ •For feedstock 51.6MJ 54.3MJ 52.6MJ 39.8 MJ Renewable energy resources (biomass) •For energy 1.2MJ 0.8MJ 0.4MJ 0.6MJ •For feedstock 0 0 0 0 Waste •Non-hazardous 0.034kg 0.032kg 0.024kg 0.089kg •Hazardous 0.005kg 0.006kg 0.005kg 0.004kg Global Warming Potential 2.13kg CO2eq 1.96 kg CO2eq 2.00kg CO2eq 3.49 kg CO2eq Ozone Depletion Potential n/a n/a n/a n/a Acidification Potential 7.74g SO2eq 6.39g SO2eq 6.13g SO2eq 15.59g SO2eq Petrochemical Ozone Creation Potential 1.19g ethene eq 1.23g ethene eq 0.92g ethene eq 2.43g ethene eq Nutrification Potential (eutrophication) 0.50g PO4eq 0.43g PO4eq 0.74g PO4eq 1.03g PO4eq Dust/Particulate Matter 0.69g PM10 0.64g PM10 0.59g PM10 1.94g PM10 Total Particulate Matter 0.70g 0.64g 0.60g 1.95g g = grams kg = kilograms n/a = entries are below quantification limit mj = megajoules eq = equivalent Limitations in Application of the LCIs to West Contra Costa County: The LCIs contain a cradle-to-gate analysis, meaning they only consider environmental effects resulting from the manufacturing process up until the material leaves the factory. The reports do not include analysis of environmental effects related to creating, using, or disposing bags. The information is provided in this Initial Study because it is the best available for all of the plastic bag feedstocks under discussion, and to allow comparison between the materials; it is not comparable to the complete life cycle analyses discussed elsewhere in this Initial Study, which generally address more than just the source materials. It is included in this Initial Study only to give the reader some grasp of the comparative impacts of making these different kinds of plastic. The formulation of the plastic resins into bags is also less likely to produce the significant impacts from hazardous wastes and resource consumption than is the creation of the plastic resin. Additionally, the reports state that the information was gathered on European processing, which may or may not be the same as all of the processing done for all of the bags available to American buyers of reusable bags made of the same materials. For example, the LCI for LDPE states that LDPE can be produced from a “petrochemical source”, or from alternative sources like syngas and biomass. It is not known if the mix of sources for European production is similar to that identified by the American plastic bag industry as currently prevailing in the U.S. (20% oil and 80% ethylene from natural gas). ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 REFERENCES This summary of existing information was based on the same references that are listed in the Initial Study on RecycleMore’s proposed ordinance to ban single-use plastic bags in retail establishments in West Contra Costa County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Initial Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance Prepared by: August 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance i Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1 2.1 PROJECT TITLE 1 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION 1 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT 1 2.4 PROJECT PROPONENT 1 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS 18 4.1 AESTHETICS 29 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 34 4.3 AIR QUALITY 37 4.4 BIOLOGICAL 41 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 54 4.6 GEOLOGY 56 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 58 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 71 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 78 4.10 LAND USE 87 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 95 4.12 NOISE 96 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 98 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 99 4.15 RECREATION 101 4.16 TRANSPORTATION 102 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 105 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 110 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES 118 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 125 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ii Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Page Figures Figure 1: Regional Map 2 Figure 2: Marine Sanctuaries 45 Figure 3: Types of Plastic and Paper Commonly Used in Bags 88 Photographs Photo 1: Single-Use HDPE Plastic Bag 7 Photo 2: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bags 7 Photo 3: Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag 8 Photo 4: Non-Grocery Single-Use Shopping Bags 8 Photo 5: Various Reusable Bags 9 Photo 6: Various Reusable Bags 9 Photo 7: Various Reusable Bags 10 Photo 8: Single-Use Paper Bags with Recycled Content 11 Photo 9: 34 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 11 Photo 10: 40 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 12 Photo 11: 100 Percent Recycled Content Single-Use Paper Bag 12 Photo 12: Davis Street Transfer Center 13 Photo 13: Residue from Recycling Facility 14 Photo 14: Plastic Bag Litter from Newby Island Sanitary Landfill 15 Photo 15: Plastic Bag Litter from Altamont Landfill 15 Photo 16: Single-Use HDPE Plastic Bag – 57 Tennis Balls (1:1) 23 Photo 17: Single-Use LDPE Plastic Bag – 70 Tennis Balls (1.2:1) 23 Photo 18: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bag – 86 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 24 Photo 19: Single-Use Kraft Paper Bag – 114 Tennis Balls (2:1) 24 Photo 20: PET Plastic Reusable Bag – 114 Tennis Balls (2:1) 25 Photo 21: Cotton Mesh Reusable Bag – 70 Tennis Balls (1.2:1) 25 Photo 22: Polypropylene Reusable Bag – 87 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 26 Photo 23: Nylon Reusable Bag – 84 Tennis Balls (1.5:1) 26 Photo 24: LDPE Reusable Bag – 94 Tennis Balls (1.6:1) 27 Photo 25: Underwater Photo of Pacific Gyre 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance iii Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Tables Table 3.1-1: Annual Single-Use Bag Usage in 3 West Contra Costa County Based on Population 3 Table 4.0-1: Capacities of Common Bags 22 Table 4.0-2: Letter Codes for Environmental Issues 28 Table 4.7-1: Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags 64 Table 4.7-2: Boustead Consulting & Associates LCA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Single-use Carryout Bags 64 Table 4.7-3: Ecobilan for Carrefour Greenhouse Gas Emissions 65 Table 4.8-1: Comparison of Microbiological Contamination on Reusable Bags and Household Surfaces 76 Table 4.9-1: 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Statistics 80 Appendices Appendix A: Draft Ordinance Appendix B: Summary of Available Information on Reusable Shopping Bags Appendix C: Summary of Life Cycle Assessments ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 1 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This is an Initial Study prepared by RecycleMore to address the environmental impacts of implementing a proposed single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance in West Contra Costa County. For the purposes of this Initial Study, RecycleMore is the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). This Initial Study of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). RecycleMore is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project. At the behest of its Member Agencies, RecycleMore is developing a model single-use carryout bag reduction ordinance for consideration, revision, and potential adoption by its Member Agencies. RecycleMore's intention is to conduct the CEQA environmental analysis such that it may be used by each Member Agency in the consideration and potential adoption of individual local versions of the model ordinance. SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE West Contra Costa County Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION RecycleMore's service area encompasses roughly 74 square miles in West Contra Costa County. The project area includes five incorporated cities (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo) in addition to unincorporated areas. If adopted as proposed by all Member Agencies, the Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance would apply to all retail establishments within West Contra Costa County, with the exception of restaurants and take-out food establishments. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT Chris Lehon Executive Director RecycleMore One Alvarado Square, Bldg. 5 San Pablo, CA 94806 2.4 PROJECT PROPONENT RecycleMore One Alvarado Square, Bldg. 5 San Pablo, CA 94806 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 3 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 BACKGROUND Plastic, especially single-use plastic packaging, is a substantial component of litter in the urban and marine environment and contributes to litter problems at landfills and equipment problems at transfer stations. Because most plastic takes a long time to break down or decompose (frequently estimated to be hundreds of years), plastic litter causes a cumulatively adverse impact on both the natural and manmade environments. The website for the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)2 contains a 2007 estimate made by the Progressive Bag Alliance that retail establishments in California hand out approximately 19 billion single-use plastic bags at the point of sale annually, at a rate of 600 bags per second.3 This equates to an average of over 350,000 single-use plastic bags given away in West Contra Costa County every day of the year, or roughly 1.4 single-use plastic bags per person per day. Table 3.1-1 lists the estimated quantities of plastic and paper single-use bags used in each city in West Contra Costa County on an annual basis. There is no single or definitive estimate about the number of single-use paper bags distributed to the public. The San Francisco Environment Department estimated that bags distributed at San Francisco supermarkets in 2004 consisted of 90 percent plastic bags and 10 percent paper bags.4 A study produced more recently for the City of Seattle estimated that, based on statistics garnered from waste characterization studies, roughly 80 percent of single-use grocery bags distributed for free are plastic and 20 percent are paper.5 A similar study done for the City of San Jose estimated that 88 percent of the single-use bags given away are plastic and 12 percent are paper.6 Based on the San Jose estimate, it is possible that approximately 16.8 million paper single- 1 Note: Bag usage totals are based on 2010 population estimates for California and the individual Member Agencies of RecycleMore and are rounded to the nearest 1,000. Because the estimates are population-based, numbers may also reflect bags obtained in one city and transported to another jurisdiction. Totals may not add due to rounding. 2 This department includes parts of the former California Integrated Waste Management Board. 3 www.calrecycle.org/lgcentral/basics/plasticbag.htm 4 San Francisco Department of the Environment. November 18, 2004 Bag Cost Analysis: Costs Associated with Paper and Plastic Bags. November 18, 2004. http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfenvironment_page.asp?id=28374. 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 1. January 29, 2008. 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants. City of San Jose Single-use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis – Final Report. June 22, 2010. Table 3.1-1: Annual Single-Use Bag Usage in West Contra Costa County Based on Population1 Jurisdiction Population Plastic Bags Paper Bags El Cerrito 23,549 11,913,000 1,624,000 Hercules 24,060 12,171,000 1,660,000 Pinole 18,390 9,303,000 1,269,000 Richmond 103,701 52,459,000 7,153,000 San Pablo 29,139 14,740,000 2,010,000 Unincorporated 44,801 27,195,000 3,090,000 Total 243,640 127,780,000 16,807,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 4 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 use bags in addition to the 127.8 million single-use plastic bags are distributed given away free) in West Contra Costa County annually.7 The estimate for paper bags distributed in West Contra Costa County averages over 46,000 single-use paper bags per day, or approximately 0.2 single-use paper bags per person per day. The predominant type of single-use plastic bag distributed at point-of-sale in West Contra Costa County and throughout California is the high density polyethylene (HDPE) bag shown in Photo 1. The bag in the picture weighs approximately five grams. The most common type of single-use paper grocery bag is made of unbleached kraft paper. Photo 2 shows the two most common sizes distributed for free in West Contra Costa County. The two bags in the picture weigh 45 grams and 65 grams. 3.1.1 Waste Management According to CalRecycle’s 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study, approximately 155,848 tons of paper bags and 123,405 tons of plastic grocery and merchandise bags were disposed of in 2008, comprising 0.4 percent and 0.3 percent of all landfilled waste in California, respectively. Because of the lighter weight of plastic bags, these numbers represent considerably more plastic bags in the waste stream by number and volume than paper. Once in a landfill, both types of bags will eventually break down, albeit very slowly. The tons disposed at the state level demonstrate a critical difference between the recyclability of the two types of bags. In 2003, approximately 386,097 tons of paper bags and 147,038 tons of plastic grocery and merchandise bags were disposed in the state. In five years, the quantity of paper bags disposed was reduced by over 59 percent. The quantity of plastic grocery and merchandise bags was reduced by 16 percent. Since this time period also coincided with a significant increase in recycling programs and recycling statewide, it is likely that much of the reduction was due to recycling, but the percentage recycled for paper is much larger than for plastic. No municipal recycling program was identified that diverts substantial percentages of plastic bags from landfill and litter, particularly not any serving a major city. In San Jose, a city with a large and diverse population similar in many ways to that of West Contra Costa County, the City’s Recycle Plus residential curbside recycling program accepted plastic bags for recycling from roll-out of the city-wide program in 1993 until early 2009, or for approximately 15 years. Despite extensive public education and outreach efforts, there was limited success with plastic bag recycling in the City of San Jose. Residents were willing to recycle plastic bags in large numbers, but most failed to understand that bags needed to be clean, have nothing adhering to them, and they needed to be bagged or packaged together so they would not be contaminated by all of the organic materials, dirt and other contaminants in the recycled materials stream. It was therefore neither convenient nor easy to recycle the bags, despite their being collected in a curbside program. Plastic bags increase labor and costs at recycling facilities due to interference with machinery, leading to frequent system shutdowns and the need for manual cleaning, which is corroborated by operations at the Davis Street transfer station and materials recovery facility (MRF) in San Leandro 7 Estimation based on 2010 population estimates for California and the individual Member Agencies of RecycleMore. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 5 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 (see Photo 12). In addition, plastic bags often become mixed with other recyclables, reducing the market value of those materials. The City of San Jose’s recycling facility operators reported that bales of recycled plastic bags had little or no value on the market. And the operators were paying 180 dollars per ton to have those bales taken away. In 2009, San Jose began promoting the practice of returning plastic bags to local grocery stores for their in-store recycling programs, and discontinued promoting plastic bag recycling through the residential Recycle Plus program. The nature of single-use plastic bags and lightweight plastic film makes recycling them difficult because they are lightweight, easily airborne, and difficult to handle efficiently. In addition, because they are so numerous (127.8 million distributed in West Contra Costa County every year), they migrate within the materials recovery facilities and contaminate virtually all other recycled materials streams (see to Photos 12 and 13 of landfills in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties). 3.1.2 Litter and Waterways Single-use carryout bags, especially plastic bags, contribute to a persistent litter problem that is of growing concern for the health of waterways locally and worldwide. Marine debris ocean pollution) has been shown to have dramatic impacts on wildlife and habitat, and most marine debris is comprised of plastic materials. An estimated 60 to 80 percent of all marine debris (and 90 percent of floating debris) is plastic. Land-based sources, such as stormwater runoff from urbanized areas, are the dominant contributor. The 2009 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) report, produced by the Ocean Conservancy, found that plastic bags were the second most common debris item collected worldwide during the annual one-day coastal cleanup event. Cigarettes and cigarette filters were the most common item littered; paper bags were the sixth most common debris item collected.8 In the most recent Coastal Cleanup Day, plastic bags slipped to third place. This is due in part to a substantial increase in plastic beverage bottles to the point where they exceeded the number of plastic bags.9 The preparers of the 2008 Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan completed by the District of Columbia Department of the Environment discovered that plastic bags made up 21 percent of the trash in the main river and 47 percent of the trash in tributaries to the river. A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in storm drain catch basins by weight. The exact quantities and proportions vary, but the weight of evidence indicates that plastic bags are present in, and comprise a substantial component of, the litter in urban environments and local streams in the United States. In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water 8 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It). 2009. 9 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2011 Report: Tracking Trash, 25 Years of Action for the Ocean. 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 6 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.10 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. Even placed appropriately in garbage containers after use, single-use plastic bags can become a part of the urban litter problem. The bags are light-weight and so, during transfer (from residential garbage cart or from bin to collection vehicle or from collection vehicle to the working face of the landfill), can become airborne. Even aggressive litter control programs in place at landfills cannot fully avoid plastic bag litter entering the environment (see Photos 14 and 15). Since most local waterways drain to San Francisco Bay, trash in Bay Area creeks and rivers often ends up in the Pacific Ocean. The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) recently finalized its Implementation Strategy for the OPC Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. The strategy cites the elimination of packaging wastes that contribute to litter, including single-use carryout bags, as a priority, and recommends a fee on paper and plastic bags as an incentive for using reusable bags. West Contra Costa County and its cities are spending a considerable amount to address litter in the storm drains. Contra Costa County spent $28,500 on catch basin cleaning in 2011. The City of El Cerrito annual street sweeping and disposal costs are $150,000. The City of San Pablo annual litter removal costs are $293,000 and include creek cleanups, street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, manual litter cleanup, and public education. According to litter monitoring studies, eight percent of the litter collected in San Pablo is plastic bags, meaning $23,440 of the annual cost can be allocated to plastic bag litter removal. The City also spent $30,000 for stormwater capture devices last fiscal year.11 10 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. 11 Chris Lehon, Executive Director, RecycleMore. Email Communication. July 2, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 16 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT RecycleMore is proposing to draft a model ordinance to be used by its Member Agencies for the purpose of regulating the distribution of single-use carryout bags at the point of sale in West Contra Costa County. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale check-out) for all retail establishments except restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. In addition to grocery stores, the ordinance as proposed would apply to all other businesses that put purchases into single-use carryout bags, either paper or plastic, at the point of sale except stores operated by nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. This includes department stores, clothing stores, liquor stores, book stores, specialty stores, drug stores, convenience stores, etc. This ordinance does not distinguish among types of plastic or types of plastic bags beyond their ability to be reused multiple times. Single-use plastic bags provided free to customers at the check-out stand for the purpose of holding the customer’s purchases are prohibited by the ordinance. Plastic carryout bags would be allowed by the ordinance if the bags are intended to be and are identified as reusable and meet the regulatory definition of reusable bags, as described in the ordinance. The ordinance defines a reusable bag as a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple re-use and meets all of the following requirements: has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; is machine washable or capable of being cleaned and disinfected; and does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts as defined by applicable State and Federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags. An exception to the ban on single-use bags would be made for paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content, as long as the retail establishment charges at least five cents for each bag, which is less than the average cost to a retail establishment of providing a paper carryout bag.12 The retail establishment would be required to charge for the exempt paper bags so that the cost of carryout bags is no longer hidden in the price of the merchandise, and the customer can choose whether to pay or not to pay for the bag, and therefore, whether to use one. A retail establishment can charge an amount different than five cents by providing documentation of the actual cost incurred by the retail establishment per paper carryout bag distributed. The retail establishment would be required to list the paper carryout bag on the receipt as a sale. The store will be required to charge for the bags in order to discourage people from taking single-use bags, encourage people to use reusable bags, and allow people to choose whether to pay the cost of the bag or not (instead of having it be a hidden cost). There have been anecdotal reports in San Francisco, where there is a ban on single-use plastic bags, of stores distributing thin plastic reusable bags for free at checkout in an attempt to circumvent the ban. In order to prevent the free distribution of thin plastic reusable bags to be used as de facto 12 Appendix A of the Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR contains paper bag cost estimates provided by representatives of other California jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, Marin County, and the City of San Jose. Based on the price ranges for paper bags provided by the three Bay Area jurisdictions, the average price of a paper bag in the Bay Area is 10.15 cents. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 17 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 single-use bags, the proposed ordinance would require a store charge of at least five cents on reusable bags. Exemptions would be made for sanctioned reusable bag giveaway events that are intended to promote the use of reusable bags. The ordinance would exclude plastic or paper bags that are used by customers or the retail establishment to protect or contain raw meat, fresh produce, food prepared at the establishment, or other goods that must be protected from moisture, damage, or contamination, and that are typically placed inside a carryout bag at the point of sale. Restaurants, take-out food establishments, or any other businesses that receive their revenue primarily from the sale of food cooked or otherwise prepared at the establishment would be exempt from the ordinance. 3.2.1 Objectives of the Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinance In proposing to adopt an ordinance regulating the free distribution of single-use bags, RecycleMore has the following objectives: Minimize the dedication of non-renewable resources to single-use carryout bags. Minimize the number of single-use bags sent to landfill. Facilitate the change in consumer behavior toward the use of reusable bags in West Contra Costa County. Eliminate the annual distribution of an estimated 114 million single-use carryout bags by 2014 through regulating their free distribution at retail establishments. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the amount of single-use carryout bag litter contaminating public and private property in West Contra Costa County, polluting streets, parks, sidewalks, storm and sewer systems, creeks, and streams. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the quantity of single-use carryout bag litter polluting streams and other water bodies in West Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area, and contaminating the world’s oceans. Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the presence of plastic bags in the recycling programs and facilities operated in West Contra Costa County, where they contaminate recovered material streams and clog processing equipment. These objectives are fundamental to the adopted goals and policies represented by state law and to the purposes for creating RecycleMore. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 18 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. For each checklist question, the project’s impacts are identified as one of the following: significant, less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation, less than significant, no impact, or beneficial. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines 15370). NOTES ABOUT METHODOLOGY Most CEQA documents are prepared for development projects, a situation in which a project proponent is proposing to build something that does not presently exist. If the project site is vacant, then the new project will create a land use and physical set of improvements that did not exist before. If the site is already developed, then the new project will replace one set of physical conditions with a new and different set. In both cases the physical impact – the increment of physical change – is clear and distinct when compared to the existing environment. Any proposed project that deals with human waste, as does the project addressed in this Initial Study, must be seen in an entirely different context. In this specific case, the proposed project is intended to reduce the use of single-use, hard-to-recycle, litter prone products that have a readily available reusable alternative by limiting the free distribution of single-use bags. The project will not eliminate solid waste, although the ordinance will reduce quantities of waste material buried in sanitary landfill. Compliance with the ordinance will, however, change some of the ways in which the population of West Contra Costa County acts. All CEQA analyses require some degree of forecasting, and that is true of this Initial Study. The project is the adoption and implementation of an ordinance and this Initial Study is trying to forecast how people will comply with the ordinance, and what changes those efforts to comply might make to the physical environment. CEQA does not require that an Initial Study engage in idle speculation, but that a good faith effort be made to identify the likely results of the project being approved. Maximum Impact Scenario This Initial Study analyzes the maximum impact scenario that could occur with the adoption of a single-use bag reduction ordinance. The maximum impact scenario is a set of assumptions about the scope and design of the ordinance that would likely result in the greatest environmental impacts, including full implementation by all jurisdictions and compliance by all of the affected populations.13 13 The maximum impact scenario is not the same thing as a “worst case”, which implies extreme conditions that may include illegal behavior and other unintended consequences. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 19 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 While the discussion in the Initial Study assumes that the Member Agencies of RecycleMore would adopt the ordinance as it is described, the most basic purpose for preparing an Initial Study is to provide useful information to the decision makers, who may subsequently choose to modify the project based on the Initial Study or other information. An individual Member Agency might, for example, decline to adopt the ordinance exactly as it is described in this Initial Study, or the various Member Agencies might each adopt different ordinances. CEQA allows a lead or responsible agency to approve a smaller project than that described in the Initial Study, or to approve a part of the project described in the Initial Study. In addition, the project may be changed in order to incorporate new elements that will further reduce or avoid adverse impacts, and it can still be covered by the same Initial Study. Throughout this Initial Study, impacts will be discussed in the context of the entire West Contra Costa County. In most instances, the maximum impact scenario will entail the adoption of the model ordinance by each Member Agency of RecycleMore. Any ordinance or set of ordinances that is implemented by anything less than the entire West County would likely result in reduced impacts (as well as reduced benefits), and those impacts would therefore be within the impact parameters of the analysis completed in this Initial Study. If a potentially significant impact is identified at the West- Countywide level, the discussion will also disclose whether the impact will also be significant at the local jurisdictional level would the impact from a single city also be significant). CEQA requires that an environmental impact analysis identify the impact of a proposed project upon the existing physical conditions on the ground. “Existing” is usually defined as conditions which existed at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated, or when the environmental analysis begins. The environmental analysis for this project was undertaken in February of 2012. That date therefore defines the baseline for this environmental analysis. Single-Use Bag Impact Calculations There is a great deal of information available about plastic bags, paper bags, and reusable bags. Most of the information is generated by people with an economic interest in one or another of the products being discussed. There is also a quantity of technical analysis that has been done in the form of life cycle analyses (LCAs) on various elements of the single-use carryout bag universe. As summarized in a review of all of the LCAs available on this topic (see Appendix C of this Initial Study), relying on LCAs for precise estimates of potential impacts that could result from this or any other proposed ordinance in California is problematic for several reasons. The LCA process is complex and involves many variables that virtually always differ from report to report. Each LCA preparer assumes different parameters and system boundaries in its calculations, and utilizes a unique set of data to reach its conclusions. Some of the consultants that prepare LCAs use tools which they characterize as “proprietary” that are secret or not fully explained. Often, LCAs are completed in different regions of the world that have unique environmental or behavioral factors that do not apply elsewhere. For these reasons, the conclusions in the LCAs consulted for this Initial Study do not accurately reflect conditions in West Contra Costa County and cannot be relied on for the purpose of calculating environmental impacts that may occur in the West County. It is possible, however, to use data contained in LCAs to derive a rough estimate of the range of some impacts that may occur as a result of certain aspects of the proposed ordinance. Data contained in ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 20 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 some of the LCAs were used to estimate some of the resource impacts (air quality, water, energy) because there are no detailed reports that were found prepared by neutral experts on these subjects, and some of the reports were specific enough in describing certain effects that they can be translated into an appropriate level of detail. There are reasons, however, that the analysis in any LCA should not assumed to accurately reflect the situation in West Contra Costa County. These reasons are described in more detail in Appendix C. The most limiting aspect of the LCAs available, at least in the U.S., is that they were all prepared by or for groups with strong vested economic interests in their outcomes and conclusions. This should be kept in mind in evaluating any and all analysis based on their contents. To arrive at the estimates of potential impacts, two basic pieces of information are needed: the current number of single-use paper and plastic bags used in West Contra Costa County and the number of single-use paper and plastic bags that will be used in the West County after the ordinance takes effect. Of necessity, both of those numbers must be estimates. Behavior Change Assumptions Although programs to eliminate or reduce single-use disposable bags have been implemented all over the world, there are variations in the programs. Some of the variations are identified in this Initial Study, where comparisons are made. The most well known example is the country of Ireland, which imposed a fee on single-use plastic carryout bags in 2002. As a result of the fee, which was equivalent to $0.15 U.S., the use of single-use plastic bags was reduced by over 90 percent almost immediately. Additionally, surveys completed in 2003 indicated that approximately 90 percent of consumers were using reusable bags, so it does not appear that there was a dramatic shift to paper bag use, even though they continued to be distributed free of charge. Individual stores in Australia and Canada that charge for single-use plastic bags have experienced reductions in their use of 83 and 97 percent, respectively. Taiwan instituted a flexible charging regime where retailers apply a charge but the level is determined and retained by them. The average charge is the equivalent of $0.03 –$0.10 U.S., and has resulted in a 68 percent reduction in plastic shopping bag numbers, and a 57 percent reduction in all shopping bags. In 1993, the Danish government announced the introduction of a range of ‘green taxes,’ including a tax on bags at a rate equivalent to $0.12 per paper bag and $0.03 per plastic bag. The aim was to promote the use of reusable bags. The bag fees are charged to retailers at the distribution level instead of customers at checkout, meaning customers never directly see the fee. Despite this, Denmark still achieved a 68 percent reduction in single-use bags. A fee on single-use carryout bags enacted in the District of Columbia, a $0.05 charge for all single- use bags, resulted in an immediate substantial reduction in their use during the first month. District staff estimates that the reduction was in the 50-80 percent range for both paper and plastic single-use carryout bags.14 14 Barry Weise, J.D., Legislative & Regulatory Analyst, District Department of the Environment ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 21 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The programmatic variations in combination with differences in physical conditions and cultures make it difficult to project the exact results of a program being implemented in West Contra Costa County. It is agreed that banning a type of bag will significantly reduce or eliminate the use of that type of bag, but what will the public do instead? Behavior is influenced by a number of circumstances, including cost and convenience, but also by perceptions, values, and beliefs. The convenience of having paper bags available at the point of sale, even if they must be paid for, might influence some consumers toward using paper bags. It is also true that the citizens of California and West Contra Costa County have strongly supported environmental programs, like recycling, that require a change in behavior. With sufficient information about the superiority of reusable bags and the adverse impacts of single-use bags, combined with a store charge for an item that has previously been free, residents of the West County may change behaviors very quickly. There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved there. Representatives of the plastic bag industry have alleged that there will be a substantial increase in single-use paper bag use right after any ban on single-use plastic bags becomes effective. But there is no documented study illustrating such an increase occurring anywhere, and the amount of any such increase (should it actually occur) is not known. A survey of residents of the City of San Jose done in spring/summer 2010 did indeed verify that a charge on single-use paper bags would increase customers’ use of reusable bags. Of those responding to the survey, 81 percent indicated they would bring reusable bags for shopping if plastic bags were banned and recycled content paper bags cost $0.10. Since there is no reason to think that the citizens of San Jose differ substantially in their beliefs and behavior from the citizens of West Contra Costa County, this supports RecycleMore’s assumptions that the citizens of West Contra Costa County will also reduce their use of plastic and paper single-use bags. Based on the results of other bag reduction programs in the United States and throughout the world, the percentage of retail customers bringing reusable bags shortly after the ordinance takes effect in West Contra Costa County will likely range between 50 and 80 percent, similar to what was seen in Washington D.C when a $0.05 store charge was implemented. To be conservative, however, this Initial Study will use the estimate of a 50 percent reduction in single-use bags for the determination of environmental impacts from the proposed ordinance. Impacts in a scenario with an 80 percent reduction in single-use bags will be presented for informational purposes. It is estimated that currently there are nearly 127.8 million single-use plastic bags and 16.8 million single-use paper bags freely distributed in West Contra Costa County every year (the bases of those estimates are described in §3.1 of this Initial Study). Using the behavior change assumptions described above, it is estimated that with a ban on plastic bags and a $0.05 charge for paper bags, 50 percent of people will use reusable bags or no bag, and 50 percent of people will use paper bags that they pay for. Using these percentages, it is possible to estimate numbers of bags that will be used in the West County. Assuming five percent of single-use plastic carryout bags are distributed in exempt businesses, it can be assumed that nearly 121.4 million single-use plastic carryout bags will no longer be freely distributed in the West County every year as a result of the ban. However, it is also possible that, depending on the paper bag capacity assumptions that are used (see discussion below), between 21.9 million and 32.1 million additional paper bags could be used in the West County every year as a result of the ordinance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 22 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Bag Capacity Assumptions The size ratio of single-use paper bags compared to single-use plastic bags is important to consider when estimating the effect of consumers switching from plastic bags to paper bags because it will influence how many of what kinds of bags shoppers will choose. There are different bag sizes for both types of single-use carryout bag. The most commonly used of each type are shown in Photos 16-19 and are summarized in Table 4.0-1 as Small Plastic, Large Plastic, Small Kraft Paper and Large Kraft Paper. All of these bags are currently given away in West Contra Costa County. For example: the small paper and small plastic bags are presently distributed by Safeway and Lucky in West Contra Costa County; the large paper bag is distributed at Trader Joe’s; the large plastic bag is distributed at Target. The size ratio of all four sizes of bags is summarized in Table 4.0-1, based on a simple comparison done using tennis balls as demonstrated in Photos 16-24 on the following pages. It becomes very difficult to accurately estimate how many of which size plastic bags might be replaced by how many of which size paper bags – if any. Since at least some of the larger grocery store chains use the smaller plastic bags, it is likely that many of the roughly 127.8 million single-use plastic bags used in West Contra Costa County currently are the smaller bags. Many of the grocery stores that use the larger paper bags do not currently offer single- use plastic carryout bags as an option, so validating the ratio of conversion is further complicated. It is not possible to know precisely how many of which size paper bags might be purchased in the future. It is likely that single-use carryout paper bags will replace single-use plastic bags at a ratio of somewhere between 1.5:1 and 2:1, compared to the number of single-use plastic carryout bags presently used by the same customers. It is reasonable to assume that when customers are paying for single-use bags, they are likely to insist on getting the bigger bags, and that will also influence their willingness to pay for the smaller bags, making the larger ratio (2:1) more relevant. To be conservative, however, this Initial Study will assume a 1.5:1 replacement ratio for impact determinations. These assumptions and methods were used to calculate estimates of impacts in some of the sections that follow, as described in those sections. Table 4.0-1: Capacities of Common Bags Bag Tennis Balls Capacity1 Small Plastic: HDPE Plastic (Safeway) 57 1 Large Plastic: LDPE Plastic (Target) 70 1.2 Small Paper: Kraft Paper 14x12x7 (Safeway) 86 1.5 Large Paper: Kraft Paper 17x12x7 (Whole Foods) 114 2 1 Capacities are relative to that of the Small Plastic bag, which is considered to have a baseline capacity of one ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 28 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Mitigation Measures and Numbering System This Initial Study identifies significant and potentially significant impacts in this next section; it also identifies measures incorporated into the proposed ordinances for the purpose of avoiding or reducing those impacts and briefly evaluates the effectiveness/feasibility of these measures. For those circumstances in which existing and proposed laws, regulations and policies are not sufficient to reduce an impact to less than significant, there may be other impact-reducing means or methods that can be evaluated and perhaps implemented or required when elements of the project are implemented. For the purposes of this Initial Study, however, the impact will designated as significant and unavoidable, if identified. Each impact identified in this section of the Initial Study is numbered using an alpha-numerical system that also identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact BIO-1 denotes the first impact in the biological resources subsection. Mitigation measures and conclusions are also numbered to correspond to the impacts they address. For example, MM TRANS-2.1 refers to the first mitigation measure for the second impact in the transportation subsection. The letter codes used to identify environmental issues are listed as shown below. Table 4.0-2: Letter Codes for Environmental Issues Letter Code Environmental Issue Letter Code Environmental Issue AQ Air Quality HYD Hydrology and Water Quality BIO Biological Resources LU Land Use C Cumulative Impacts NV Noise and Vibration ENER Energy PS Public Facilities and Services GEO Geology and Soils TRANS Transportation GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions UTIL Utilities and Service Systems HM Hazards and Hazardous Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 29 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Existing Setting Littering is illegal in California. It is defined and prohibited by the California Penal Code Section 374. While littering is illegal, litter is a substantial presence in the urban environment, including West Contra Costa County. It is difficult to document and categorize litter because it is the result of human behavior, frequently impulsive behavior, and is operated on by various environmental factors (especially wind, sunshine, and rain). It is also very difficult to compare study results in a mathematical format, because there is no standardized methodology for preparing litter studies. Various litter studies done all over the world use different categories for the litter itself, document what is found in various ways, and each organizes the information differently. This is further complicated by different systems used to identify the materials littered. It is not uncommon to have substantial categories labeled “Miscellaneous Paper” and “Miscellaneous Plastic”. In addition, paper and plastic behave differently in the natural environment. Paper breaks down in water, loses cohesion, and (in effect) becomes invisible. It biodegrades and leaves behind the organic paper fibers, and residues of whatever was on the paper (ink, glue, etc.). Plastic may photodegrade (break down in sunlight), which means it breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces.15 Litter surveys can only document what is found. Many of the surveys reviewed for this study refer to the presence of small pieces of plastic and plastic film whose origin cannot be determined. Litter also moves around. In no urban community is litter found in a regular distribution, occurring equally in all neighborhoods or uniformly applied at all locations. Nor does it stay where it is dropped. Lightweight litter such as small pieces of paper and plastic bags are easily caught in light winds and may accumulate in sheltered areas. Likewise in a marine environment or in urban waterways, floating litter is carried with the water and may travel for miles or become entangled in streamside vegetation or urban infrastructure. No single plastic bag known to have been given away in West Contra Costa County has been identified in the mass of floating plastic found near the Pacific Gyre, the enormous ocean-borne concentration of floating garbage north of the Hawaiian Islands. On the website called “Marine Debris Program” maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration is a simplified strategic diagram of the ocean currents that support and maintain the Pacific Gyre.16 It is apparent that the major oceanic currents travel from the California coast as part of the overall circulation system that contributes to the Gyre. There are also references in the literature to plastic bags seen underwater at other oceanic locations. West Contra Costa County’s plastic bags may or may not have contributed to the Pacific Gyre and/or to other accumulations of trash elsewhere in the Pacific. Plastic and paper bags are found on the streets, sidewalks, and in parks in West Contra Costa County, and in the storm sewers and catch basins that drain to various creeks and waterways which ultimately all drain into the Bay. It is therefore necessary to conclude that plastic bag litter from West Contra Costa County contributes to the plastic litter polluting the creeks, Bay, and Pacific Ocean. 15 Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Pelagic Plastic. April 9, 2007. 16 http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html. Accessed on July 2, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 30 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes a recent year in which substantial floating debris from stormwater systems was washed from Bay Area communities into the Cordell Bank Marine Sanctuary. Since, as discussed previously, plastic bags are known to constitute a substantial percentage of the litter which accumulates in storm drains, this means that some number of plastic bags from West Contra Costa County communities would have ended up in a national marine sanctuary that provides habitat for a number of endangered species. Litter Surveys Perhaps the most comprehensive survey of litter and floating water pollution done for a significant urban area in the United States was prepared by the Anacostia Watershed Society for the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. It was published in December 2008. The Anacostia watershed is approximately 117,353 acres and is located in Prince George’s County and Montgomery County (both in Maryland) and in the District of Columbia. The primary land uses within the watershed are residential and forest, although much of the land in the District also includes industrial development. The watershed is 30 percent park and forest lands, including Anacostia Park and Greenbelt Park and the National Arboretum. The Anacostia survey is particularly useful because it included walking transects at quarterly intervals of all of the waterways, and windshield surveys of the streets that drain to those waterways; all of the surveys were repeated for each season of the year. The primary elements of the trash found in the Anacostia River itself were plastic bags (20+ percent), plastic food wrap from items such as candy bars, chips, etc. (25+ percent), and (10+ percent). In the tributary streams, plastic bags were the overwhelmingly dominant element (45+ percent), with food wrap as the runner up (25 percent). In an interesting contrast, the litter found on land upstream from these waterways also included substantial quantities of food wrap, but the largest category was paper, including things such as napkins and paper bags. Drink containers, glass, metal and plastic were also found on the streets and in the waterways. In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash types were evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were prevalent on land.17 17 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 31 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The City of Los Angeles did a waste characterization study in 2004 and found that plastic bags made up 25 percent by weight and 19 percent by volume of litter found in 30 storm drain catch basins.18 It should be noted in this context that storm drains flow into creeks and rivers in California, and from there to the Pacific Ocean in many cases (including Los Angeles and West Contra Costa County).19 Each year, Caltrans sweeps 184,000 highway lane miles to remove debris and litter. In 2005, Caltrans and the various Adopt-a-Highway groups picked up a total of 11.6 million pounds of trash. A breakdown was not done for that material, but a litter management pilot study done by Caltrans from 1998 through 2000 on a freeway in the Los Angeles area found that plastic film (including plastic carryout bags) made up 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the litter collected.20 Recent litter surveys done on land in nearby San Jose found substantial quantities of plastic, including an identifiable number of retail plastic bags (4.88 percent of the “large litter” category) and non-retail plastic bags (2.84 percent of the “large litter” category).21 Both miscellaneous paper (22.55 percent) and miscellaneous plastic (14.17 percent) were substantial categories. There may have been unidentifiable fragments of both plastic and paper shopping bags included in the miscellaneous categories. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.22 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. In a pilot assessment of trash accumulation in waterways in Santa Clara County completed in early 2009, the SCVURPPP found that many of the pieces of trash found in the 19 stretches of San Jose waterways studied were plastic (46 percent of the total), with plastic bags comprising a substantial amount of the overall collected items (10 percent of the total). A focused collection was completed for a storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Stevens Creek is also one of the trash impaired waterways on the Regional Board’s 303(d) list. Plastic made up an overwhelming majority of the trash collected at this outfall (82 percent of the total), with plastic bags comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall collected items. 18 Characterization of Urban Litter, prepared by the staff of the Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. June 18, 2004. 19 Drainage from Santa Clara County enters San Francisco Bay. The water from San Francisco Bay flows into the ocean through the Golden Gate. 20 California Department of Transportation, District 7 Litter Management Pilot Study. June 26, 2000. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-00-013.pdf. 21 City of San Jose. Litter Assessment. August 2009. 22 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 32 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 There are variations in the percentages of plastic and plastic bags found in litter at different times and places. The Anacostia Watershed monitoring report states that the quantity of plastic bags in streams doubled over the year of monitoring, which started in summer and ended in spring. The study does not identify a cause for this substantial increase. The conclusion reached by reviewing these various documents is that plastic is a substantial element in litter found in most urban areas, including urban waterways, and plastic bags are commonly found in significant numbers in plastic litter. It is likely that single-use paper carryout bags were also an element in the paper litter, but there are far fewer single-use paper carryout bags given away in West Contra Costa County than single-use plastic bags (16.8 million versus 127.8 million annually), and most of the grocery carryout paper bags are bigger and heavier than the plastic carryout bags. The Anacostia surveys found paper including paper bags was the largest category of litter on land, but not in the waterways. The International Coastal Cleanup described in §3.1.2 of this Initial Study, found that plastic bags far outnumber paper bags in litter picked up during the national coastal clean-up day, including the litter picked up in Contra Costa County. 4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 4.1.2.1 Visual and Aesthetic Impacts Single-use carryout bags, especially plastic bags, contribute to a persistent litter problem in West Contra Costa County. Due to the expansive and lightweight nature of plastic bags, they are easily airborne by wind, often ending up entangled in brush and caught on fences. Because they are usually white (and therefore visible) and are difficult to collect, plastic bags constitute a greater aesthetic nuisance than some other types of litter. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 33 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 A reduction in the 127.8 million single-use carryout plastic bags handed out to shoppers in West Contra Costa County each year, either completely or by a substantial percentage, would directly result in a reduction in the quantity of litter on the ground and in the streams, Bay and ocean. It is estimated that there may be an increase in the number of paper bags distributed, but the total number of single-use bags would be substantially less as more people switch to reusable bags. Washington D.C. recently enacted a fee on all single-use bags, resulting in a reduction of between 50 and 80 percent. It is RecycleMore’s intention that the proposed program significantly reduce the number of all single-use carryout bags used in West Contra Costa County. The number of plastic bags will go down immediately. If it is assumed that the number of single-use bags that become litter remains a constant percentage of the number used, the number of bags discarded outdoors will decline immediately and will continue to drop. The proposed ordinance would immediately reduce the total number of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County, and would thereby reduce the proliferation of plastic litter in the West County as well as from waterways in the County. Any substantial reduction in plastic litter would have a beneficial aesthetic impact. The ordinance may lead to a short term increase in single-use paper bag usage as consumers would be unable to use single-use plastic bags but might be willing to pay a price to use paper bags. A temporary increase in demand for paper bags could result in a higher percentage of the litter stream being comprised of paper bags for that period of time. Paper bags, however, are not as easily dispersed by wind and biodegrade under natural conditions at a faster rate than plastic bags. Single-use paper carryout bags are also typically brown and are not as noticeable as white plastic bags. As the use of reusable bags increases, the number of single-use paper carryout bags purchased will decline, as will their presence in litter. The relatively minor aesthetic impacts of a short term increase in paper bags entering the litter stream as a result of the project would be offset by the substantial reduction in the much more visible and long-lived plastic bag litter. The result will be a net improvement. 4.1.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would result in a net reduction in the amount of single-use bags that end up as visible litter on land and in waterways in West Contra Costa County, and would result in a beneficial aesthetics impact. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 34 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 4.2.1 Existing Setting As described in the Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, Measure C-1990 established a 65/35 Land Preservation Standard which limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and preserves at least 65 percent of land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990, as well as the General Plan, provide that the County shall, to the maximum extent feasible, enter into preservation agreements with cities in the County designed to preserve land for agriculture, open space, wetlands and parks. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 1 4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? 1 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 35 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.2.2.1 Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts Litter is a contaminant that is found on agricultural land as well as in urban areas. Plastic that breaks into smaller pieces and remains in the soil reduces its fertility and permeability. Reducing the quantity of plastic litter generated in the urban areas of West Contra Costa County, especially wind blown plastic litter, will also reduce the quantity of plastic litter that contaminates the remaining farmland in and adjacent to the urban areas. Reducing the total number of single-use carryout bags, thus reducing the quantity of the litter that is made up of single-use carryout bags, will be a beneficial impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact any designated, planned or important farmlands. The project would likely reduce the quantity of litter on nearby agricultural lands, and would not impede or adversely impact any active agriculture. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources. Forestry Resources Impacts Resulting from the Project The proposed ordinance might lead to a short term increase in the use of single-use paper bags with a minimum of 40 percent recycled content, as consumers would be unable to get the single-use plastic bags but some people might be willing to pay a price at the checkout stand to buy recycled content paper bags. A short term increase in demand for single-use recycled content paper bags could result in increased timber harvesting and paper manufacturing. However, the project is proposing to limit single-use carryout paper bags to 40 percent recycled content, which would reduce the loss of trees as a result of any increase in demand for single-use paper bags in West Contra Costa County. Additionally, as described earlier in this Initial Study, the degree to which paper bag use may increase is very uncertain and will definitely be temporary. The citizens of nearby San Jose were surveyed and 81 percent indicated they would bring reusable bags rather than pay $0.10 for a paper bag. The estimate of an additional 32.1 million single-use paper carryout bags being utilized in West Contra Costa County was developed as a conservative projection based on dissimilar programs in various areas and represents a scenario where only 50 percent of people switch to reusable bags. Paper industry representatives state that a substantial percentage of the trees used in paper making are grown for that purpose.23 However, even the loss of commercially grown trees adversely impacts the environment, including exposing land to erosion and causing habitat loss. However, most of the trees are grown for paper and will be removed soon thereafter even if not used for single-use paper bags sold in West Contra Costa County. Additionally, commercial tree plantations are replanted after trees are cut down. Whatever might be the comparative impacts on the environment of using, discarding, or manufacturing plastic or paper bags, RecycleMore is not proposing to encourage the widespread use of single-use paper bags. The proposed ordinance is intended to facilitate and encourage the widespread use of reusable bags – bags that can be used multiple times, not once or twice and then discarded. 23 Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates provided information from the Paper Bag Council; December 1, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 36 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved there. Even if it is true, the San Francisco ordinance did not include any fee on single-use paper bags and is not directly comparable. Representatives of the plastic bag industry have alleged that there will be a substantial increase in single-use paper bag use right after any ban on single-use plastic bags becomes effective. There is no quantified study illustrating such an increase in the use of an item with a new charge placed on it, and the amount of any such increase (should it actually occur) is not known. No study or proof suggests that such an increase, should it actually occur, would be permanent where a price is charged for the single-use carryout paper bag alternative. All of the relevant information on real-world bag programs in which bags must be paid for indicates that there will be an immediate decrease in the number of single-use paper bags distributed by retail businesses in West Contra Costa County. Charging for items that were previously free (or assumed to be free) usually causes a decrease in use. If there is an increase in single-use paper carryout bag use, however, as estimated in the conservative use assumptions in §4.0, there would also likely be a short term increase in the amount of virgin wood needed to supply bags in West Contra Costa County. A short term increase in paper bag use may result in a short term increase in trees cut down for virgin material to manufacture the paper bags. Since the trees are grown for paper manufacturing, a near term increase in paper bag demand in West Contra Costa County might cause trees to be harvested sooner than they would otherwise have been used trees would not be cut down for paper that would not otherwise have been cut down for paper). The tree plantations are replanted and new trees grown to replace them. As a result, it is unlikely that the proposed ordinance would result in 1) a permanent loss of forest, 2) a loss of forest land, or 3) conversion of forest land to non-forest use. 4.2.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not adversely impact agricultural resources, nor would it result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 37 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Existing Setting Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determination of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sun light. West Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Three pollutants are known at times to exceed the state and federal standards in the Bay Area Air Basin: ozone, particulates (PM10), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PM10 are considered regional pollutants because their concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source congested intersections). The primary source of ozone precursors in the Bay Area is motor vehicle emissions. There are a number of sources of particulate matter in the Bay Area, including combustion (such as fireplaces), industrial processes, grading and construction, and motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are by far the greatest source of carbon monoxide in the Bay Area. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are also a source of growing concern throughout California. A significant source of TACs is diesel exhaust from diesel engine vehicles, which includes a substantial number of toxic particulate components. 4.3.1.1 Existing Setting Related to Single-Use Bag Reduction As discussed elsewhere in this Initial Study, the analysis is based on the assumption that nearly 127.8 million single-use plastic carryout bags are given away every year in West Contra Costa County. This averages to roughly 350,000 plastic bags per day distributed in the West County by existing businesses. Again, as explained elsewhere in this Initial Study, the analysis is assuming roughly 16.8 million single-use paper carryout bags are given away every year in West Contra Costa County. That number averages to roughly 46,000 bags per day given to customers. This scenario constitutes the Existing Setting against which changes caused by the proposed single- use bag reduction ordinance project are to be measured in order to identify project impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 38 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,2 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2,3 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1,2,3 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,2 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 4.3.2.1 Air Quality Discussion Air quality impacts related to single-use carryout bags include the release of emissions during the manufacturing, transport, and disposal processes. Various life cycle assessments (LCAs) of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and many of them were consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study (refer to § 5.0 References and Appendix The LCAs analyzed the various levels of emissions from different types of bags as they might impact air quality issues such as acid rain oxides of nitrogen and sulfur), ground level ozone formation O3), and global climate change carbon dioxide equivalent). Most LCAs try to account for air emissions during all stages of product life, from product creation to disposal. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, and frequently use assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. According to LCAs prepared by consultants to the plastic bag industry, single-use paper bags generally have higher levels of associated air quality emissions when compared to single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. This is attributed to several factors, including the manufacturing process, the effect of paper bag weight and bulk on the transportation process, and the release of greenhouse gas emissions as paper bags biodegrade. The findings from other LCAs seem to differ based on the ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 39 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 study, and no comprehensive comparison of the studies has been made by a neutral third party. In addition no LCA was found that looked at the emissions associated with manufacture of 40 percent or 100 percent recycled content paper bags. The air emissions summary in one LCA (Boustead), for example, does not identify the specific benefits or impacts of recycled content (which include less need for use of chemicals, energy, and water) although they are said to have been “taken into account.” Additionally, heavier and larger single-use plastic bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which are often used by clothing and boutique stores, were found by some studies to have a greater impact on global climate change than both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which are most typically used by grocery stores and large format retail stores. There is a quantity of emissions generated from the delivery of all types of bags to the stores where they are given away, and further emissions associated with picking up those that end up as litter, and with removing those that are discarded as solid waste. Since the preparers of this study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution to users of plastic (or paper) single-use bags, the exact increment of energy use or pollution associated with their delivery to the location where they are given to the public is unknown. For the purposes of this Initial Study, it is assumed that single-use plastic bags distributed to the customers of businesses in West Contra Costa County will be reduced by approximately 95 percent or more – from an average of roughly 350,000 bags per day to an average of roughly 17,500 bags per day. It is not known with any certainty what will happen to the number of paper bags used in the County. As discussed in §4.0 of this Initial Study, there is a possibility that use of single-use paper carrier bags may increase. Air Quality Impacts Resulting from the Project It has been alleged that the proposed ordinance could lead to an increase in single-use paper bag use if consumers are not given free single-use plastic bags at the point of sale, because they would be willing to pay a price to use paper bags. An increase in single-use paper bag use could then lead to incremental increases in air emissions associated with their manufacture and delivery. Of course, a substantial decrease in the emissions associated with plastic bag manufacture and delivery would be occurring simultaneously. Based on available information, it cannot be definitively determined what the net increases or decreases in air emissions from these activities might be. Since paper bags will be required to have at least 40 percent recycled content under the proposed ordinance, any increase in emissions resulting from a change from a plastic to a paper bag may not be substantial because manufacture of paper bags using recycled content results in less pollutant emissions than manufacture using virgin material. In addition, paper bags used in grocery stores are bigger than the HDPE plastic bags and would require fewer bags for more merchandise. In the Boustead LCA, it cannot be determined whether the LCA (which identifies substantial chlorine impacts in both processes) assumed that the paper must be bleached. Brown kraft paper, as stated previously, is not bleached. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 40 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The elimination of 95 percent of the single-use plastic bags used every day in West Contra Costa County would result in a decrease in the shipping capacity used to transport those bags to their regional distribution centers and eventually to stores in the West County. Since the bags are all transported to users in mixed loads, there may be no reduction in trips. Capacity in the trucks can and may be used to transport reusable bags offered for sale in the same stores, or other commodities handled by the distributor. The project will result in a decrease of roughly 332,500 single-use plastic bags per day being given away in West Contra Costa County, and there might be an initial increase of demand for single-use paper bags. The paper bags will be at least 40 percent post consumer recycled content, reducing any increment of air quality impact that would otherwise result from the need to use additional virgin material to make some of the paper for the paper bags. Due to the possibility of a short term increase in the use of single-use paper carryout bags 32.1 million bags, the project could result in an annual increase in the emissions of NOx and SOx of 3.25 tons and 13.7 tons, respectively, using the assumptions from the Boustead LCA. The project would result in an annual reduction in the emissions of CO compared to existing conditions due to the reduction in the use of plastic carryout bags. The potential increased emissions would be dispersed amongst the various locations where the bags are manufactured (which are mostly outside of the Bay Area), as well as the routes along which the bags are transported, and would not result in a significant increase in any single location. 24 Additionally, if an 80 percent reduction in single use bags is achieved, as has been estimated for a similar bag reduction program in Washington D.C. with a $0.05 store charge for bags, the project would result in net reductions of all three pollutants listed above. The total annual increase of any of these pollutants that might occur if there is an increase in paper bags used in West Contra Costa County would occur where the wood is harvested, where the paper is manufactured, where the material is recycled, and along various transportation routes. The annual quantities anticipated are minimal when averaged over 52 weeks and spread over multiple locations. These minimal emissions at various locations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. 4.3.3 Conclusion The proposed Ordinance will not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 24 Although the LCA contains data on other air quality emissions, SOx, NOx, and CO were chosen because they are commonly used in California when evaluating air quality impacts and because the output units of other emissions reported in the LCA were not identical PM10 for plastic bags and simply “Dust” for paper bags), meaning they could not be compared directly. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 41 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Existing Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (described below). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U. the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states develop a list of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, establish priority rankings for waters on the list, and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), to improve water quality. The list of impaired water bodies is revised periodically (typically every two years). In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.25 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. In support of this conclusion, the staff report accompanying the recommendation stated that “plastic from trash persists for hundreds of years in the environment and can pose a threat to wildlife through ingestion, entrapment and entanglement, and this plastic can leach harmful chemicals to the aquatic environment.” This listing requires locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. It is currently understood that the programs for controlling litter will have to be funded by the jurisdictions in which the litter originates. 4.4.1.1 Existing Biological Setting Local streams in West Contra Costa County support ecologically valuable riparian vegetation that provides food, cover and nesting sites for birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. These waterways also serve as important migration corridors for wildlife. The San Francisco Bay and adjoining marsh habitats provide important biotic resources to the region. The salt marshes, sloughs, and creeks near the Bay provide food and shelter for fish and wildlife, improve water quality by trapping sediment and removing nutrients, and provide for the storage and passage of flood waters. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 42 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 They also provide habitat for a number of special status species which are listed as endangered at the state and federal level. State and federally listed special status species in and around the creeks and marshes in West Contra Costa County include the California tiger salamander, Swainson’s hawk, tidewater goby, California black rail, central California coast steelhead, California clapper rail, California red-legged frog, and bank swallow. Litter in the creeks and waterways of West Contra Costa County has the potential to negatively impact these special status species. Plastic debris is common in marine habitats worldwide. Extensive scientific references document its presence in the deep sea and even at the poles. There are anecdotal references to its presence on the very highest mountains in the world.26 The government of Nepal is seeking to ban plastic bags in Sagamantha National Park near the base of Mt. Everest.27 Paper bags are also present in litter but paper does not survive as long or maintain its physical form in the natural environment. Heavy, large single-use kraft paper grocery sacks are not as easily windblown as single-use plastic bags. Lighter weight single-use paper bags are more easily windblown and also break down more quickly. Paper tears easily, especially when wet, and animals are not caught or entangled by paper. When paper degrades, it becomes wood fiber, an organic material. Dyes and inks on or in paper, like the dyes and inks on plastic film, can be either soy-based or petroleum-based and will contain chemicals that will enter the natural environment when the paper deteriorates. On the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, it is stated that direct impacts of plastic marine debris include ecosystem alteration. This results from harm done to plants and other immobile living organisms. An example given is the degree to which plants can be smothered by plastic bags with a photo illustrating a plastic bag caught on what appears to be coral.28 Another example is shown in a video created April 27, 2012 and posted online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1w4QPUKwyg. As many as 260 species of animals, including invertebrates, turtles, fish, and mammals, are known to ingest or become entangled in plastic debris. In addition to the physical risks of becoming entangled or eating plastic, chemical contamination of water, animals, and human beings has been traced to plastic waste. There is no similar documentation of the widespread occurrence of animals suffering from the presence of paper debris. Studies and expeditions have documented the mass of trash formed in the Pacific Gyre (also sometimes called the North Pacific Gyre). A gyre is an area within which little wind and extremely high pressure weather systems combine to greatly reduce ocean circulation. The subtropical gyres (they are found in all oceans near the equator) contain the doldrums mentioned in historic texts. The Pacific Gyre contains a growing mass of floating garbage, much of which is plastic. The conditions in the gyre have been well documented since at least 1997 by photographers, biologists, meteorologists, and various governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations. Photo 25 was taken by Corbett Kroehler and is currently on his website with a notation that it was posted to Oceans, Pollution, Wildlife on Aug 13th, 2008. 26 Powers, David, President, DJP&A. Personal communication, 1993. 27 http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/shouldering-waste-on-the-trek-down-mount-everest/ 28 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/marinedebris/md_impacts.cfm ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 44 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Gordon Moore, founder of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, sailed through the Pacific Gyre in 1997. Moore and his crew said that they identified plastic bags from “Sears, Bristol Farms, The Baby Store, El Pollo Loco, Fred Meyer, and Taco Bell ‘Chalupa’ bags”. The Taco Bell bags were the “T-shirt” bags with two hand-hold holes that were introduced in the United States in 1979. The garbage mass in the Pacific Gyre continues to grow and now reaches into the eastern Pacific and portions of the Hawaiian archipelago and the Papahnaumokukea Marine National Monument. Closer to home, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has extensive documentation on contamination by plastic debris in all of the National Marine Sanctuaries. Three of the sanctuaries are located adjacent to the coast of Northern California and are likely to receive runoff from the San Francisco Bay area – Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay. From the NOAA website for Cordell Bank (which is just north of San Francisco Bay, as shown on Figure Levels of debris in both the ocean and at the land-sea interface are of growing concern. Marine debris poses a growing threat to marine life and biological diversity. Various types of debris are known to have adverse effects on marine species. Ingestion and entanglement are two of the largest problems associated with marine debris, which may cause injury and death to selected marine wildlife, including some endangered and protected species found in the Cordell Bank sanctuary. Marine debris originates from both land and ocean-based sources, although the majority of marine debris (approximately 80%) appears to come from land-based sources (U.S. Dept. of Commerce and U.S. Navy 1999). Land-based sources include: littering, storm water runoff, coastal municipal landfills, loss during garbage transport, open trash collection containers, industrial facilities, and beach-goers. Ocean-based sources include: commercial and recreational fishing, overboard disposal of passenger and commercial shipboard waste, and cargo containers falling off ships in high seas. The potential impact of floating marine debris on living resources in Cordell Bank sanctuary was highlighted by high rainfall in 2006, which flooded inland areas in the San Francisco Bay watershed and resulted in large amounts of debris washing 50 miles (80 km) to the northwest to Cordell Bank (Cordell Bank sanctuary, unpubl. data).29 While pictures of seals and turtles entangled with plastic bags have been widely publicized, NOAA also points out that: Plastics in the marine environment never fully degrade and recent studies show plastic is consumed by organisms at all levels of the marine food web. Given the quantities of plastic debris floating in the ocean, the potential for ingestion is enormous. For example, survival of endangered sea turtles is threatened by ingestion of plastic; studies have found that as many as 75% of sampled loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) had plastic debris in their digestive tracks (Tomas et al. 2002). Plastic marine debris also impacts many seabird species. Surface feeding seabirds, including albatrosses, shearwaters, fulmars, and storm-petrels are most susceptible to plastic ingestion, with frequency of individuals with plastic in the stomach ranging from 50 to 80% (Nevins et al. 2005). For example, adult Black-footed Albatross often mistake floating 29 National Marine Sanctuaries. “Cordell Bank 2009 Condition Report – Pressures on the Sanctuary”. 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 46 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 plastic debris as food and ingest huge quantities of plastic bottle caps, plastic fragments, discarded cigarette lighters, and plastic toys…. When these adults return to their nests on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to feed their chicks, a high percentage of the meal is composed of plastic. Tagging studies have documented Black-footed Albatross crossing the eastern Pacific to feed in and around Cordell Bank sanctuary (Hyrenbach et al. 2006); it is unknown what proportion of plastic these birds ingest comes from within sanctuary waters.30 As stated in the earlier quote, plastic in the Cordell Bank sanctuary includes debris from the San Francisco Bay area communities. Endangered species that occupy habitat within the Cordell Bank sanctuary include Pacific leatherback sea turtles, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales, black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), and short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus).31 South of the Cordell Bank sanctuary is the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, which includes breeding grounds for harbor seals, elephant seals, harbor porpoises, Pacific white-sided dolphins, rockfish and the largest breeding concentration of seabirds in the contiguous United States. The endangered blue whales and 26 other listed species are found within the Farallones sanctuary. Plastic Litter in Water Bodies Studies done on the components of urban litter find that plastic is a substantial element. The Anacostia study cited previously in this Initial Study found plastic wrapping, plastic containers, and plastic bags present throughout their study area. Although plastic bags and food wrappers were present on the city streets and sidewalks that drained to the Anacostia watershed, they were not the primary constituents in the dry land environment. In the waterways, however, plastic bags and wrappers were a major component. This pattern is consistent with the earlier discussion which said that paper deteriorates more quickly in a natural environment than plastic; there is more paper litter on urban streets than there is in urban waterways because paper degrades quickly when wet. Plastic bags are not just a substantial component of litter in the Eastern United States. A characterization study of trash taken from stormwater catch basins by the City of Los Angeles in 2004 found that plastic bags and plastic film made up 25 percent by weight of the debris found, despite the relatively light weight of plastic film. A study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were 30 National Marine Sanctuaries. “Cordell Bank 2009 Condition Report – Pressures on the Sanctuary”. 2009. 31 NOAA. Cordell Bank National Martine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. June 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 47 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash types were evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were more prevalent on land areas compared to creek sites.32 A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.33 Most of the concerns and issues with plastic in the environment revolve around the fact that plastic does not break down quickly and the items that enter the natural environment (bags, cups, plastic pellets, etc.) retain some aspect of their form for some time. Much of the ocean plastic has broken into smaller and smaller pieces, but is still recognizably pieces of plastic. Recent research has found that some plastics do degrade in the ocean environment. Specifically, certain hard plastics leach toxic chemicals (including bisphenol A or BPA) into the water and breaks down into three styrene oligomers that are not found in nature. BPA disrupts the hormone systems of animals, and the styrene oligomers are believed to be human carcinogens. Plastics that retain their form are primarily dangers to animals that mistakenly eat them as food or become caught or entangled with them. The plastics that break down or degrade in the ocean environment contaminate the sea water.34 There is no information available that identifies a likelihood that plastic bags would degrade in the ocean. There is anecdotal evidence from scientific observers that plastic bags retain their form for extended periods in the ocean environment. The infiltration of litter into the natural biotic system poses a substantial threat to wildlife. In assessing the degree of impairment of the West Contra Costa County streams evaluated, Water Board 32 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf 33 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. 34 Bernstein, Michael. Plastics in Oceans decompose, release hazardous chemicals, surprising new study says. August 19, 2009; and Hard plastics decompose in oceans, releasing endocrine disruptor BPA. March 23, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 48 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 staff used the “threat to aquatic life” parameter. Staff stated that this was because the type of trash measured by this parameter is particularly problematic for wildlife (including aquatic life). The two primary problems that trash poses to wildlife are entanglement and ingestion. Mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and crustaceans all have been affected by entanglement in or ingestion of floatable debris, and many of the species most vulnerable to the problems of floatable debris are endangered or threatened. Entanglement is harmful to wildlife because it can cause wounds that can lead to infections or loss of limbs; it can also cause strangulation, suffocation, drowning, and limit escape from predators. Ingestion of trash can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the ingested items block the intestinal tract, preventing digestion, or if they accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel "full" and lessening its desire to feed. Ingested items can also block air passages and prevent breathing, thereby causing death. Parent birds that eat plastic or other trash will regurgitate the trash for their young, causing the chicks to starve to death.35 There is no debate about whether or not plastic bags litter the creeks of West Contra Costa County. The question of exactly how many plastic bags are present in any one creek at any particular time is one that cannot be answered with information available. Plastic bag litter is clearly visible from public streets and private property, creates a risk to wildlife and a threat to endangered species, and helps to clog the catch basins and storm sewers that carry runoff to creeks that drain to the San Francisco Bay. The presence of paper shopping bags in creek litter is less well defined. There is paper in the creeks, but it is usually sufficiently altered such that its source cannot be identified. Most paper dissolves in water. Its presence adds to the nutrient loading in the creeks, and it is an undesirable contaminant. Because paper is made from wood fiber, it is organic and its dissolution in natural waterways will add to nutrient loading. No documentation was identified on the degree to which eutrophication from post-consumer paper litter is a significant problem in creeks or the ocean. However, an abstract of a scholarly presentation prepared in 1995 describes the multiple human causes of eutrophication in the coastal marine environment at a point in time before global warming and climate change were being widely discussed. The abstract identifies three primary causes of marine eutrophication: fertilizer, livestock waste, and human wastes (meaning sewage) that are present in the runoff from land. The increasing organic loading is identified as primarily resulting from nitrogen and phosphorus. The most recent addition causing increased nitrification is identified in the abstract as atmospheric oxides of nitrogen (NOx) generated by the burning of fossil fuels. No mention is made of paper litter as a factor.36 35 An article in the Australian Daily Telegraph from October 23, 2009, shows a picture of a dead Laysan albatross chick with its belly opened to show that it was full of plastic trash. The same article said that one-third of the albatross chicks on Midway Atoll die from ingestion of plastic. 36 Nixon, Scott W. “Coastal Marine Eutrophication: A Definition, Social Causes, and Future Concerns”, an abstract. February 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 49 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,4,5 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 50 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.4.2.1 Biological Resources Impacts from the Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinance The proposed ordinance would reduce the proliferation of plastic litter in the biotic systems of the West County because extremely large numbers of free plastic bags would no longer be readily available. It is estimated that the ordinance would eliminate approximately 95 percent of the roughly 350,000 plastic bags per day entering the physical environment of West Contra Costa County – the average number of single-use plastic bags given away to shoppers in the communities of West Contra Costa County each day. The secondary effect of prohibiting the widespread free distribution of single-use plastic carry-out bags cannot be precisely estimated at this point; the best known study was for the program in Ireland, where a reduction of 94 percent occurred when a fee was levied on single-use carryout plastic bags at the point of sale. Individual stores in Australia and Canada that charge for single-use plastic bags have experienced reductions of 83 and 97 percent, respectively. In recent follow-up to a fee on single-use carryout bags enacted in the District of Columbia, a $0.05 charge for all single-use bags resulted in an immediate substantial reduction in their use during the first month. District staff estimates that the reduction is in the 50-80 percent range for both paper and plastic single-use carryout bags.37 As described in the Project Description, a reduction in plastic bags of 95 percent is anticipated to result from the proposed ordinance but there may be an increase in paper bag use. The beneficial biological impact of banning plastic bags is that 350,000 fewer plastic bags will be available each day to become land or marine litter. That means fewer plastic bags that can smother coral or other marine plants, be eaten by sea turtles, caught around the neck or flippers of seals, or become entangled in the riparian vegetation along creek banks. A substantial reduction in the number of single-use carryout plastic bags would produce a reduction in plastic litter entering waterways and flowing to San Francisco Bay and then into the ocean. A reduction of plastic litter entering natural water bodies would have a beneficial impact on wildlife dependent upon those ecological systems, as well as on the visual quality of the stream and Bay, and the visual quality of the streets, parks and both public and private properties currently subject to impacts from plastic bag litter. The reduction in manufacturing roughly 350,000 single-use plastic bags per day would reduce the energy use and the generation of pollution associated with the manufacturing and distribution of those bags, and the secondary impacts which the energy generation and materials manufacturing processes have on the natural environment (including wildlife and natural habitats) at locations other than West Contra Costa County. A reduction of plastic litter entering natural water bodies as a result of the proposed ordinance would have a beneficial impact on wildlife dependent upon those ecological systems. Secondary Biological Impacts Resulting from the Project The proposed ordinance might lead to a short term increase in the use of single-use paper bags with a minimum of 40 percent recycled content, as consumers would be unable to get the single-use plastic 37 Barry Weise, J.D., Legislative & Regulatory Analyst. District Department of the Environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 51 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 bags but some people might be willing to pay at the checkout stand to use recycled content paper bags. A short term increase in demand for single-use recycled content paper bags could result in negative effects to biological resources related to increased timber harvesting and paper manufacturing. Due to both logging activities and later erosion, timber harvesting can lead to land degradation and biological diversity impacts, and paper production has adverse environmental impacts to air and water bodies due to a number of pollutants released during the manufacturing process. However, the project is proposing to limit single-use carryout paper bags to 40 percent recycled content, which would reduce the loss of trees as a result of any increase in demand for single-use paper bags in West Contra Costa County. Additionally, as described earlier in this Initial Study, the degree to which paper bag use may increase is very uncertain and will most likely be temporary. The citizens of nearby San Jose were surveyed and 81 percent indicated they would bring reusable bags rather than pay $0.10 for a paper bag. The estimate of an additional 32.1 million single-use paper carryout bags being utilized in the West County is a very conservative estimate that was developed as an average based on dissimilar programs in various areas and represents a scenario where only 50 percent of people switch to reusable bags. The exact effects of paper bag manufacturing at unknown locations cannot be quantified by RecycleMore. As in many industries, improvements have been made in recent years in response to environmental concerns and regulations. The life cycle analyses financed by the plastic industry usually identify significant impacts from the loss of substantial quantities of trees, and from the air and water pollution produced by paper manufacturing. The paper industry representatives point out that a substantial percentage of the trees used in paper making are grown for that purpose, that paper is widely recycled (nationwide, approximately 37 percent estimated by EPA and 63.4 percent estimated by the Paper Industry Association Council), and that most of the water used in paper manufacturing at the present time is captured, cleaned and returned, and not allowed to pollute the environment.38 However, even the loss of commercially grown trees adversely impacts the environment, including exposing land to erosion and causing habitat loss. While the loss of any trees would reduce forested habitat, commercially grown trees are unlikely to provide habitat for special status or listed species. Most of the trees are grown for paper and will be removed soon thereafter even if not used for single- use paper bags sold in West Contra Costa County. Recycling itself uses energy, water and other resources. Exactly what the specific net impacts of producing 40 percent recycled content paper bags would be, compared to producing plastic bags, is unknown. A comparative study of the differences in pollution when paper is made with recycled content is, however, discussed in § 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. Whatever might be the comparative impacts on the environment of using, discarding, or manufacturing plastic or paper bags, RecycleMore is not proposing to encourage the widespread use of single-use paper bags. The proposed ordinance is intended to facilitate and encourage the widespread use of reusable bags – bags that can be used multiple times, not once or twice and then discarded. 38 Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates provided information from the Paper Bag Council; December 1, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 52 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 There have been anecdotal reports that paper bag use increased in San Francisco after a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags was approved there. Representatives of the plastic bag industry have alleged that there will be a substantial increase in single-use paper bag use right after the ban on single-use plastic bags becomes effective. There is no quantified study illustrating such an increase in the use of an item with a new price placed on it, and the amount of any such increase (should it actually occur) is not known. No study suggests that such an increase, should it actually occur, would be permanent where a price is charged for the single-use carryout paper bag alternative and there is no free alternative. All of the relevant information on real-world bag charge programs indicates that there will be an immediate decrease in the number of single-use paper bags distributed by retail businesses in West Contra Costa County. A price charged for items that were previously free usually cause a decrease in use. If there is an increase in single-use paper carryout bag use, however, as estimated in the conservative use assumptions in §4.0, there would also likely be a short term increase in the amount of virgin wood needed to supply bags in West Contra Costa County. Although “tree plantations” (commercially grown trees) do not generally create high quality habitat, they do provide some habitat for some species and their loss can contribute to erosion and global climate change. A short term increase in paper bag use may also result in a short term increase in trees cut down for virgin material to manufacture the paper bags. Since the trees are grown for paper manufacturing, a near term increase in paper bag demand in West Contra Costa County might cause trees to be harvested sooner than they would otherwise have been used trees would not be cut down for paper that would not otherwise have been cut down for paper). The tree plantations are replanted and new trees grown to replace them. While the short term loss of trees is a negative impact, this increase is a relatively minor temporary increase in wood used for commercial paper manufacturing, should the increased demand in the West County occur. The habitat loss and any associated erosion resulting from this incremental addition to tree removal would be short term, relatively minor, and would not be a significant impact. A reduction by approximately 95 percent in the number of single-use carryout plastic bags given away in West Contra Costa County will reduce by approximately the same percentage the number of plastic bags that enter the litter stream in the West County and its immediate environs.39 This will substantially reduce the incidence of injuries to wildlife from plastic bag litter, including injuries to marine and riparian wildlife in and adjacent to the West County. The reduction in plastic bag litter entering the natural environment will also reduce the opportunity for associated injuries to wildlife, including marine animals, in San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. A significant increase in the number of single-use recycled content paper bags, even a short term increase, could result in an associated increase in paper bag litter. While the increased organics loading represented by the increased paper that enters waterways would be an adverse impact, it would not create substantial risks of injury or harm to wildlife and due to the ephemeral nature of paper, the litter exists for a considerably shorter length of time. 39 Bags purchased outside West Contra Costa County and thrown as litter inside the West County would continue to exist until and unless adjacent jurisdictions adopt similar restrictions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 53 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Impacts from Reusable Bags There has been speculation, including an article in the Wall Street Journal, that washing reusable bags will create new significant demands on water supplies and will add to the pollution stream entering natural waterways with detergents and dirty washwater. There are also statements made by representatives of the plastic bag manufacturers that reusable bags are virtually never washed. In a study of microbial contamination in reusable bags commissioned by Canadian plastic bag manufacturers (discussed in §4.8.3.1 of this Initial Study), almost all of the people who gave up their bags for testing said they had never washed them. This is also consistent with anecdotal information gathered during preparation of this Initial Study. Bags that are washed (usually when something is spilled on them) would typically be placed in a mixed laundry load and not washed by themselves, such that no additional water simply to wash bags alone would be used. Many of the polypropylene bags on the market contain labels suggesting that they be handwashed or washed with a sponge (which can also include wiping with a household disinfectant). Reusable polyethylene bags would also be surface cleaned. None of these cleaning techniques is likely to result in a measurable increase in water use or water pollution. Washing reusable bags will not result in a measurable increase in water pollution that could adversely impact wildlife. 4.4.3 Conclusion The project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 54 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Regulatory Setting Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or cultural value for their historical significance. Cultural resources include a broad range of resources, examples of which include archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and buildings of architectural significance. Generally, for a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA review (CCR Section 15064.5(a)), it generally must be 50 years or older and listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission; listed in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or formally recognized by a lead agency as constituting a historical resource. Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils representing snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Terrestrial sediments may contain fossils that represent such vertebrate land mammals as mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. 4.5.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 1 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 1 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of normal cemeteries? 1 4.5.2.1 Cultural Resources Impacts The proposed project does not include physical development of any kind. No demolition, modification, or significant alteration is proposed to any historic building. No native soils would be disturbed by construction activities. As a result, the project would not result in impacts to cultural or paleontological resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 55 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.5.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in impacts to cultural resources. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 56 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.6 GEOLOGY 4.6.1 Existing Setting 4.6.1.1 Regional Geology Contra Costa County is divided by several fault systems, including the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Franklin, Concord, Antioch, and Greenville faults. Based on estimates from geologists, these faults have a probable earthquake magnitude of between 5.0 and 8.5 on the Richter Scale. The area has experienced a number of major earthquakes originating on faults both in the County and in the broader region, including most recently the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. Seismic activity associated with faults can also cause hazards such as liquefaction and soil settlement, slope failure, deformation of sidehill fills, ridgetop fissuring and shattering, and seiches, among others. 4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) 1 b) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1 c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 d) Landslides? 1 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 57 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 1 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 4.6.2.1 Geology and Soils Impacts The ordinance does not propose or require construction of any kind and would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse risk involving geologic activities. For these reasons, the project would not result in any geology and soils impact. 4.6.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in geology and soils impacts. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 58 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Existing Setting This section provides a general discussion of global climate change and focuses on emissions from human activities that alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The discussion on global climate change and greenhouse gas emission is based upon the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32), the 2006 Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, and research, information and analysis completed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and the CAT. Global climate change refers to changes in weather including temperatures, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are modulated by naturally occurring and anthropogenic (generated by mankind) atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.40 These gases allow sunlight into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent heat from radiating back out into outer space and escaping from the earth’s atmosphere, thus altering the Earth’s energy balance. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor41, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but are for the most part solely a product of industrial activities. The major greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, are briefly described below.42 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, respiration, and as a result of other chemical reactions manufacturing of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated Gases are strong greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting 40 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ 41 Concentrations of water are highly variable in the atmosphere over time, with water occurring as vapor, cloud droplets and ice Changes in its concentration are also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks rather than a direct result of industrialization or other human activities. For this reason, water vapor is not discussed further as a greenhouse gas. 42 Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Accessed April 20, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Greenhouse Gases Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.giv/oa/climate/gases.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 59 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases. High Global Warming Potential gases are emitted from a variety of industrial processes including aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission, and magnesium production and processing, and the production of HCFC-22, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon used as a refrigerant and in air conditioners. 4.7.2 Human Influence on Climate The world’s leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway, is “very likely” caused by humans, and hotter temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries,” no matter how much humans control future emissions. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists and representatives concluded “the widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice- mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forces, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”43 Human activities have exerted a growing influence on some of the key factors that govern climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere and by modifying vegetation. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy production and transportation and the removal of forests and woodlands around the world to provide space for agriculture and other human activities. Emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased due to human activities. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 85 percent of total emissions, and methane and nitrous oxide account for almost 14 percent. Each of these gases, however, contributes to global warming at a different relative rate. Methane has a global warming potential 23 times that of carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide is 296 times that of the same amount of carbon monoxide. To account for these differences, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are often described in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). In 2007, the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of between two and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius) by the end of the 21st century under six different scenarios of emissions and carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations.44 Sea levels were predicted to rise by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (seven to 23 inches) during this time, with an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches possible depending upon the rate of polar ice sheets melting from increased warming. The IPCC report states that the increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 can likely be attributed to human- generated greenhouse gases. On a per person basis, greenhouse gas emissions are lower in California than most other states; however, California is a populous state and the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States and one of the largest emitters in the world.45 Transportation is the largest source of 43 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ 44 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf 45 California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). 2006. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resources/res_04_an106.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 60 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 greenhouse gas emissions in California, followed by industrial sources and electric power generation.46 According to the Draft 2009 Climate Action Team Report47, the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century: Warming Trends. Increasing temperatures with summer warming increasing from about 0.9 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the first 30 years of the 21st century and from about 2.7 to 10.5 degrees F in the last 30 years of the 21st century. Precipitation. Changes in precipitation patterns and earlier melting of the Sierra snow pack that will have an effect on river flows, runoff, and water supplies in California. Sea-Level Rise. By 2050, sea-level rise could range from 11 to 18 inches higher and by 2100 sea-level rise could be 23 to 55 inches higher than in the year 2000. As sea level rises, major transportation infrastructure could be inundated and there also will be an increased rate of coastal flooding when high tides coincide with winter storms. Other impacts of sea-level rise include loss of coastal habitats (such as beaches and wetlands), direct impacts to coastal communities, and biodiversity reduction due to species loss. Agriculture. Increased challenges for the state’s agricultural sector from temperature and precipitation effects on crop yields, crop losses from extreme weather events, and changes to pest and weed ranges. Forestry. Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation, increased temperatures, wildfire frequency, and precipitation changes. Water Resources. Reduced reliability of State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply systems due to the interaction of projected growth, a warmer- drier climate resulting in reduced streamflows and reservoir storage, and salinity increases in the Delta. Coastal Areas. Coastal erosion of beaches (especially during severe winter storms), and impacts to property, infrastructure, and housing due to flooding in coastal areas and the San Francisco bay area (including due to levee breaching). Energy. Increased electricity demand, particularly in the Central Valley, during hot summer months and possible reductions in energy generation from hydropower systems due to changes in runoff patterns. 46 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm 47 California Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. April 1, 2009. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 61 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Air Quality. Increased concentrations of ozone and particulate matter associated with higher temperatures and increased natural biogenic emissions, which could impact air quality (particularly in the South Coast and San Joaquin air basins). Public Health. Effects on public health due to an increased frequency, duration and severity of heat events, increased air pollution, wildfire outbreaks, and physical events such as flooding. Air pollution and increased wildfires have the potential to increase respiratory problems. The report concludes that extreme events from heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and bad air quality are likely to become more frequent in the future in California. 4.7.3 Regulatory Context for Global Climate Change Global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is an emerging environmental concern being raised and discussed at the international, national, and statewide level. At each level, agencies are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.48 Regulatory efforts in California that apply to the project are summarized below. 4.7.3.1 State of California Executive Order S-3-05 In June 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified Cal/EPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. A multi-agency “Climate Action Team” was set up to implement Executive Order S-3- 05. Under this order, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and measures to reduce global warming were identified by the California Climate Action Team in 2006 and in the Climate Change Scoping Plan adopted in December 2008.49 4.7.3.2 Assembly Bill 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the global warming bill, was signed into law. AB 32 required the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt regulations by set dates to require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with the program. The bill requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas 48 On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. The U.S. EPA has previously argued it lacked legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decision noted that greenhouse gases meet the Clean Air Act’s definition of an “air pollutant,” and the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. 49 California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.pdf; and California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 62 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 emissions reductions. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, reducing greenhouse gas emission levels from 2020 to 1990 levels would require a 28 to 33 percent reduction of “business-as-usual” greenhouse gas emissions depending on the methodology used to determine the future emission inventories.50 Strategies identified by ARB to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include, but are not limited to, new vehicle emission standards, enforcement of diesel truck anti-idling requirements, capture of more methane from landfills, hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reduction strategies for the use and disposal of refrigerants, manure management in agricultural operations, and increased use of alternative fuels. As part of implementation of AB 32, a statewide 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory and 2020 Emissions Limit were adopted by the ARB in 2007. ARB’s mandatory reporting regulation was approved by the Board in December 2007, and became effective on December 2, 2008. Starting in 2009, facilities in several key industrial sectors, such as electricity generation, petroleum refineries and cement manufacturing, are required to report greenhouse gas emissions. The ARB also approved another key requirement of AB 32, the Climate Change Scoping Plan, on December 11, 2008.51 The Scoping Plan, developed by ARB with input from the Climate Action Team, proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health while creating new jobs and enhancing the growth in California’s economy. The ARB is currently working on additional regulations to implement the Scoping Plan. 4.7.3.3 Senate Bill 97 – Modification to the Public Resources Code On August 24, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) which requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. At the direction of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, ARB developed preliminary recommendations for statewide interim thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. ARB focused on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions – specifically industrial, residential, and commercial projects. These recommended approaches have not been adopted by ARB and additional workshops are not currently scheduled. 4.7.3.4 Senate Bill 375 – Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases SB 375 encourages housing and transportation planning on a regional scale, in a manner designed to reduce vehicle use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. Once plans and strategies are in place to meet the SB 375 targets, certain projects in these regions can be relieved of specific review requirements under 50 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf. 51 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 63 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 CEQA. The targets apply to the regions in the State covered by the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC has developed the currently proposed Transportation 2035 Plan (January 2009) with the AB 32 GHG reduction targets in mind; however MTC’s RTP update for 2013 would be the first MTC plan subject to SB 375.52 SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional Transportation Plan that sets forth a vision for growth for the region while taking into account transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs. The SCS will be the blueprint by which the region will meet its GHG emissions reductions target if there is a feasible way to do so. The MPOs also will be required to prepare an alternative planning strategy with alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies to meet identified targets. Per SB 375, the ARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) on January 23, 2009, to provide recommendations on factors to be considered and methodologies to be used in ARB’s target setting process. The RTAC may consider any relevant issues, including, but not limited to, data needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and greenhouse gas emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of greenhouse gas reduction benefits from a variety of land use and transportation strategies, and appropriate methods to describe regional targets and to monitor performance in attaining those targets.53 4.7.4 Existing Setting Related to Single-Use Bag Reduction The activities involved in the production, transport, use, and disposal of single-use carryout bags release greenhouse gas emissions carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) into the environment. Of the various life cycle assessments (LCAs) that have been completed for different types of carryout bags, some have addressed greenhouse gas emissions. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, frequently are based on assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions, and none reflect current policies in the State of California. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. The findings of the LCAs are summarized below. Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage (Australia): Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts In 2002, a report was prepared for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage to analyze the impacts that might result from a number of different policy options being explored to reduce plastic bag usage. The report included an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced from a variety of different carryout bag types. The analysis was based on the greenhouse gas emissions of a household carrying approximately 70 grocery items home from a supermarket each 52 MTC. Draft EIR for the Transportation 2035 Plan(Transportation in Motion 2035). January 2009. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/EIR.htm. 53 California Air Resources Board. “SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee”. Accessed February 18, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/rtac.htm; and California Senate Bill No. 375. Accessed February 18, 2009. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 64 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 week for a year using each type of bag. Plastic (HDPE) bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of two percent, while paper bags were assumed to have a recycling rate of 60 percent. No recycled content was assumed, except in the case of the 50 percent recycled plastic (HDPE) bag. A reusable woven HDPE plastic bag was assumed to last for 104 uses. A summary of the results of this analysis is presented in Table 4.7-1. Table 4.7-1: Nolan-ITU for the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags (52 Shopping Trips per Year, Equivalent of 10 Plastic Bag Loads Per Trip) Bag Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Kilograms of CO2 Per Year) Plastic Bag (HDPE) 6.08 Plastic Bag (HDPE) with 50 Percent Recycled Content 4.79 Plastic Bag (LDPE) 29.80 Reusable Plastic Bag (LDPE) 2.43 Reusable Cloth Bag 2.52 Reusable Plastic Bag (Woven HDPE) 0.63 Paper Bag 11.80 Biodegradable Plastic Bag 6.61 Boustead Consulting & Associates for the Progressive Bag Alliance (USA): Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags Boustead Consulting & Associates prepared an LCA for the Progressive Bag Alliance that evaluates the impacts of paper bags versus plastic bags; the report is undated but the peer review was completed in 2007. The LCA accounted for 30 percent recycled material in paper bags, and assumed that plastic bags were fully recyclable. The results of the LCA are summarized in Table 4.7-2.54 The LCA concluded that paper bags cause the release of approximately twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as plastic bags. Most emissions result from bag production, with plastic bags releasing more emissions during that stage. In the disposal stage, the following was assumed: 54 The assumptions upon which this LCA was based make its conclusions less than fully relevant for the evaluation of this project. The project is proposing to use paper bags made from 40 percent recycled material. The City of San Jose has not been able to successfully recycle a reliable percentage of the plastic bags collected. In addition, the ratio identified for carrying capacity (1:1.5) does not reflect actual practice or the functional capacity of the two kinds of bags. Table 4.7-2: Boustead Consulting & Associates LCA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Single-use Carryout Bags Bag Type/ Amount Life Cycle Stage Tons of CO2e 1,500 plastic bags Production 0.04 Disposal 0.00 Total 0.04 1,000 paper bags Production 0.03 Disposal 0.05 Total 0.08 1 CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 65 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 - Plastic Bags: 5.2 percent recycled, 13.6 percent incinerated, and 81.2 percent landfilled - Paper Bags: 21 percent recycled, 13.6 percent incinerated, 65.4 percent landfilled The 0.00 tons of CO2e related to disposal of plastic bags is due to the fact that plastic bags are assumed to not degrade, so the only end of life emissions result from incineration, which amount to less than 0.01 tons of CO2e. Paper bags release greenhouse gas emissions such as methane as they degrade, which is why the study identified higher emissions related to disposal. The LCA concluded that from all operations just prior to disposal, the resulting CO2 equivalents are more than 20 percent greater for the single-use plastic bag compared to the paper bag. The number for plastic bags is lower than reality, because plastic bags in West Contra Costa County are not recycled to the extent that Boustead assumed. Additionally, the assumed emissions for paper bags are too high because no paper bags are incinerated in the West County. The assumed paper bag recycling rate is likely too low, as well, considering the recycling rate of 65 percent in nearby Alameda County.55 The Boustead report does not include a life cycle assessment for reusable bags. It does, however, include the following statement: “This study did not examine the impacts associated with reusable cloth bags, so no comparison was made between the cloth bags and single-use polyethylene plastic bags. In other studies, however, cloth bags were shown to reduce environmental impacts if consumers can be convinced to switch. The author of the study also expresses his opinion that consumers do not appear likely to change their behaviors. Ecobilan for Carrefour: Évaluation des Impacts Environnementaux des Sacs de Caisse Carrefour In 2004, an LCA was prepared for the French retail chain Carrefour by Ecobilan. The bags analyzed included single-use HDPE bags, reusable LDPE bags, single-use paper bags, and biodegradable plastic bags. The LCA analyzed the impacts of the amount of bags needed to transport 9,000 liters of goods, which is an estimated annual purchase volume. The analysis in the report included an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions of the various bags, which is summarized in Table 4.7-3. The report concluded that paper bags produce 90 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than plastic bags, and that reusable LDPE bags used at least three times produce less emissions per use than either paper or plastic bags. The woven HDPE reusable bag listed in Table 3.4-1, however, must be used more times before it will generate benefits compared to a single-use HDPE bag. There is limited information available on the life 55 StopWaste.Org. Mandatory Recycling and Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Draft EIR. August 2011. Table 4.7-3: Ecobilan for Carrefour Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bag Type Ratio of Greenhouse Gas Emissions* Single-use HDPE Plastic Bag 1.0 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used two times) 1.3 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used three times) 0.9 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used four times) 0.7 Reusable LDPE Plastic Bag (used twenty times) 0.1 Single-use Paper Bag 1.9 Biodegradable Plastic Bag 1.4 *Note: Numbers greater than one indicate a greater environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags and numbers less than one indicate a lesser environmental impact compared with lightweight plastic carrier bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 66 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 cycle impacts of reusable bags. What is available, however, supports the conclusion that reusable bags that are used multiple times will produce fewer adverse impacts per use than either paper or plastic single-use bags. This is a logical conclusion. Some recent reports citing the Carrefour LCA have used a figure different than the one used in this Initial Study for comparing the greenhouse gas emissions related to paper and plastic bags. This Initial Study uses a figure from the Carrefour LCA showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single-use plastic bags, while most other reports citing the Carrefour LCA use a figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags. It is believed that those analyses are incorrect and the discrepancy appears to have arisen from a misunderstanding, perhaps related to the fact that the Carrefour LCA is written in French. The table from the Carrefour LCA reproduced in this Initial Study is one of several in the Carrefour LCA that compare impacts of paper and plastic bags in different scenarios. The data contained in Table 3.4-3 above comes from a table titled “Tableau 14: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (contexte francais de traitement des dechets)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performance of bags in the context of the French waste management system. It is located in a section titled “23.10 Resume des performances relatives des sacs”, which roughly means a summary of the relative performance of bags. This is the first of the several related tables presented in the Carrefour LCA, and was interpreted to provide an overview of bag-related impacts in France, where the report was completed. The data used in most other recent reports prepared in California, which shows paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the greenhouse gas emissions of single-use plastic bags, is titled “Tableau 18: Performances relatives des sacs etudies (avec mise en decharge des sacs usages)” in the Carrefour LCA, which translates loosely to a comparison of the relative performances of bags in a scenario where all used bags are landfilled. This table, as well as all the other similar tables other than the one used in this Initial Study, are in an entirely different section of the LCA titled “24 Analyses de sensibilite et simulations”, which roughly translates to sensitivity analysis and simulations. Other tables in this section compare bag-related impacts in several scenarios, such as partial reuse of plastic bags as garbage bags 65 percent of the time, partial reuse 32.5 percent of the time, and incineration of disposed bags for energy recovery. The tables in this section, including the one cited by most reports, represent simulations of very specific theoretical waste management scenarios, as opposed to the broad overview of the real-world situation in France provided by the table used in this Initial Study. Some of the discrepancy in the use of figures from the Carrefour LCA may also stem from information contained in a report prepared for the Scottish government regarding impacts related to proposed bag regulation policies, which contains one of the only English summaries of the Carrefour LCA.56 The Scottish report utilized a table from the Carrefour LCA showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags. However, the specific scenario portrayed in the table was chosen because the preparers of the Scottish report felt it best represented the waste management system in Scotland. The appendices of the Scottish report provide the 56 Scottish Executive. Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment. August 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 67 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 rationale used: “For the base case considered here, we take the Carrefour sensitivity run where 100% of bags of all types go to landfill (emphasis added). Over 88% of all waste went to landfill in Scotland in 2002/03, around 2% was incinerated and around 10% was recycled [SEPA]. Most recycled material consists of paper, glass and metal. We do not have evidence to indicate whether paper bags are more likely to be recycled than plastic ones. The assumption that 100% of bags go to landfill is pessimistic. More recent figures show that recycling rates in Scotland increased in 2003/04 to an average of 12.3%. However, it is believed that plastic carrier bags will still be going to landfill or incineration, even though there will have been an increase in the recycling of newspapers, glass jars, tins, paper bags, etc. This reflects the fact that there are currently few facilities for, and little uptake of, plastic carrier bag recycling. It is unlikely that this situation will persist in Scotland given new environmental legislation such as the Landfill Directive that requires a move away from landfill and other measures to promote recycling. However, it is possible to adapt the analysis to alternative assumptions on waste management using the results of some of the sensitivity analysis presented in the Carrefour study.” This excerpt from the appendices to the Scottish report makes it clear that the figure showing paper bags being associated with 3.3 times the emissions of single-use plastic bags represents a theoretical scenario of 100 percent landfilling that does not actually exist in California, and would not accurately represent the situation in West Contra Costa County. The table used in this Initial Study, on the other hand, represents the actual real-world circumstances in France, with a mix of recycling and landfilling of paper bags. Since the figure showing that emissions related to paper bags are 1.9 times greater than emissions related to single-use plastic bags, as opposed to 3.3 times greater, represents a realistic scenario, it is more applicable to circumstances in West Contra Costa County. Other studies going back to 1991 further support the benefits of reusable bags. An evaluation of life cycle energy intensity done by an economics professor found that the energy use for reusable nylon bag was far more efficient that either paper or plastic single-use bags, even if the single-use bags were reused 10 times or more, and then 75 percent of them were recycled.57 Since the two largest sources of greenhouse gas generation are energy use and decomposition, and since reusable bags were found to have lower energy per use and are discarded less often, this is consistent with the findings in the Nolan-ITU and Ecobilan studies. 57 Fenton, Robert W. “Reuse versus recycling: a look at grocery bags”. Resource Recycling, March 1992. Page 105. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 68 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.7.5 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,2,6,7 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,2,6,7 4.7.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from the Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinance Various life cycle assessments (LCAs) of shopping bags have been completed in support of bag regulation policies worldwide, and many of them were consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study (refer to previous discussions, § 5.0 References, and Appendix Most LCAs try to account for greenhouse gas emissions that result from all stages of product life, from product creation to disposal. LCAs do not have consistent methodologies, and frequently use assumptions that differ from each other, and from local conditions. This discussion of impacts does not, therefore, rely on the various LCAs for any purpose other than as a point of comparison. According to some LCAs prepared by consultants to the plastic bag industry, single-use paper bags generally result in greater greenhouse gas emissions when compared to single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. This is attributed to several factors, including the manufacturing process and the effect of paper bag weight and bulk on the transportation process, plus the eventual degradation of paper bags in landfills. The findings from other LCAs seem to differ based on the study, and no comprehensive comparison of the studies has been made by a neutral third party. In addition, no LCA was found that looked at the emissions associated with manufacture of 40 percent or 100 percent recycled content paper bags. Additionally, heavier single-use plastic bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which are often used by clothing and boutique stores, were found by some studies to result in greater greenhouse gas emissions than both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags made of high- density polyethylene (HDPE), which are most typically used by grocery stores and large format retail stores. There is a quantity of energy required to deliver all types of single-use bags to the stores where they are given away, and further energy use associated with picking up those that end up as litter, and with removing those that are discarded as solid waste. Since the preparers of this study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution to users of plastic (or paper) single-use bags, the exact increment of energy use, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, associated with ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 69 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 their delivery to the location where they are given to the public is unknown. For the purposes of this Initial Study, it is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags distributed to the customers of businesses in West Contra Costa County will be reduced by 95 percent or more – from an average of over roughly 350,000 bags per day to an average of 17,500 bags or fewer per day. It is not known with any certainty what will happen to the number of single- use paper bags used in the West County. Based on the information currently available from the only program in a large city in the United States that charges for both paper and plastic bags (Washington the number of single-use paper bags used in the West County may also go down substantially when people are asked to pay for them. Based on the information summarized in §4.7.4 above, reusable bags will generate less greenhouse gases per use than either paper or plastic single-use carryout bags. The proposal to encourage a transition to reusable bags instead of single-use bags would therefore have fewer greenhouse gas impacts than allowing continued reliance on single-use bags, based on all available information. No additional analysis of greenhouse gas impacts from reusable bags is, therefore, required. It has been postulated that the proposed ordinance would lead to an increase in single-use paper bag use if consumers are not given free single-use plastic bags at the point of sale, because they would be willing to pay a price to use paper bags. An increase in single-use paper-bag use could then lead to incremental increases in gas emissions associated with their manufacture and delivery. Of course, a substantial decrease in greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic bag manufacture and delivery would be occurring simultaneously. Since single-use paper bags sold to consumers will be required to have at least 40 percent recycled content under the proposed ordinance, and since individual paper bags hold substantially more than individual plastic bags (1.5 to two times as much), it is highly unlikely that banning single-use plastic bags and requiring that single-use paper bags be paid for would result in a significant increase in the use of paper bags. The total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a change from a plastic to a paper bag will be minimized because manufacture of paper using recycled content results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than manufacture using virgin material.58 As discussed in §4.0, a conservative estimate of increased use of single-use paper bags would be an increase of 32.1 million per year. Using the methodology described at the beginning of §4.0, the data from the Boustead LCA shows that there could be a net annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 664 tons of CO2e compared to existing conditions with the reduction in plastic bag use and the anticipated increase in paper bag use. If an 80 percent reduction in single use bags is achieved, as has been estimated for the bag reduction program in Washington D.C. with a $0.05 store charge for bags, the project would result in an annual reduction of 3,010 tons of CO2e. According to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, the emissions eliminated by the proposed ordinance would be equivalent to emissions from the annual electricity use of 75 to 340 homes. The elimination of 95 percent of the single-use plastic bags used every day in West Contra Costa County, would result in a decrease in the shipping capacity used to transport those bags to their regional distribution centers and eventually to stores in the West County. Since the bags are transported to users in mixed loads, there may be no reduction in trips. Capacity in the trucks may be 58 Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator. Available at: http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 70 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 used to transport reusable bags offered for sale in the stores, or other commodities handled by the distributor. RecycleMore will continue to work with stakeholders, member agencies, residents and businesses to increase use of reusable bags and to minimize any possibility that the number of single-use paper bags used might increase above existing quantities. 4.7.6 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions related to the manufacture and use of carryout bags. (Beneficial Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 71 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Existing Setting The manufacturing of single-use carryout bags, both paper and plastic, involves the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The EPA maintains a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. A description of the TRI contents related to the paper and plastic industries is discussed below. According to the 1997 Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries, plastic resin manufacturing facilities released 64.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment and transferred 192 million pounds to other facilities for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal, for a total of 256.5 million pounds, in 1995. The top five chemicals released in terms of volume were ethylene, methanol, acetonitrile, propylene, and ammonia. Approximately 74 percent (48 million pounds) of the industry’s releases were to the air, 21 percent (13.3 million pounds) of releases were by underground injection, and the remaining five percent were released as water discharges and disposals to land. According to the 2002 Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd Edition, the pulp and paper industry released and transferred a total of approximately 263.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals in 2000. Methanol represented roughly 60 percent of all pulp and paper toxic chemical releases and transfers. Other common chemicals released by the industry include ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid. The pulp and paper industry released 66 percent of its total TRI poundage to the air, approximately 22 percent to water and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and nine percent was disposed on land (on site and off site). Single-use carryout paper and plastic bags comprise only a portion of the industries described above. Any change in demand related to single-use carryout bags would affect the release of toxic chemicals by these industries in a proportional manner. Suffocation According to the national Center for Disease Control, suffocation is the fourth leading cause of accidental death of toddlers (ages 1 to 4) and is the most common cause of accidental death for infants. A number of accident prevention organizations and information sources warn that plastic bags are a frequent cause of suffocation in young children and advise parents and caregivers to “dispose of any plastic bags or keep them away from children less than 3 years old”, including dry cleaning bags, grocery bags, garbage bags, and even sandwich bags.59 The risk to children is that suffocation can take place either “because the child places a bag over their head, or because the plastic is flexible enough to form an airtight seal around their nose and mouth.” Thinner plastic film is more flexible and is therefore more of a risk than thicker plastic sheeting. 59 KidsHealth. “Household Safety: Preventing Suffocation”. http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstaid_safe/home/safety_suffocation.html; and “Suffocation Deaths: Prevention”. http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/HealthAZ/Suffocation-Deaths-Prevention.aspx?articleID=8809&categoryID=AZ6d ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 72 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Paper bags, which are thicker, coarser, and more porous, are not considered a suffocation risk. Cockroach Infestations An issue raised by a representative of the plastic bag manufacturers was the degree to which paper bags attract and house cockroaches. Cockroaches can spread infectious diseases and their droppings can trigger asthmatic attacks. According to information provided by a number of sources online, including the City of New York Health Department, the University of Connecticut and the University of Nebraska, cockroaches will eat virtually any organic substance. This includes human food, grease, paper, pet food, garbage, the glue on can labels, and the detritus found on dirty clothes. Cockroaches are attracted to any location where there is food and moisture, and will live in the walls, cupboards, furniture, in piles of dirty laundry, under appliances, in garbage cans and recycling containers, within the seals on refrigerator doors, and in any pile of paper or cardboard, including paper bags and magazines. They can enter a home in boxes, bags, soft drink cartons, televisions, radios, used appliances and furniture, or they travel through tiny cracks in the walls or along plumbing. Different species of cockroaches will live in kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms, and basements. All of the advice provided for getting rid of cockroaches includes not allowing piles of cardboard or paper (including paper bags) to accumulate and putting all garbage and recycling in containers with tight fitting lids. 60 4.8.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,8,9 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1,8,9 60 Environmental Health Watch. “Cockroach Control Guide”. 2010. http://www.ehw.org/Asthma/ASTH_Cockroach_Control.htm; University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Management. “Integrated Pest Management for Cockroaches”. http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/homegrnd/htms/roach.htm; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “Cockroach”. 2010. and Barb Ogg, Ph.D., and Clyde Ogg. “Least Toxic Cockroach Control”. http://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/pest/factsheets/120-94.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 73 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,8,9 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 7) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1 4.8.3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts An increase in single-use paper-bag usage may lead to an increased demand for paper. Since the proposed ordinance would limit single-use carryout paper bags to 40 percent recycled bags, this would only result in an incremental increase in the release and transfer of toxic chemicals in proportion to the percentage of the pulp and paper industry dedicated to the manufacturing of grocery bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 74 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 As described in §4.8.1 above, the plastic resin and pulp and paper industries release and transfer a comparable amount of toxic chemicals (256.5 and 263.1 million pounds, respectively). As discussed previously, any increase in paper bag use caused by the unavailability of the plastic bags would not be a bag-for-bag replacement, but some lesser number. Since the manufacture of paper bags from recycled materials requires substantially less hazardous materials than their manufacture with virgin materials, any increase in the use of hazardous materials associated with an increased demand for paper bags would be minimal. Because most single-use shopping bags are made with brown Kraft paper, the bags do not require the bleaching process necessary for white or colored bags. Any increase in the amount of toxic chemicals transferred and released because of the incrementally increased usage of paper bags would be at least partially, if not wholly, offset by the decrease in chemicals transferred and released because of a significant reduction in plastic bag use. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts associated with bag manufacturing. Potential Microbiological Hazards Associated with Reusable Bags The proposed ordinance would likely lead to an increase in the use of reusable bags. In 2009, the Environment and Plastics Industry Council (EPIC), a committee of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA), commissioned a study to test for the presence of bacteria and fungus in reusable and single-use shopping bags.61 The study involved a total of 25 used reusable bags and four control bags (three unused reusable bags and one unused single-use plastic bag) analyzed in two series of testing. The first series included one used reusable bag and one unused reusable bag as a control. The second series tested 24 used reusable bags and three control bags (two unused reusable bags and one unused single-use plastic bag). The 24 reusable bags tested in the second series were obtained through street intercepts throughout downtown Toronto, Canada. As shoppers left major grocery stores and shopping areas, they were approached and offered a new reusable bag as replacement for their existing bag. The bags intercepted ranged in age from one month to three years. The four control bags were purchased off-the-rack from grocery stores in Toronto. The bags were tested for ‘total plate count’ all readily grown, but not necessarily harmful, aerobic bacteria), total coliforms, Escherichia coli coli”), Salmonella, mold, and yeast. The unused control bags showed no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast or total coliforms.62 Out of the 25 used reusable bags tested, 16 (64 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria readily grown, but not necessarily harmful, aerobic bacteria), five (20 percent) contained yeast, and six (24 percent) contained mold. The study said that an “unacceptable total coliform count” was found in three (12 percent) of the reusable bags, indicating the possible presence of intestinal bacteria (no specific test, however, was done for fecal coliform). Of these three bags, one had been exposed to a meat spill and had never been washed, and all three had been in use for at least one to three years. No E. coli or Salmonella were detected in any of the bags in the study. 61 Sporometrics. Grocery Carry Bag Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Reusable Bags and “First or Single- use” Plastic Bags. 2009. 62 Coliforms are defined as rod-shaped gram-negative non-spore forming organisms. Coliforms are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, and are also be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation. Coliforms are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal origin may be present. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 75 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 When the reusable bags were intercepted from users for use in the study, almost all of the bag owners stated that their bags had never been washed. While 16 bags showed evidence of bacteria, only three bags showed bacterial exposure higher than the equivalent of handling the purchased items with unwashed hands, and two of those bags were at least two to three years old. None of the bacteria, mold, or yeast were found in quantities that exceeded any relevant standards. To put this information in a familiar context, two additional studies were consulted to identify the quantities of bacteria on everyday household surfaces and items. One study was published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology; it evaluated the presence of bacteria in 10 kitchens in the United States.63 The study tested sink basins, faucet handles, table tops, counter tops, refrigerator doors, oven controls, cutting boards, and sponges. The first scenario analyzed in the study tested surfaces in each household that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion, but without the use of a disinfectant. Out of 767 samples tested for bacteria, 758 (99 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria. Out of 799 samples tested for total coliforms, 371 (46 percent) showed the presence of some amount of total coliforms. The second scenario tested surfaces that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion with “casual use” of a disinfectant. Out of 606 samples tested for bacteria, 577 (95 percent) showed the presence of some level of bacteria. Out of 297 samples tested for total coliforms, 258 (87 percent) showed the presence of total coliforms. Table 3.9-1, below, compares results from this study to results from the study on reusable bags. For each study, only samples taken from a clearly defined, measurable area are shown. Another study evaluated the presence of bacteria on toothbrushes given to 10 individuals in Australia.64 Ten adults were given new toothbrushes of the same type and brand, along with identical tubes of toothpaste. After three weeks of use, the toothbrushes were analyzed for the presence of bacteria. The results showed that no toothbrush was bacteria-free, and the total bacterial presence ranged from 10,000 to 1,000,000 colony forming units (cfu) of bacteria. Small amounts of coliforms were found on three of the 10 brushes. The results of all three studies demonstrate that virtually every object exposed to routine human contact contains bacteria and other microbiological contaminants. The reusable bags were substantially lower in the quantities of such contaminants than surfaces and objects commonly found in the home, including kitchen surfaces where food is kept and prepared. Although levels of microbiological contaminants in used reusable bags could be higher than would be present in new, unused single-use plastic bags, proper cleaning of reusable bags, as with any other object that may come in contact with grocery products, would further reduce the potential for exposure of any food items to harmful bacteria. Additionally, most stores typically use plastic or paper bags to protect or contain meat, fresh produce, food prepared at the establishment, or other unpackaged goods that must be protected from moisture, damage, or contamination, and typically place the new bag containing such products inside a carryout bag at the point of sale, so that direct contact between food and reusable (or other carryout) bags rarely occurs. Although no paper bags were tested as part of the study on reusable bags, it can 63 Josephson, K.L., Rubino, J.R., Pepper, I.L. "Characterization and quantification of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in household kitchens with and without the use of a disinfectant cleaner". Journal of Applied Microbiology, Vol. 83 No.6, pp.737-50. 1997. 64 Taji, SS, Rogers, AH. “The microbial contamination of toothbrushes. A pilot study,” Australian Dental Journal, 43(2), pp.128-30. 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 76 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 be assumed that unused single-use paper bags, like the unused control bags in the study, would show no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast or total coliforms. Table 4.8-1: Comparison of Microbiological Contamination on Reusable Bags and Household Surfaces Surface (size of area sampled) Total Samples Contaminated Samples % of Total Samples Contaminated Average cfu1 Present on Contaminated Samples Total Bacteria Used Reusable Bags2 (10 cm x 10 cm) 23 14 61% 1,010 Table Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 75 72 94% 52,600 Cutting Board3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 74 97% 67,500 Counter Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 73 96% 144,000 Sponge3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 76 72 95% 9,620,000 Total Coliforms Used Reusable Bags2 (10 cm x 10 cm) 23 2 9% 55 Table Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 28 36% 5,970 Cutting Board3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 24 31% 36,300 Counter Top3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 66 27 41% 22,300 Sponge3 (5 cm x 5 cm) 77 57 74% 2,430,000 Notes: 1 cfu = colony forming units 2 Only reusable bags with a measured sample area 10 cm x 10 cm) are included 3 Samples taken from surfaces that were maintained and cleaned in a normal fashion with “casual use” of a disinfectant A study funded by the American Chemistry Council was very similar to the study done in Canada.65 It found that most users of reusable bags hadn’t washed them. The study found bacteria and coliforms in most of the bags, and in 12 percent of the bags, E. coli was found. The likely source of much of the contamination was raw meat and/or other raw food. The danger the study warned of was 65 Dennis, Tami. “Reusing Bags? That’s good…and bad”. San Jose Mercury News, p. A8. June 25, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 77 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 allowing raw meat or meat juices to come into contact with food traditionally eaten raw (fruits and vegetables, for example). Since most people put produce into separate plastic bags that will not be regulated by this proposed ordinance, and many stores also put raw meat into a secondary plastic bag as well, the problem is not likely to become a significant one. This study also went one step farther than the Canadian study and evaluated the benefit of machine or hand washing the bags. It found bacteria levels reduced to almost nothing by washing. The routine use of reusable bags as they are most commonly used, to carry packaged groceries and other purchases home from a store, would not expose users to unusual or excessive levels of harmful bacteria or other microbiological contaminants. Washing the bags when they become soiled would further reduce the likelihood of such exposure. Other Hazards The proposed project will decrease the availability of single-use carryout plastic bags. Thin plastic film is a source of risk for injury or death to infants and young children if the plastic is placed over or near their faces. To the extent these very thin film plastic bags pose a suffocation hazard for young children, the risk would be reduced because there will be fewer of them in homes. None of the reusable bags, including reusable plastic bags, are apt to be as great a risk as the thin HDPE single- use bags that they would be replacing. Should the number of single-use paper bags used in West Contra Costa County increase initially, homes that are experiencing problems with cockroaches would need to continue to keep such bags in lidded containers as they need to do with their recyclables, or to not purchase them at the stores. An increase in single-use paper bags used in the West County, should such an increase occur, would not result in a significant increase in cockroach populations or the adverse conditions associated with cockroaches since the existence of paper bags is only one of dozens of attractive havens that can harbor roaches (including walls, attics, old furniture, old appliances, cardboard boxes, old books and magazines, etc.), none of which would be influenced by the ordinance. 4.8.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 78 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Existing Setting 4.9.1.1 Regulatory Requirements The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities in West Contra Costa County to operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters via the cities’ storm sewer collection system. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the Municipal Regional NPDES Stormwater Permit on October 14, 2009, and included as co-permitees are: Contra Costa County, the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control The Stormwater Permit became effective December 1, 2009, and remains in effect through November 30, 2014. It specifies actions necessary to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable and effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into the municipal storm sewer system to protect local creeks and the Bay. 4.9.1.2 Existing Setting Related to Single-Use Bag Reduction The Stormwater Permit regulates many areas and activities to prevent pollutants from impacting water quality in local waterways through such methods as stormwater treatment requirements for development, municipal operations Best Management Practices, public education and outreach, and water quality monitoring. The Stormwater Permit places a heavy emphasis on reducing trash loads to creeks and waterways. The Trash Load Reduction provision requires annual clean up of in-creek Trash Hot Spots and establishes phased goals to reduce trash loads from the storm sewer system by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. To demonstrate progress toward the 40 percent goal during its five-year term, the Stormwater Permit requires the following: • Development of a Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method; • Development of a Short-Term Load Reduction Strategy to meet the 40% goal by 2014; • Development of a Long-Term Trash Load Reduction Strategy to meet the 100% goal by 2022; and • Installation of full trash capture devices to treat runoff from a minimum drainage area equivalent to 895 acres. Possible approaches the cities in the West County will need to take to achieve this initial reduction goal include, but may not be limited to, the following: • Installation of additional full trash capture devices; • Enhancement of municipal maintenance activities such as street sweeping, inlet cleaning activities, and public litter can maintenance; • Product stewardship and source reduction actions targeting highly littered items (such as single-use disposable bags); and • Public Education and outreach designed to discourage littering behaviors. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 79 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Despite progress in reducing urban contributions to pollution of the waterways of the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo Creek in West Contra Costa County.66 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. Litter and Waterways Marine debris ocean pollution) has been shown to have dramatic impacts on wildlife and habitat, and plastics comprise more than 60 percent of such debris. Single-use plastic shopping bags contribute to a persistent litter problem that is of growing concern for the health of waterways locally and worldwide. Land-based sources, such as stormwater runoff from urbanized areas, are the dominant contributors. The 2008 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC), produced by the Ocean Conservancy, found that plastic bags were the second most common debris item collected worldwide during the annual one- day coastal cleanup event. Paper bags were the sixth most common debris item collected.67 Statistics from the ICC are shown in Table 4.9-1, below. Locally, 39,590 items of trash were collected in Contra Costa County, of which 3,107 (7.9 percent) were plastic bags and 1,562 (four percent) were paper bags.68 In Ireland, where a fee has been levied on plastic bags, out of 10,142 total items collected, 118 (1.2 percent) were paper bags and only 67 (0.7 percent) were plastic bags. The 2008 Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan completed by the District of Columbia Department of the Environment discovered that plastic bags made up 21 percent of the trash in the main river and 47 percent of the trash in tributaries. A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in selected storm drain catch basins, by weight. Most local waterways drain to San Francisco Bay; when the tide goes out, the water in San Francisco Bay moves into the ocean. Therefore, trash in Bay Area creeks and rivers can end up in the Pacific Ocean. The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) recently finalized its Implementation Strategy for the OPC Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. The strategy cites the elimination of packaging wastes that contribute to litter, including single-use carryout bags, as a priority, and 66 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. 67 Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It). 2009. 68 Allison Chan, Save the Bay via Ocean Conservancy. Email Communication. December 9, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 80 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 recommended that a price be placed on single-use paper and plastic bags as an incentive for the use of reusable bags. Table 4.9-1: 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Statistics Location Paper Bags Plastic Bags Total Bags Total Items % Paper Bags % Plastic Bags % All Bags Alameda County 2,106 7,575 9,681 79,359 2.7 % 9.6 % 12.2 % Contra Costa County 1,562 3,107 4,669 39,590 4 % 7.9 % 11.8 % San Francisco County 959 2,212 3,171 24,152 4 % 9.2 % 13.1 % San Mateo County 1,283 2,871 4,154 54,981 2.3 % 5.2 % 7.6 % Santa Clara County 371 1,580 1,951 15,295 2.4 % 10.3 % 12.8 % Solano County 2,530 3,158 5,688 64,920 3.9 % 4.9 % 8.8 % Sonoma County 981 553 1,534 23,926 4.1 % 2.3 % 6.4 % California 24,194 52,544 76,738 904,375 2.7 % 5.8 % 8.5 % United States 78,417 229,758 308,175 3,945,855 2 % 5.8 % 7.8 % Ireland 118 67 185 10,142 1.2 % 0.7 % 1.8 % Worldwide 530,607 1,377,141 1,907,748 11,439,086 4.6 % 12 % 16.7 % Source: Ocean Conservancy A study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. The City of San Jose estimates that implementation of an expanded litter control program to protect creeks, as required in the new permit, will cost the City approximately two to four million dollars annually.69 69 Since the program is not yet designed, this cost estimate is preliminary. It is provided only to give an order of magnitude to the impact this new program will have on the service delivery capacity of a City already dealing with substantial budget shortfalls and experiencing layoffs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 81 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 In June 2008, the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) formed a Trash Work Group consisting of five co-permittees (Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Fremont and Dublin and Alameda County). The Work Group was formed to assist in developing and conducting a pilot study focused on assessing trash conditions in selected creeks and shorelines, as well as land based source areas. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008. Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). On land areas, trash types were evenly distributed between miscellaneous (34 percent), biodegradable (27 percent) and plastic (25 percent). Plastic trash items were about three times more frequent in creeks, compared to land areas (74 percent versus 25 percent). In contrast, biodegradable and miscellaneous trash items were more prevalent on land areas compared to creek sites. 70 A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.71 As discussed in §4.4.1.1 of this Initial Study, recently released research reports have identified products of plastic degradation in the ocean, including the endocrine disruptor BPA and certain styrene oligomers (chemical products of degradation). Research released by the American Chemistry Society has identified evidence that plastic can and does degrade in the natural environment. While these chemical pollutants have been found in increasing concentrations in ocean water, none of them are believed to be associated with plastic bags. However, there is emerging evidence that that one of the organic contaminants transported by plastic in the ocean is phenanthrene, a aromatic hydrocarbon.72 It binds to three types of plastic, including polyethylene. Polyethylene was found in a NOAA study to have the highest apparent distribution coefficient (a measure of how much contaminant binds to a surface) for phenanthrene.73 The study also states that the plastic pieces can release the contaminants to living organisms that ingest the plastic. Since polyethylene is the primary material used in making single-use plastic carryout bags, there may be a connection between plastic bags and exposure of the animals that eat the plastic debris to toxic substances. The paper was released in 2008 and the research it discusses was still ongoing. The Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, issued on October 14, 2009, includes trash load reduction. The trash reduction provision includes requirements for cities to annually clean up “trash hot spots” in creeks and establishes phased goals to reduce trash loads from the storm sewer system 70 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf 71 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. 72 Phenanthrene is a suspected but not confirmed human carcinogen and has been found to cause reproductive problems and birth defects in mice. It is a chemical used in the manufacture of various products, including plastic. 73 NOAA. The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans. September 3, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 82 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. This sets an ambitious target for trash reductions, and will require significant resources to implement. Possible approaches to achieve this initial reduction goal include, but may not be limited to, installation of additional trash capture devices, enhancement of street sweeping and inlet cleaning activities, additional maintenance of public litter cans, product stewardship and source reduction actions targeting highly littered items, public education and outreach, and increased enforcement of anti-littering laws. 4.9.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,10 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,2 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 83 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2,10 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1 10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 4.9.3.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The proposed ordinance would reduce the ongoing proliferation of plastic bag litter into waterways, since an estimated 95 percent of the nearly 350,000 plastic bags currently given away daily (on average) to customers by local businesses would no longer be available. It is likely that 95 percent fewer plastic bags will enter the storm sewers in West Contra Costa County and the creeks in the area. Fewer plastic bags will clog catch basins in the public streets. The West County will contribute less plastic to the pollution in San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and fewer bags to endanger fish, turtles and birds in local creeks and the Bay and Ocean. A reduction in the amount of plastic litter in the creeks and waterways of the West County would result in a beneficial hydrology and water quality impact. The ordinance will increase use of reusable bags. Many types of reusable bags are made from woven cloth or netting, and can be laundered. Most of the newer reusable bags being given out by local merchants (refer to Photos 10-15) are plastic, frequently polypropylene. These durable plastic bags can be wiped clean with a sponge; some can also be laundered (labels sometimes recommend hand washing). As discussed in §4.8.3.1 most people don’t wash their reusable bags very often, if at all. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 84 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 It is unlikely that most bag users would dedicate entire laundry loads to shopping bags, or that such loads (if they ever occur) would be done frequently. Since any reusable bags that are washed would be part of a larger laundry load, the increase in water use and detergents resulting from bag laundering would be negligible, particularly compared to water used in the manufacturing process for plastic and paper bags. If there were to be an increase in single-use paper bags used, the question arises as to whether it is large enough to result in a significant increase in the quantity of water used in their manufacture, or water quality impacts associated with that manufacture. Paper production from virgin materials generally requires more water than plastic bag production, and can lead to increased eutrophication increased nutrient loading) of water bodies due to pollutants released during the manufacturing process from manufacturing plants that do not treat all effluent. Eutrophication can degrade water quality and lead to a decreased level of dissolved oxygen, resulting in harmful impacts to wildlife. Paper manufactured with recycled content does not require the same substantial quantities of water and does not generate the same quantities or types of pollution. In a comparison study done in 1996, comparisons were made between the chemical emissions from plants using virgin fiber and plants using recycled paper as feedstocks. A total of 79 plants were examined, including both integrated plants (in which both pulp and paper products were produced) and plants manufacturing only pulp. The chemicals examined included chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloroform, acids (hydrochloric and sulfuric), volatile organics (methanol, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone), and ammonia. Because of differences in the integrated mills, and because some of the emissions were very low (essentially zero), the report uses statistical tools to balance the analysis. During the years evaluated (1987-1992) by the study, chemical emissions dropped at most of the mills. For the mills using recycled wastepaper, “toxic releases in all categories were significantly lower”, compared to mills using only virgin wood fiber.74 Since this study was done, EPA regulations have increased relative to toxic emissions, and the number of plants manufacturing paper with post-consumer recycled content have increased. The basic premise established by the study, that paper manufacturing which incorporates recycled content requires substantially less chemicals, is still relevant, however. It should also be kept in mind that water and air pollution are both regulated by the federal government and the paper bag industry has stated that most paper manufacturing now reuses water multiple times before it is cleaned and discharged back into the environment. Requiring that single-use paper carryout bags contain 40 percent recycled content would reduce any associated increase in water use and would result in substantially fewer releases of toxic chemicals than if the paper bags had less recycled content. It is impossible to know exactly the total percentages of recycled content in single-use paper bags now given away in West Contra Costa County. Requiring all single-use paper bags given away in retail stores to be at least 40 percent recycled content will likely result in some increased quantity of recycled paper content relative to existing conditions. Whether or not the adverse impacts from manufacturing single-use paper bags for use in the West County increases relative to existing conditions depends on how many exempt paper bags people are prepared to pay $0.05 for and what the total recycled content is for the current 74 Press, Daniel. Toxic Releases from Paper Made With Recovered Wastepaper versus Virgin Wood Fiber: A Research Note. Published by Springer-Verlag, NY. 1996. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 85 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 quantity of single-use paper bags used in the West County. As shown in Photo 11, bags are already in use in the West County that contain 100 percent recycled content. Reducing single-use plastic bag use in West Contra Costa County by 95 percent will substantially reduce the use of water for plastic manufacture and the associated chemical use. Should the prohibition on single-use plastic bags induce a greater use of single-use paper bags, there may be secondary impacts resulting from that increase. Indirect Impacts As described in §4.0 of this Initial Study, a ban on plastic bags and a $0.05 charge for paper bags could result in the elimination of roughly 121.4 million plastic bags from West Contra Costa County’s environment and a short term increase of 32.1 million single-use paper carryout bags that might be purchased instead (the large range resulting from 1) doubts that there will be an increase if paper bags must be paid for; and 2) uncertainty of the relative sizes of both plastic bags formerly used and paper bags that might be purchased). Using the method described at the beginning of § 4.0 of this Initial Study and the data from the Boustead LCA (which was commissioned and paid for by plastic bag manufacturers), charging $0.05 could result in an annual increase in fresh water use of 27.4 million gallons spread among the plants manufacturing the single-use paper carryout bags. If an 80 percent reduction in single use bags is achieved, as has been estimated for a similar bag reduction program in Washington D.C. with a $0.05 store charge for bags, the project would result in s net reduction of nearly two million gallons of water use. Using data from the Carrefour LCA and the conservative estimate of a 50 percent reduction in bag use also indicates that a $0.05 fee could result in a net annual reduction of water use.75 Simply using water does not exceed any of the identified thresholds. If, as the paper industry representatives contend, the water is cleaned and most of it is returned to the environment, the adverse effects may be minimal. Past stories of substantial pollution of water bodies occurring routinely from paper manufacturing cannot be assumed true in light of current regulations. It must be reiterated that estimates extrapolated from any specific LCA cannot be applied directly to the situation in West Contra Costa County. Some estimates show that the ordinance could result in a temporary increased use of fresh water at unknown locations. This increase could occur at various pulp and paper manufacturing plants that would supply the bags that might be sold in the West County. It is not known where these plants are located, but they are likely dispersed throughout the western U.S., if not the entire U.S. and parts of Canada. The potential increase in water use (27.4 million gallons) is roughly equivalent to the annual demand of 334 multi-family housing units.76 Paper manufacturing plants that require substantial quantities of water are typically located in areas that have appropriate water supplies. Modern plants reuse incoming water multiple times, according to representatives of the paper industry, and clean it up between uses and prior to discharge. A temporary incremental increase in water use at various paper plants, should the increase occur, would not be likely to result in a significant environmental impact. Incremental and temporary increases in 75 According to the Carrefour LCA, manufacturing paper bags requires 3.3 times the amount of water as manufacturing plastic bags. Since the number of plastic bags reduced is more than 3.3 times the highest estimate of increased paper bags, there could be a net reduction in water use. 76 This estimate uses a demand rate of 225 gallons per day per multi-family housing unit. Source: Mansour Nasser. San Jose Municipal Water. Personal Communication. August 12, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 86 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 water quality impacts, should they occur, would be not significant at a paper bag manufacturing plant that meets current national Clean Water Act standards for water discharged back into the environment. 4.9.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in significant hydrology and water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 87 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Existing Setting Under existing conditions, most retail businesses in West Contra Costa County, whether in cities or in the unincorporated area, offer customers a free bag in which to place their purchases prior to leaving the store. The bags are offered at the check-out counter and, in most cases, the purchases are placed in the bag by store employees. For those stores where customers are expected to bag their own purchases, the only free bags offered are plastic. The following discussion refers frequently to acronyms for different types of plastic used in making bags. A brief description of each type of plastic can be found in Figure 3. More information on the various types of plastic can be found at the American Chemistry Council website: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF Most grocery stores in California offer customers a choice of paper or plastic single-use carryout bags. Some grocery stores have only plastic available. A few grocery stores offer only paper. Some grocery and other stores offer a token refund if a customer brings their own reusable bag. Other stores, including clothing and department stores, drug stores, and specialty retail stores, offer plastic bags of various sizes and shapes. Some also offer paper bags. Most of the plastic bags used in grocery stores are HDPE and most of the plastic bags used in department stores are LDPE. The former are thin and very lightweight; the latter tend to be sturdier and are frequently reused, at least once or twice. The paper bags offered in most grocery stores are unbleached brown kraft paper; the paper bags offered at other retail stores vary widely, including brown and white (bleached) and various shades in between (see Figure In recent years, a significant number of stores began offering reusable bags for sale. Based on observation of stores in the San Francisco Bay Area, the reusable bags are most commonly canvas (cotton, cotton/PET blend, or PET), polypropylene, or polyethylene (both HDPE and LDPE). Some stores offer several different kinds of bags for sale. There are a very wide variety of reusable bags available locally throughout West Contra Costa County and on the Internet. In addition, giving away reusable shopping bags has become a popular form of advertising for environmental organizations, businesses in related fields, public television stations, etc. Whole Foods implemented a program similar to one found in Ireland (and called there a “Bag for Life”) in which a bag made of recycled soda bottles (PET) is sold for a nominal price ($0.99 at Whole Foods) and is replaced at no charge when it breaks or wears out. The variety of bags and bag types, and of the materials they are made from make it impossible to accurately estimate which reusable bags would be the most used in West Contra Costa County as a result of this ordinance, where they would come from, and what might be the impacts caused by their manufacture and use. The open market on this type of merchandise is growing quickly and evolving in a variety of directions. Many, but not all of the bags are manufactured outside the United States. The proposed ordinance would limit the distribution of free single-use carryout bags at retail establishments within the five Member Agencies of RecycleMore: El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, as well as unincorporated areas within West Contra Costa County. The Member Agencies and unincorporated areas have a combined population of 243,640. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 89 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The proposed ordinance prohibits the free distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale check-out) for all commercial retail businesses in West Contra Costa County except restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse organizations. Single-use paper bags with a minimum 40 percent post-consumer recycled content would be exempt from the prohibition, but would have to be sold for a minimum charge of $0.05. Reusable bags, regardless of type, would also have to be sold for a minimum charge of $0.05. Restaurants, as defined in the ordinance, would be completely exempt from the ordinance. There is no specific estimate from any reliable source of how many single-use plastic carryout bags are used in West Contra Costa County, so the number used in this Initial Study (127.8 million) was extrapolated from the statewide number provided by CalRecycle (which was originally generated by plastic bag manufacturers). The carryout bags handed out to customers are purchased by the businesses from various sources and are delivered to the stores. Stores contacted indicated that bags are delivered in mixed shipments with other merchandise. No business said that a truck carrying only plastic and/or paper bags delivered bags to their store. Most existing commercial development was constructed pursuant to the site and architectural review processes that apply in the city in which the business is located or, in the case of unincorporated territory, in the County. Existing development is therefore assumed to conform to building and zoning standards for the jurisdiction. In older communities, there are some existing commercial buildings built prior to adoption of zoning or other development standards. Although legally nonconforming, those older buildings may have inadequate parking and substandard waste enclosures, by current standards. Most larger commercial buildings, including most grocery stores and malls, are constructed with loading docks or loading doors through which shipments are received. Those that are not so designed have well-established systems for receiving shipments of merchandise, including supplies necessary to do business. 4.10.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts LAND USE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Physically divide an established community? 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 90 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 LAND USE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 4.10.3.1 Land Use Impacts Direct Land Use Impacts of the Proposed Project If it is assumed that West Contra Costa County consumers receive a proportional share of the single- use carryout bags handed out annually in California, then approximately 127.8 million plastic bags and 16.8 million paper bags are distributed free to consumers in the West County each year (the number of paper bags is estimated based on the discussion in §4.0 of this Initial Study). With the implementation of the ordinance, it is assumed that the total numbers of single-use carryout bags handed out in the West County will be reduced, and the quantity of such bags present in litter will also be reduced. The ordinance would prohibit single-use carryout plastic and paper bags being handed out free at checkout in retail establishments. An exception would be made for exempt paper bags containing at least 40 percent post-consumer recycled content. Retail businesses could offer their customers exempt bags, but would be required to charge for them. Nonprofit charitable reuse retailers and restaurants would be completely exempt from the ordinance. With implementation of the proposed ordinance, the following changes may be assumed: Ban on single-use carryout bags with the exception of a $0.05 price charged for 40 percent recycled content paper bags Single-use carryout plastic bags would cease to be given away free in West Contra Costa County retail stores and the number of such bags being distributed in the West County would drop sharply. Assuming that five percent of the total single-use carryout bags are used in facilities that will be exempt from the ordinance (restaurants and charitable reuse stores), the ordinance would result in roughly 89.3 million fewer single-use carryout bags of any kind being distributed for free in retail stores in the West County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 91 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 The number of paper bags having less than 40 percent recycled content would virtually disappear in West Contra Costa County. Using a conservative estimate of 50 percent of customers using paper bags results in an estimated annual total of 48.9 million single-use paper carryout bags being used in the West County while the default charge is set at $0.05. This is roughly three times the current number . The number is based on 50 percent of the current paper bag users continuing to use single- use carryout paper bags with 40 percent recycled content, and 50 percent of the current plastic bag users switching to single-use carryout paper bags with 40 percent recycled content. The number of bags is adjusted to reflect the 1.5:1 capacity ratio between single-use plastic carryout bags and single- use paper carryout bags. If an 80 percent reduction in single use bags is achieved, as has been estimated for a similar bag reduction program in Washington D.C. with a $0.05 store charge for bags, the project would result in an annual total of 19.5 million paper bags being used in the West County, which would represent an increase of just 16 percent. Particularly in light of the survey of nearby San Jose residents, the bag use numbers in the 50 percent reduction scenario are likely to be conservatively high. Additionally, the numbers will drop as shoppers become accustomed to the ordinance and remember to bring the reusable bags with them. Recent anecdotal experiences from cities in California that have already implemented such an ordinance have seen a tendency for customers in non-grocery stores that sell smaller items (bookstores, drugstores, etc.) to refuse a bag and walk out with purchases in-hand. In stores where the clerks ask if a customer would like to purchase a bag, customers are less apt to do so, compared to stores where clerks merely ask if a customer would like a bag. These types of variations are impossible to control for in forecasts. The reductions in single-use carryout bags identified are only the initial estimates. It is not RecycleMore’s goal to increase paper bag use, but to decrease the use of all single-use bags and increase the community’s reliance on reusable bags. It is RecycleMore’s expectation based on implementation of other environmental programs requiring behavior change, such as curbside recycling, over time people will become accustomed to using reusable bags and will rely on their use by choice. There is not a great deal of past experience to rely on in predicting exactly how and when behavior might change. The imposition of a fee on both plastic and paper single-use carry bags by Denmark in 1994 resulted in a 66 percent reduction in use of both types of bags.77 In 2001, Ireland imposed a fee on single-use plastic carryout bags which resulted in a reduction of over 90 percent in the number of plastic bags used.78 Washington D.C. saw a 50 to 80 percent reduction in the use of single-use plastic bags after the imposition of a five-cent fee in 2010. The difference in effectiveness between the Irish and Danish programs likely was the result of differences in the two programs; the Danish tax was assessed on the bags sold to businesses, who presumably passed on the costs in various ways to their customers (including charging them for bags). The tax on single-use bags was just one of a number of “green” taxes assessed by the Danish 77 Australia Department of Environment and Heritage. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts, Final Report. December 2002. 78 Government of Ireland, Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government website. Plastic Bags. 2007. http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 92 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 government during that time period so the Danish population would have been well aware of the purpose and need for the taxes. The Irish fee was assessed on the customer at the time of purchase and was specifically assessed to reduce plastic litter in a country dependent on tourist-generated revenues (a purpose that the Irish people themselves appeared to understand and agree with). Because there were substantial reductions in the number of single-use carryout bags resulting from all of these programs, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a substantial reduction in West Contra Costa County of the number of single-use carryout bags under the proposed ordinance. Because there would be an immediate net reduction of approximately 95 percent of the single-use carryout plastic bags given away annually in the West County, the number of such bags that become litter is anticipated to be reduced accordingly (by 95 percent). This would be an immediate beneficial environmental impact. Indirect Land Use Impacts of the Project Because the Irish fee was only assessed on plastic carryout bags, there was some increase in use of paper carryout bags. Irish businesses reported that the increase in paper bag use was not equivalent to the previous use of plastic carryout bags. Among other factors, the paper bags are bigger and can carry more. In comparisons made between single-use paper and plastic bags by the preparers of this report, the typical single-use paper shopping bag would hold between one and a half and twice the volume of a single-use plastic shopping bag. See the discussion in Appendix B and Photos 16-24. It is estimated that a minimum of between one and a half and three times the number of plastic bags are needed to carry the same volume as the paper bags. Clerks in grocery stores are sometimes seen double bagging purchases. This can occur using double plastic bags, double paper bags, or one of each (plastic inside paper or vice versa). It is not a uniform phenomenon, however, and is considered too speculative to try to predict. It has been reported that plastic bag use increased “significantly” after the Irish fee was imposed. This is untrue. The story may have resulted from an increase in the sale of “bin liners” or “kitchen tidy bags” – plastic bags sold as garbage bags. Increases as high as 77 percent were reported by some retailers, but the base numbers of sales of these bags were very small compared to plastic shopping bags. There were no increases reported in the larger garbage and garden bag sales. There may be an increase in sale of wastebasket liners in West Contra Costa County, for those customers who previously used freely distributed carryout bags to line wastebaskets, but the number sold will never approach the 127.8 million plastic bags given away in the West County each year. Wastebasket liners are unlikely to end up as litter in either a land or marine environment because they are typically filled with household or commercial rubbish and are therefore too heavy to become airborne by the time they leave the home or office. If most carryout bags had been used as wastebasket liners, there would currently be no concerns about their contribution to litter. An increase in the sale of wastebasket liners is not likely to result in any increase in litter and has not been so large in other areas that an environmental impact would occur. The same assumptions would be true for the small plastic bags distributed in dog parks and other public places for use in picking up and disposing of animal feces. There may be some increase in their use, but there is virtually no possibility of that increase approaching the volume of freely distributed plastic retail carryout bags, and bags used to dispose of animal feces (which by the nature of the use are heavy after use) are also ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 93 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 unlikely to end up as litter. The sale of plastic trash bags would not result in a significant adverse secondary land use impact. Impacts at the Retail Stores Long term, the proposed ordinance would create a substantial reduction in the total number of single- use carryout bags, paper and plastic, handed out in West Contra Costa County. In the near term, however, the proposed ordinance might lead to a short-term increase in single-use paper bags used because the exempt bags will still be available at the check-out stand for a price. As discussed earlier, the total number of exempt bags sold at check-out stands would be substantially fewer than the combined total of plastic and paper carryout bags formerly given away free. Initially, physical impacts to the stores (changes in storage required and litter) would be minimal, and they will decline over time as customers become accustomed to using reusable bags. Single-use plastic bags require less space than single-use paper bags, but their number would be reduced by approximately 95 percent countywide and in most retail stores, they will be virtually eliminated. The total number of plastic and paper bags would not have to be stored in the same quantities, using up less internal space. There would be much less plastic bag litter in the immediate vicinity of the stores; if there is an increase in paper bag use, there might be an increase in paper bag litter near the store. Since the customer will have just paid for that bag, there may be less tendency to discard it immediately. People making small purchases (such as soda or cigarettes) may choose to not purchase a bag and will therefore not have one to discard. Reusable bags offered for sale could occupy the storage space currently used for single-use carryout bags. Single-use carryout bags given away or sold by grocery and other stores in West Contra Costa County are shipped and delivered to stores in mixed loads with other products. As described above, it is assumed that fewer or no single-use plastic carryout bags would be delivered to the stores after the ordinance is adopted, although exempt paper bags could still be delivered, as would the plastic bags used for produce and other exempt purposes. The same trucks would still be making the same rounds since those trucks that deliver carryout bags also deliver other merchandise to the stores. It is likely that the vendors would stock other merchandise for delivery to the same retail stores, or they might add other stores to the same routes, if the arrangement allows for more efficient routing. No physical changes would be required to the stores, their delivery arrangements, or the outside layouts of the business sites. There is no reason to assume that the proposed project will directly result in the creation of any new buildings, permanent structures or other permanent physical changes in the natural or man-made environment other than a reduction in the presence of single-use plastic and paper bags in litter found in and around West Contra Costa County. A reduction in litter would not be a barrier nor would it constitute a division of a community. As discussed above, regulating single-use carryout bags would be compatible with the West County’s long-established plans, policies, and programs for promoting the use of reusable products over single-use ones. No physical changes in the built environment are anticipated or likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. No physical change would need to occur at the retail stores that would cease to give away single-use plastic carryout bags at the point sale, and would offer exempt bags to customers for a store charge. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 94 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Land Use Impacts from Reusable Bags Reusable bags, because they are purchased by a user and because they are made of heavier materials, are less likely than single-use bags to be discarded outdoors. Obviously, any portable object can become litter (clothes, toys, etc.), but people place more value on things they purchase and a reusable bag by its nature has value as a useful object. Just as handbags, briefcases, and luggage are not frequently seen as littered items, reusable bags are not likely to occur in litter. No other potentially significant land use impacts associated with increased use of reusable bags was identified. 4.10.4 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not result in any significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 95 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Existing Setting In 1975, the California legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). This act provides for the reclamation of mined lands and directs the State Geologist to classify (identify and map) the non-fuel mineral resources of the state to show where economically significant mineral deposits occur and where they are likely to occur based upon the best available scientific data. The non-fuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron and copper; industrial minerals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt and dimension stone; and construction aggregate which includes sand and gravel, and crushed stone. These materials occur in unique geological settings and, therefore, must be mined where they are found. The most prominent mineral resources that are currently mined in the County include crushed rock near Mt. Zion, on the north side of Mt. Diablo, in the Concord area, shale in the Port Costa area, and sand and sandstone deposits, mined from several locations, but focused in the Byron area of the Southeast County. Mineral resource extraction in West Contra Costa County is minimal. 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1 4.11.2.1 Mineral Resources Impacts The ordinance does not propose physical development of any kind and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. For these reasons, the project would not result in any mineral resources impacts. 4.11.3 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 96 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.12 NOISE 4.12.1 Existing Setting Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a “decibel” (dB) scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the weighted” decibel or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early morning, or late evening. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and sleeping) and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods such as Leq, DNL, or CNEL.79 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher when a jet is taking off from an airport or a leafblower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower during lulls in traffic flows on I-880 or in the middle of the night). Noise in West Contra Costa County related to single-use and reusable bags is limited to truck noise from the transport of bags to stores. 4.12.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1 2) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1 79 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with 10 dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Generally, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 97 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project result in: 3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 4.12.2.1 Noise Impacts The proposed single-use bag reduction ordinance does not include physical development of any kind and would not expose persons to excessive noise or groundborne vibration levels. Based on existing patters of distribution, it is unlikely that there would be any increase or decrease in truck trips delivering bags to retail stores in West Contra Costa County (see §4.16 Transportation). Any additional truck trips related to the transport of paper bags would not occur in great enough quantities, if at all, to result in a measurable increase in noise levels on local roadways. Reusable bags are available in the retail stores currently giving away single-use bags, in other retails stores (such as department stores), and at many websites on the internet (such as Reusablebags.com). No concentration of traffic delivering such merchandise can be identified. 4.12.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not lead to a measurable increase in noise. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 98 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Existing Setting According to 2010 Census figures, the combined population of the five Member Agencies of RecycleMore along with the unincorporated areas of West Contra Costa County is 243,640. 4.13.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 4.13.3.1 Population and Housing Impacts The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth, nor would it displace substantial numbers of people or housing. 4.13.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would have no impact on population and housing. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 99 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Existing Setting 4.14.1.1 Police and Fire Services Public services, such as police and fire protection, schools, parks, and public facilities, in the incorporated areas of West Contra Costa County are operated and maintained by the individual jurisdictions that comprise the member agencies of RecycleMore: the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo. 4.14.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? 1 Police Protection? 1 Schools? 1 Parks? 1 Other Public Facilities? 1 4.14.3.1 Public Services Impacts The proposed project aims to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. The reduction of single-use carryout bags would likely lead to a reduction of litter in public parks and recreational areas in the West County, including waterways. Although the reduction of litter in recreational areas may lead to an incremental increase in use of these facilities (such as running or bicycle trails use and sightseeing), this increase would not be so large that adverse physical effects would result. To the extent that the proposed project may incrementally reduce the resources required to keep litter cleaned up on school campuses, in public parks, and on the grounds of other public facilities in the landscaping and on the grounds of libraries, fire stations, etc.), it may free up staff and funding to maintain other parts of the facilities. The proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 100 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 project would not substantially increase the demand for public services, nor would it require construction or expansion of other public facilities. 4.14.4 Conclusion The project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with a need for new public safety, recreational or educational facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 101 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Existing Setting Parks within the incorporated areas of West Contra Costa County are operated and maintained by the individual jurisdictions that comprise the member agencies of RecycleMore: the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo. 4.15.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 4.15.2.1 Recreation Impacts The proposed project aims to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County. The reduction of single-use carryout bags would likely lead to a reduction of litter in public parks and recreational areas in the West County, including waterways. Although the reduction of litter in recreational areas may lead to an incremental increase in use of these facilities (such as running or bicycle trails use and sightseeing), this increase would not be so large that adverse physical effects would result. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 4.15.3 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to recreation facilities within West Contra Costa County. (No Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 102 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.16 TRANSPORTATION 4.16.1 Existing Setting Single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County arrive at stores from a variety of locations. According to industry representatives, roughly 85 percent of plastic bags in the U.S. are produced domestically, while the rest are imported.80 Typically, bags are transported from the manufacturing plant to regional or subregional distributors, which then provide the bags to local stores. The vast majority of product deliveries to stores are provided via trucks. The life cycle assessment (LCA) prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance by Boustead Consulting & Associates included an analysis of the transportation phases of the overall product life of plastic and paper grocery bags. The analysis assumed weights of 13.15 pounds per 1,000 plastic bags (or 0.21 ounces per bag) and 114 pounds per 1,000 paper bags (or 1.82 ounces per bag). The LCA concluded that the gross energy involved in the transport of single-use bags is 11 megajoules (MJ) per 1,000 polyethylene plastic bags and 34 MJ per 1,000 paper bags.81 The heavier weight and overall bulk of paper bags contributes to the higher energy requirement for transportation when compared to plastic bags. It can be deduced from this finding that more truck trips are required to transport a given number of paper bags compared to the same number of plastic bags. As discussed earlier, however, there is no reason to assume that the same number of paper bags would ever be needed – paper bags are bigger, and the proposed project requires that they be sold by the stores, not given away. While bags may be delivered in dedicated loads to regional distributors, they are delivered to users as part of larger mixed loads. It is not clear whether the energy use reflected in the Boustead LCA reflected that pattern and, if it did, how the amount of energy required to deliver part of a mixed load was allocated. 80 Save the Plastic Bag. An American Success Story Under Threat. Accessed October 19, 2009 at http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/. 81 A megajoule is an international unit of work, equivalent to 737.582.5 foot-pounds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 103 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.16.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses farm equipment)? 1 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 1 4.16.3.1 Transportation Impacts The proposed ordinance may lead to some short term increase in single-use paper bag use as consumers would be unable to get a free plastic bag while shopping but may be willing to pay a price ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 104 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 to use paper bags. If it occurs, a temporary increase in single-use paper-bag use, such as that discussed in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, might lead to an increase in the frequency of truck trips needed to deliver a greater number of single-use paper carryout bags to West Contra Costa County. Any increase in truck trips related to paper bag delivery would be at least partially offset by a substantial reduction in truck trips related to single-use plastic carryout bag delivery. Since the number of single-use plastic bags being delivered to the West County would be reduced by 95 percent during this same time frame, any net increase in truck traffic resulting from the change in bag use would be negligible. Four EIRs have been completed analyzing similar single-use bag reduction ordinances in the Cities of San Jose and Santa Monica, and the Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles. For scenarios with a ban on plastic bags and a cost for paper bags, the San Jose EIR estimated one net new truck trip per day, the Santa Monica EIR estimated 28 net new truck trips a year, and the County of Los Angeles EIR estimated 30 net new truck trips a day combining both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. The Alameda County EIR based its assumption on the methods used in the LA County EIR to be conservative. Each of these estimates used different variations of a methodology that compared the volume of delivery trucks to the volume of plastic and paper single- use bags. Using the County of Los Angeles Estimate, which is the most conservative, and adjusting the total to reflect RecycleMore’s service population, the proposed ordinance could result in less than one new truck trip per day. These trips would be spread throughout the West County. In reality, since bags are delivered in mixed loads of merchandise, there would probably be no more truck trips necessary to deliver paper bags. Other mechanisms, such as including single-use paper bags in deliveries more frequently or increasing routing efficiencies could be used. For the purposes of this project, a transportation impact is considered significant if it does not conform to the level of service (LOS) standards of the individual member agencies. Project traffic impacts are measured against existing traffic volumes on the existing transportation roadway network in conformance with CEQA. Any increased traffic generated by the proposed single-use bag reduction ordinance would be minimal and would not exceed the established threshold required for preparing a Traffic Impact Analysis it would not generate a substantial increase in peak hour traffic). The project would not result in a significant adverse traffic impact. 4.16.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in any significant transportation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 105 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Existing Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Supply The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides domestic water supply to 20 incorporated cities and 15 unincorporated communities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including all of West Contra Costa County. EBMUD supplies water to approximately 1.34 million people within its estimated 332-square-mile service area, which extends from Crockett in the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. EBMUD's water supply system begins at the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada and extends 90 miles to the East Bay. The EBMUD water supply system consists of a network of reservoirs, aqueducts, treatment plants, and distribution facilities. On average, 90 percent of the water delivered by EBMUD comes from the Mokelumne River watershed, with the remaining ten percent originating as runoff within the service area. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to a maximum of 325 million gallons of water per day (mgd), subject to the availability of Mokelumne River runoff and prior water rights of other users. 4.17.1.2 Stormwater The implementation of drainage facilities in Contra Costa County falls under the jurisdiction of cities for incorporated areas, the County for unincorporated areas, or the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which has adopted plans which serve both cities and the County. All three groups generally use the same design criteria in sizing and evaluating drainage systems. The cities and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District have developed regional drainage plans in many areas to guide developers in the implementation of new drainage systems serving development, and to provide the basis for local and federal flood control projects. Local drainage infrastructure is provided by developers as part of the land development process. The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities in West Contra Costa County to operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters via the cities’ storm sewer collection system. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the Municipal Regional NPDES Stormwater Permit on October 14, 2009, and included as co-permitees are: Contra Costa County, the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) In the Bay Area, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region recently recommended changes to the list of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26 Bay Area waterways as “trash-impaired” under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, including Baxter Creek, Cerrito Creek, and San Pablo ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 106 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Creek in West Contra Costa County.82 Additionally, the Central shoreline of San Francisco Bay was included, which represents the boundary between West Contra Costa County and the Bay. This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected waterways. A major component in the trash identified in waterways was “floatable debris”, which includes substantial quantities of plastic film and plastic bags. 4.17.1.3 Wastewater Sewer service in Contra Costa County is the responsibility of several municipalities and service districts. The largest sewage treatment agencies are Central Contra Costa Sanitary District which serves most of the central portion of the County; Delta Diablo, which serves the Pittsburg-Antioch area; West Contra Costa Sanitary District which serves a portion of Richmond, El Sobrante, and San Pablo; and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which serves Kensington, El Cerrito, and a portion of Richmond. Sewer service consists of the transmission of municipal and industrial wastewater to a treatment facility, treatment, and then disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids. As with water service, several cities operate their own local sewage collection system and contract with the larger agencies to treat the effluent. Other cities operate their own collection systems as well as treatment plants. 4.17.1.4 Solid Waste The California Integrated Waste Management Act, known generally as AB 939, requires cities and counties to adopt and implement waste diversion programs for source reduction, recycling and composting. RecycleMore, also referred to as the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, is a joint powers agency created by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo to implement AB 939. RecycleMore is responsible for providing waste processing services of the franchised waste stream in West Contra Costa County, which includes landfillling, recyclables processing, composting, and management of household hazardous waste. West Contra Costa County met the 50 percent waste diversion goal mandated in AB 939 in 2006, and RecycleMore continues to work to maintain this level of diversion. In 2008, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now part of the Department of Conservations’s Division of Recycling) updated the system for determining diversion goals for each city. At present, per capita landfill disposal limits are determined each year and RecycleMore works with the West County jurisdictions to meet these goals. Fines of up to $10,000 per day may be imposed if the State decides that good faith efforts are not being made to implement the approved plan or other actions to achieve the State mandated reduction in landfill disposal of trash. AB 939 specified that waste management plans must give first priority to reduction in the amount of waste and recyclable materials produced by residential, commercial and industrial generators, second priority to recycling of materials, third priority to composting of organic materials, and lowest priority to disposal of remaining trash in environmentally sound landfills. 82 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments - Category 5. USEPA Final Approval: October 11, 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 107 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.17.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,2 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,2 3) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,2 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,2 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,2 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2 4.17.3.1 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts The proposed ordinance may lead to an increase in single-use paper bag usage as consumers would be unable to acquire plastic bags but may be willing to pay to use paper bags. The paper bag lifecycle produces more solid waste than plastic bags, partly because more solid waste is produced during paper manufacture and partly because the bag creates a greater weight of solid waste at the end of its lifetime simply by being heavier than an equivalent plastic bag. As a result, the ordinance ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 108 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 may initially lead to a slight increase in solid waste entering landfills and the West County’s recycling system in the form of paper bags. Paper bags, however, are more easily handled by the West County’s recycling system than plastic bags, and recycled paper bags offer a greater market value than recycled plastic bags, increasing the likelihood of post-consumer use. Since virtually all of the single-use plastic bags currently go to landfills or end up as litter, the long term benefit will be a reduction in landfilled waste. Stormwater and Drainage A 2004 Los Angeles waste characterization study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 25 percent of the waste found in selected storm drain catch basins, by weight. A recent study completed for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) documented items of trash collected on various stretches of creeks and rivers in the San Jose area during 2005. Trash was collected from 19 different stretches of Coyote Creek, Silver Creek, and the Guadalupe River, among other waterways. The study found that plastic bags comprised approximately 10 percent of the total number of trash items collected. The study also completed a focused count at one storm drain outfall on Stevens Creek on three separate dates from October 2008 to February 2009. Of the 849 items of trash collected from this outfall, 198 were plastic bags, comprising roughly 23 percent of the overall sample. Trash assessments were conducted in both creek and land areas throughout Alameda County during July and August 2008 as part of a pilot study commissioned by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP). Across all creek and shoreline sites, plastic was the most common trash item (68 percent). Plastic items were primarily composed of Styrofoam (71 percent), bags (7 percent), food wrappers (7 percent) and other soft plastic items (6 percent). A preliminary memorandum prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) dated February 1, 2012, summarizes the results of two monitoring studies done for the Bay Area Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. The sampling included eight locations in Contra Costa County, two of which were in the West County (Richmond and San Pablo). The sampling sites were storm drain inlets that were equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture devices. The first monitoring event found “plastic grocery bags” were seven percent by volume of the total trash collected. In the second sampling event, “plastic grocery bags” were eight percent of the total.83 A substantial reduction in the quantity of plastic and paper bag litter would reduce the quantity of that litter that enters municipal storm drains and catch basins. Less litter would reduce localized flooding from backups in the storm drains and catch basins, and would lessen the pollution and clogging of the stormwater lines that drain public streets and private property throughout the West County, as well as the quantity of plastic conveyed by stormwater runoff to creeks in the West County and eventually to the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. Water Supply and Wastewater The proposed project aims to reduce the proliferation of single-use carryout bags in West Contra Costa County and increase the use of reusable bags. Some types of reusable bags can be laundered. 83 EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 109 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 An increase in the laundering of reusable bags could lead to an increased use of potable water. Since few if any families have (or are likely to ever have) a large supply of reusable shopping bags that would all require laundering at once, most bags are washed in mixed loads as one is soiled. Additionally, such bags are not washed often (the most frequent washing identified anecdotally has been once a month). The incremental impact of adding a few shopping bags to mixed laundry loads a few times a year will not substantially increase the use of potable water or the generation of wastewater. Further reducing the likelihood of the ordinance causing a significant increase in water use, most of the new reusable bags being distributed by local businesses are plastics that can be easily cleaned with a damp sponge. 4.17.4 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not result in any significant utilities and service systems impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 110 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Beneficial Impact Information Source(s) 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1-10 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1-10 3) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 1-10 4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1-10 4.18.1.1 Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As the analysis contained in the specific sections of this Initial Study shows (refer to Section 4. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts), the proposed ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts. The project would not, therefore, significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 111 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 4.18.1.2 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The cumulative discussion below is based upon consideration of a past, present, and probable future actions taken to regulate the distribution of single-use carryout bags locally, regionally, and nationally. Cumulative Projects Related to Single-Use Bag Regulation Currently, several jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area have enacted programs regulating bag use. In 2007, San Francisco banned single-use plastic bags in supermarkets and chain pharmacies. In 2009, Palo Alto (a city in Santa Clara County) banned the distribution of single-use plastic bags at supermarkets. In 2010, San Jose banned the distribution of single-use plastic bags at all retail establishments, and imposed a charge on single-use paper bags. In 2010, the County of Santa Clara, adopted an ordinance similar to San José’s, as did Alameda County in 2011. Marin County recently adopted an ordinance that is currently being challenged in court, and San Mateo County is considering a similar ordinance. In southern California, The City of Santa Monica and the County of Los Angeles have adopted ordinances similar to the San Jose ordinance, with a ban on plastic bags and a charge for paper bags. The City of Manhattan Beach had adopted a similar ordinance which was appealed to the state Supreme Court and recently upheld. Concurrently, numerous cities and counties throughout the state are in the process of considering their own single-use bag regulation programs (Sunnyvale, Milpitas, San Diego, etc.). Nationally, Washington D.C. recently enacted a fee on all single-use bags distributed in the District. Other municipalities throughout the U.S., such as Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas, are considering their own bag regulation programs. While all of these programs differ in their specifics, most have similar goals: to decrease the use of single-use bags and increase the use of reusable bags. Some programs, such as the ones in San Francisco and Palo Alto, target only plastic bags, while others, such as the one in Washington D.C., target both paper and plastic. Programs that target only plastic bags will reduce plastic bag use but might lead to an unknown increase in paper bag use. Programs that ban plastic bags and place a charge on paper bags will reduce plastic bag use but may or may not lead to an increase in paper bag use. Programs that target both bags equally will likely lead to comparable reductions in both paper and plastic bag use. The overall cumulative increase or decrease of paper and plastic bag use resulting from this wide array of programs would require a degree of speculation that would be inconsistent with the purpose of CEQA. As reflected throughout this Initial Study, there is no solid basis for guessing what future behavior will be when these various programs are fully implemented. The goals of the various programs are similar: to reduce single-use plastic bags in the environment and to replace the use of single-use bags with reusable bags. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 112 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Negative environmental effects, however, could conceivably occur if the cumulative effect of these various programs leads to a large increase in paper bag use compared to existing conditions, especially if the increased use of paper bags is permanent. However, it is more likely that the cumulative effect of more jurisdictions banning and/or regulating single-use carryout plastic and paper bags will be that more people will use reusable bags more consistently. San Jose’s ordinance will increase the fee on paper bags in two years if no other action is taken. A frequently heard reason for not using reusable bags is that people forget to take them into the store. As more people use them, more people will see other shoppers carrying the reusable bags from car to store and will remember to take them into the stores. This phenomenon was noticeable during the start-up period for curbside recycling programs – people who saw neighbors putting out recycling, remembered to put out their own. In cities that already have an ordinance in place, signs in parking lots and on shopping carts remind people to bring their reusable bags. It is reasonable to assume that the overall impact of these ordinances will be to accomplish their mutual goals of reducing the use of all single-use carryout bags and their presence in the environment. The extent to which cumulatively considerable adverse impacts could occur from increased use of single-use paper carryout bags, and the extent to which the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County could contribute to these impacts, are discussed in further detail below. Hydrology and Water Quality Consistent with the thresholds used in evaluating project-specific hydrology and water quality impacts, this analysis examines whether implementation of the cumulative projects would result in the following types of impacts: violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 113 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Discussion of Impacts Water Use As described in §4.9 of the Initial Study, the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County could result in an increased use of fresh water related to the manufacturing of paper bags. Although the specific effects of the range of single-use bag regulatory programs currently enacted or being considered are unknown, it is theoretically possible that they could lead to a cumulative increase in paper bag use. It is also possible that the increase in paper bag use could be great enough that the simultaneous reduction in plastic bag use would not completely counteract some of the environmental effects of such an increase. If this is the case, the cumulative combination of single- use carryout bag regulations could lead to an overall increase in water use related to single-use carryout paper bag manufacturing. Paper manufacturing plants that require substantial quantities of water are typically located in areas that have appropriate water supplies. Modern plants reuse incoming water multiple times, according to representatives of the paper industry, and clean it up between uses and prior to discharge, consistent with federal laws. According to the Paper Industry Association Council, nearly 79 million tons of paper was produced in the U.S. in 2009.84 An equally substantial quantity was manufactured in Canada and other countries. The increase of paper manufacturing resulting from bag regulation could be substantial if many or most of the regulations adopted throughout the U.S. allow for substantial and ongoing use of single-use carryout paper bags. If that were to occur, however, the quantity of paper bags entering paper recycling programs will also increase, and the demand for recycled paper will increase as well (all of the programs in California that regulate paper bags require recycled content). Because RecycleMore is proposing a program that will minimize the increase in single-use paper bag use through the imposition of a charge, the program proposed for West Contra Costa County will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, should one occur. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) The use of recycled paper results in fewer water quality impacts than the use of virgin feedstock, and it is assumed that most of the paper manufacturing plants in the U.S. are in compliance with the national Clean Water Act. Any increases in water use at various paper plants would not be likely to result in a significant water quality impact at a plant that meets current national Clean Water Act standards for water discharged back into the environment. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) 84 Paper Industry Association Council. “Paper and Paperboard Recovery”. 2010. Accessed June 24, 2010. http://www.paperrecycles.org/stat_pages/stat_intro.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 114 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Biological Resources Consistent with the thresholds used in evaluating project-specific biological resources impacts, this analysis examines whether implementation of the cumulative projects would result in the following types of impacts: have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ordinance. Discussion of Impacts Tree Removal As stated in §4.9 of this Initial Study, the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County could result in a short term increase in paper bag use, which may also result in a short term increase in trees cut down for virgin material to manufacture the paper bags. The paper bag industry representatives have said that most paper bags are made from commercially grown timber. These tree plantations are basically farms – the trees are planted, thinned, and managed until they are ready for harvest. Once harvested, the “crop” is replanted. Although the specific effects of the range of single-use bag regulatory programs currently enacted or being considered are unknown, it is theoretically possible that they could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in paper bag use. It is also possible that the increase in paper bag use could be great enough that the simultaneous reduction in plastic bag use would not completely offset some of the environmental effects of such an increase. If this is the case, the cumulative effects of multiple single-use carryout bag regulations could lead to an overall increase in trees cut down for paper bag manufacturing sooner than those same trees would otherwise have been cut down. Since most bag ordinances being enacted at this time also require some level of recycled content in paper bags (if single-use paper bags are allowed), much of the hypothetical increase in paper utilization would not be paper made from virgin materials but from recycled paper. While the loss of trees is a negative impact, any increase related to the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County would be a relatively minor increase in the quantity of wood used for commercial paper manufacturing in California and/or the United States. The associated habitat loss from this small contribution to the cumulative impact would be mitigated by replanting the trees. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 115 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Forestry Consistent with the thresholds used in evaluating project-specific biological resources impacts, this analysis examines whether implementation of the cumulative projects would result in the following types of impacts: conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use Discussion of Impacts As stated in §4.0 of the Initial Study, the proposed ordinance might lead to a short term increase in the use of single-use paper bags with a minimum of 40 percent recycled content, as consumers would be unable to get the single-use plastic bags but some people might be willing to pay at the checkout stand to use recycled content paper bags. A short term increase in demand for single-use paper bags could result in increased timber harvesting and paper manufacturing. However, the project is proposing to limit single-use carryout paper bags to 40 percent recycled content, which would reduce the loss of trees as a result of any increase in demand for single-use paper bags in West Contra Costa County. Although the specific effects of the range of single-use bag regulatory programs currently enacted or being considered are unknown, it is theoretically possible that they could result in a cumulatively considerable increase in paper bag use. It is also possible that the increase in paper bag use could be great enough that the simultaneous reduction in plastic bag use would not completely counteract some of the environmental effects of such an increase. If this is the case, the cumulative effects of multiple single-use carryout bag regulations could lead to an overall increase trees cut down for paper bag manufacturing sooner than those same trees would otherwise have been cut down. However, paper industry representatives state that a substantial percentage of the trees used in paper making are grown for that purpose.85 Therefore, most of the trees that could be cut down to manufacture additional paper bags are grown for paper and will be removed soon thereafter even if not used for single-use paper bags sold in West Contra Costa County. While the loss of trees is a negative impact, any increase related to the proposed ordinance in West Contra Costa County would be a relatively minor increase in wood used for commercial paper manufacturing nationwide. Since the trees are grown for paper manufacturing, a near term increase in paper bag demand in the West County might cause trees to be harvested sooner than they would otherwise have been used trees would not be cut down for paper that would not otherwise have been cut down for paper). The tree plantations are replanted and new trees grown to replace them. 85 Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates provided information from the Paper Bag Council; December 1, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 116 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 As a result, it is unlikely that the proposed ordinance would result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project proposed for the West County, therefore, will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, should one occur. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) Conclusions: The proposed regulation of single-use plastic and paper carryout bags will not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to cumulatively significant environmental impacts. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impacts) 4.18.1.3 Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The proposed ordinance is designed in a manner that reduces both short- and long-term environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible, and will not result in any identifiable adverse long term environmental impacts. 4.18.1.4 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As the analysis contained in the specific sections of this report (refer to Section 4. Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts) shows, the proposed ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, nor would it cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 117 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Checklist Sources: 1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review of ordinance). 2. Boustead Consulting & Associates. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Peer Reviewed in 2007. 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Viewed July 5, 2012. Available at: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm 4. National Marine Sanctuaries. “Cordell Bank 2009 Condition Report – Pressures on the Sanctuary”. 2009. 5. NOAA. Cordell Bank National Martine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. June 2009. 6. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf. 7. California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm 8. Sporometrics. Grocery Carry Bag Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Reusable Bags and “First or Single-use” Plastic Bags. 2009. 9. Josephson, K.L., Rubino, J.R., Pepper, I.L. "Characterization and quantification of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in household kitchens with and without the use of a disinfectant cleaner". Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 83 No.6, pp.737-50. 1997. 10. Press, Daniel. Toxic Releases from Paper Made With Recovered Wastepaper versus Virgin Wood Fiber: A Research Note. Published by Springer-Verlag, NY. 1996. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 118 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Randall, Paul. EOA, Inc. Email communication. March 11, 2009. Weise, Barry J.D. Legislative & Regulatory Analyst, District Department of the Environment. Email Communication. June 2, 2010. Ad Hoc Committee on the Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Characterization of Urban Litter. Staff report dated June 18, 2004. Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Pelagic Plastic. April 9, 2007. Anacostia Watershed Society for the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. December 2008. Available at: http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/cwp/view,a,1209,q,499180.asp Andrady, Tony L. Ph.D. “Plastics in the Marine Environment: A Technical Perspective”. Center for Engineering Technology RTI International. Arthur, Courtney, Holly Bamford and Joel Baker. “The Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Small Plastic Debris in the Oceans.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration White Paper prepared for a workshop held 9/9-10/08. September 3, 2008. Australia Department of the Environment and Heritage. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts, Final Report. December 2002. Barb Ogg, Ph.D., and Clyde Ogg. “Least Toxic Cockroach Control”. http://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/pest/factsheets/120-94.htm Barnes, David K. Francois Galbani, Richard C. Thompson, and Morton Barlaz. “Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (7/27/2009) 364:1985-1998. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guidelines, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Accessed July 5, 2012. Available at: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm Bernstein, Michael. Plastics in Oceans decompose, release hazardous chemicals, surprising new study says. August 19, 2009 Hard plastics decompose in oceans, releasing endocrine disruptor BPA. March 23, 2010. Boustead Consulting & Associates. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Peer Reviewed in 2007. California Energy Commission. 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. November 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 119 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf. California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2008. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm “SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee”. Accessed February 18, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/rtac.htm California Department of Transportation, District 7 Litter Management Pilot Study. June 26, 2000. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW-RT-00-013.pdf [Last accessed on September 27, 2010] California Energy Commission. 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC-100-2007-008CMF). Energy Almanac. California’s Major Sources of Energy. July 1, 2008. http://energy/almanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html. Energy Almanac. Historic Statewide California Electricity Demand. August 29, 2008. http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/historic_peak_demand.html Energy Almanac. Overview of Natural Gas in California. http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/naturalgas/overview.html. California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Guidelines. 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.pdf Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. April 1, 2009. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/ California Integrated Waste Management Board. Overview of Results of CIWMB 2005 Targeted Waste Characterization Studies, Plastics Interested Parties Meeting. June 2, 2006. Zero Waste California, Recycle Plastic Grocery Bags. November 15, 2007. http://zerowaste.ca.gov/plasticbags/default.htm Margo Reid Brown, Board Chair. Recycling for the Environment. July 2, 2007. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/blog/issue/margo-reid-brown-bag-recycle-blog/general Statewide Waste Characterization Study. December 2004. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor’s Climate Change Initiative). 2006. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resources/res_04_an106.html ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 120 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 California Ocean Protection Council. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. November 20, 2008. California Senate Bill No. 375. Accessed February 18, 2009. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351- 400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf Chalmers Industriteknik. Life Cycle Assessment of Distribution in Four Different Distribution Systems in Europe. October 2000. City of Los Angeles, Inter-Departmental Correspondence. Los Angeles River Plastics Industry Task Force – Final Report. August 3, 2005. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Policy Tools for Reducing Impact of Single-use, Carryout Plastic Bags and EPS Food Packaging”. June 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.ci.la.ca.us/san/solid_resources/recycling/CityStaff/PDF/2008/Plastics_Report.pdf City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation Watershed Protection Division. “High Trash-Generation Areas and Control Measures”. January 2002. City of San Jose. Case Studies of Industrial Water Conservation in the San Jose Area. February 1990. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance. July 2010. Litter Assessment. August 2009. John Stufflebean. Memo to the Transportation and Environment Committee: Reduction of Single-use Carryout Bags. January 20, 2009. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR. June 2010. County of Los Angeles. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County. August 2007. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags In Los Angeles County - Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 2010. Day, Robert H. and David G. Shaw and Steven E. Ignell. “The Quantitative Distribution and Characteristics of Neuston Plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1985-1899. Publ. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS, 1990. Delgado, Renee. “Is Soy Ink Better Than Conventional Ink”. http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Soy-Ink- Better-Than-Conventional-Ink?&id=3457161 Eagle-Tribune. “Derry twins clean up litter filled wetlands area”. March 24, 2010. http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x794086340/Derry-twins-clean-up-litter-filled- wetlands-area Ecobilan. Evaluation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse Carrefour. February 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 121 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 EOA, Inc. Trash Assessment Pilot Project. February 25, 2009. Available at: 09/comments/ACCWP_Attachment_4.pdf EuroCommerce. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. September 2004. European Plastics Recyclers. Press Release - OXO Degradable Additives are Incompatible with Mechanical Recycling. June 10, 2009. Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator. Available at: http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/ Environmental Health Watch. “Cockroach Control Guide”. 2010. http://www.ehw.org/Asthma/ASTH_Cockroach_Control.htm Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Accessed April 20, 2009. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport09.html Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. August 2002. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. November 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 facts and Figures. November 2008. Office of Compliance. Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries. September 1997. Office of Compliance. Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd Edition. November 2002. European Plastics Recyclers. Press Release - OXO Degradable Additives are Incompatible with Mechanical Recycling. June 10, 2009. Franklin Associates. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. 1990. Goffredi, Shana Charles K. Paull, Kim Fulton-Bennett, Luis A. Hurtado, and Robert C. Vrijenhoek. “Unusual benthic fauna associated with a whale fall in Monterey Canyon, California”. May 20, 2004. Elsevier Direct. Green Cities California. Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. March 2010. Gregory, Murray R. “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 364, 2013-2025. 2009. Henderson, John R. “Marine Debris in Hawaii”; Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fisherman’s Conference on Marine Debris, Alverson, DL and June, JA (eds). October 13-16, 1987, p. IB9-206. The Fisheries Management Foundation. (Available from Natural Resources Consultants, 4055-21st Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199) ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 122 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 1. January 29, 2008. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 2, January 29, 2008. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. City of San Jose Single-use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis. June 22, 2010. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Bases, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007. Available at: http://ipcc.ch/ Ireland Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government, Plastic Bags, 2007. http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags/ Josephson, K.L., Rubino, J.R., Pepper, I.L. "Characterization and quantification of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in household kitchens with and without the use of a disinfectant cleaner". Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 83 No.6, pp.737-50. 1997. Mrosovsky, Geraldine D. Ryan, Michael C. James. “Leatherback Turtles: The menace of plastic”. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2009 287-289. MTC. Draft EIR for the Transportation 2035 Plan (Transportation in Motion 2035). January 2009. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/EIR.htm National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Life Cycle Assessment of North American Unbleached Grocery Bags – Final Report (Draft). February 5, 2010. National Marine Sanctuaries. “Cordell Bank 2009 Condition Report – Pressures on the Sanctuary”. 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Greenhouse Gases Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.giv/oa/climate/gases.html Nevins, Hannah, David Hyrenbach, Carol Kelper, Jenny Stock, Michelle Hester, and Jim Harvey. “Paper for Plastic Debris Rivers to the Sea Conference 2005: Seabirds as indicators of plastic pollution in the North Pacific”. [Provided by personal communication from Jim Harvey.] New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “Cockroach”. 2010. New York Times. Accessed July 7, 2010. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/shouldering- waste-on-the-trek-down-mount-everest/ Nixon, Scott W. “Coastal Marine Eutrophication: A Definition, Social Causes, and Future Concerns”, an abstract. February 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 123 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 NOAA. Cordell Bank National Martine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. June 2009. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. “Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia simuls): Western North Atlantic Stock”. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/dwarfspermwhale.htm NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps): Western North Atlantic Stock”. Ocean Conservancy. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris (And What We Can Do About It), 2009. Available at: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.pdf Office of Planning and Research. “OPR Calendar, Announcements, Events.” CEQA Guidelines and Greenhouse Gases. Available at: http://opr.ca.gov/. Accessed September 7, 2009. Press, Daniel. Toxic Releases from Paper Made With Recovered Wastepaper versus Virgin Wood Fiber: A Research Note. Published by Springer-Verlag, NY. 1996. Sadove, Samuel S. and Stephen J. Morreale, Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, Inc. “Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Encounters with Marine Debris in the New York Bight and the Northeast Atlantic”. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (eds). April 1989, Honolulu Hawaii. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS, 1990. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Gross Pollutants, Trash and Debris in Bay Area Storm Drain Channels, Creeks, Wetlands and San Francisco Bay. 2007. Resolution No. R2-2009-0008 Recommending Changes to the List of Water Bodies as Required in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, February 11, 2009. Staff Report – Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions for the San Francisco Bay Region – Proposed Revisions to Section 303(d) List, February 2009. ml San Francisco Chronicle. “Adding Up the Cost of Bags,” January 25, 2005. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/25/BUGCJAVPAI1.DTL San Francisco Department of the Environment. November 18, 2004 Bag Cost Analysis: Costs Associated with Paper and Plastic Bags. November 18, 2004, http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfenvironment_page.asp?id=28374. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Lessons Learned from Pilot Trash Sources and Pathways Assessment. February 25, 2009. Personal Communication with Chris Sommers, Managing Scientist at Eisenberg, Olivieri, and Associates, March 11, 2009. Save the Plastic Bag. An American Success Story Under Threat. Accessed October 19, 2009 at http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 124 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 Scottish Executive. Environment Group Research Report, Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment. August 2005. Spear, Larry David G. Ainley & Christine A. Ribic; “Incidence of Plastic in Seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984-91: Relation with Distribution of Species, Sex, Age, Season, Year and Body Weight”; Elsevier Science Limited 0141-1136/95. August 16, 1994. Page 123. Sporometrics. Grocery Carry Bag Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Reusable Bags and “First or Single-use” Plastic Bags. 2009. StopWaste.Org. Mandatory Recycling and Single-Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Draft EIR. August 2011. Taji, SS, Rogers, AH, “The microbial contamination of toothbrushes. A pilot study,” Australian Dental Journal, 43(2), pp.128-30, 1998. Thompson, Richard Charles J. Moore, Frederick S. vom Saal and Shanna H. Swan. “Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends”; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (2009) 1, 1-14. United States Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. N.d., http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html. University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Management. “Integrated Pest Management for Cockroaches”. http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/homegrnd/htms/roach.htm Washington Post. “D.C. bag tax collects $150,000 in January for river cleanup”. March 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903336.html Water “Pollution of Streams by Garbage and Trash”. Accessed May 24, 2010. Yoshida, Howard O. “Marine Debris: A Growing Concern”. A brief summary of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris held in November 1984 in Honolulu, Hawaii. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/marinedebris101/reference_non.html Persons Contacted: Aldrich, Bob. State of California Energy Commission. Personal Communication, March 28, 2007, Data available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use.pdf. Chan, Allison. Save the Bay via Ocean Conservancy. Email Communication, December 9, 2009. Kaufman, Debra, StopWaste. Personal communication. March 9, 2010. Patrick Rita, Orion Advocates. Email Communication. Provided information from the Paper Bag Council, December 1, 2009. Powers, David. President, DJP&A. Personal communication, 1993. ---PAGE BREAK--- Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 125 Initial Study RecycleMore August 2012 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS LEAD AGENCY RecycleMore Chris Lehon, Executive Director CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Michelle Yesney, Vice President/Principal Project Manager Michael Lisenbee, Project Manager Stephanie Francis, Graphic Artist