Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/27/2020 - PLASTIC POLLUTION UPDATE (2)DATE: STAFF: October 27, 2020 Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Utilities Watershed Program Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Plastic Pollution Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to update Council on the status of the Microplastics Mitigation Study and Macroplastic Pollution Awareness and Policy work. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED MACROPLASTIC POLLUTION: Which option would councilmembers like staff to pursue for plastic pollution? 1) Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion. Focus awareness work funded through 2020 on making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions; re-evaluate policy work in 2021 based on readiness criteria (outlined below). 2) Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible option with respect to COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach to other plastic items in 2021. 3) Comprehensive Approach. In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and maintain comprehensive approach. 4) Refer Ballot Initiative. In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag regulation on the April 2021 ballot. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Reducing plastics pollution is a Council priority, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero Waste goal to produce zero waste by 2030 as well as its goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed. Past Council Action • Funding o Midcycle budget offers funded ▪ $35k to conduct plastic pollution reduction awareness and engagement during 2020. ▪ $35k for a study to address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways. • Work Session February 11, 2020 o During this work session, staff provided plastic pollution context and learnings from peer communities. (Attachment 1) Council provided direction for action both on micro and macro pollution. Macroplastic Pollution Awareness and Policy Update 1) Awareness: Outreach and Data Collection BFO Offer Update a. Elements that have changed o Majority of campaign was delayed due to budget restrictions between March and mid-July. o Some messages have been adapted and presentations have been held virtually. October 27, 2020 Page 2 o Litterati app to characterize local plastic pollution had limited participation, as the best conditions for litter collection are in spring, which coincided with the onset of COVID-19. b. Progress o Adapted consumer awareness campaign in response to COVID-19: May the Fork Be With You campaign (Attachment 2). o Outreach to businesses and groups interested in plastic pollution from March through September. o Fall business recognition and awareness campaign will launch in late October and run through the end of the year. Campaign will feature businesses reducing plastic pollution and provide tips businesses can apply in their operations. o Community science and litter pick up campaign ran from March-July. Staff has also secured another year of the Litterati license to continue collecting litter pick up data. 2) Policy Development: Progress Update A. Councilmember direction: Targeted engagement and equity lens 1) Elements that have changed o COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted several of the stakeholder groups that would potentially be highly impacted by a plastic policy. o With other priorities such as navigating closures, lost business, paying rent, and covering basic needs for these groups during the pandemic, this is a challenging time to ask for input. The Our Climate Future planning project has worked to engage these stakeholder groups and has encountered significant barriers to these groups engaging at this time; the same difficulty applies to engagement on the plastics topic. B. Councilmember direction: Robust stakeholder and community engagement 1) Elements that have changed o During several months of engagement we have heard from primarily members of environmental groups and senior community members, and not the community at-large. ▪ Broad engagement tools not getting typical results (e.g. Utility Bill inserts). ▪ Low participation may relate to the significant focus in the community on COVID-19. o While there are committed individuals asking for change, it is unclear if there is broad support without more diverse participation. 2) Progress o Policy-focused outreach campaign including presentations, advertising, OurCity informational website and two online surveys between March and October of 2020. o Over 200 community members have engaged to date, primarily people from environmental groups and senior community members. ▪ Individual community members have also shared their interest directly with Council and staff is aware of a 600+ person petition to ban plastic bags. C. Councilmember direction: Take a comprehensive approach to policy development 1) Elements that have changed o A comprehensive approach assumes the ability of community members to use reusable items (mugs, bags, containers etc.). Due to COVID-19 and new corporate policies, reusables are not currently allowed in many businesses. ▪ It is unclear when these will be available again making implementation uncertain. October 27, 2020 Page 3 2) Progress o 117 people have shown support for acting on many types of single-use plastic items (recognizing the limitations of who has been/not been engaged) with only four respondents disagreeing that the City should act. See Attachment 3 for more information. D. Councilmember direction: Collect more data on the problem and existing solutions 1) Elements that have changed o Data collection from businesses ▪ Businesses have been closed or operating in a limited capacity, making outreach to them about plastic pollution policy difficult. 2) Progress o See “Outreach and Data Collection BFO offer update” above for information on the Litterati community science data collection effort. o 4 out of 9 major and natural/organic grocery stores in Fort Collins offer a bag credit for bringing a reusable bag in non-COVID times. (Attachment 4) Other elements that have changed ● Staff capacity o Due to retirement and COVID-related deployments , the Waste Reduction and Recycling team is currently understaffed. ● Resources o The mid-cycle offer for plastic pollution awareness and engagement was on pause from March-July to support the 2020 budget rebalancing process, meaning only Q3 and Q4 is left for planning and executing policy engagement and awareness work. Figure 1. Summary: Awareness and Policy Work Challenges Key: COVID-19 Staffing On track Possible approaches for moving forward As discussed, community and stakeholder capacity for engagement, lack of reusable alternatives and unclear timelines for when they will be reintroduced, and understaffing present significant challenges to policy development. Recognizing this, the following options, including staff’s recommendation, are intended to focus future efforts based on Council direction. October 27, 2020 Page 4 1) Staff Recommendation - Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion. Focus awareness work funded through 2020 on making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions; re-evaluate policy work in 2021 based on readiness criteria (outlined below). Benefits: o Respects community priorities and limitations (e.g. basic needs, rent, lost business, etc.) related to COVID-19. o Allows staff to focus on supporting businesses on COVID-19-related strategies to mitigate plastic waste. o Delivers on awareness element of Council priority in anticipated timeline. o Future policy work can be timed to when reusable alternatives are available again. o Early results indicate future policy work may be supported by plastic-related strategies emerging from the Our Climate Future planning process. Risks: o This approach will not deliver a new plastics pollution policy for Council consideration by the end of Q1 2021. Proposed Criteria for Restarting Policy Engagement o Alternatives to single-use plastic items (e.g. reusable bags, mugs, etc.) are available or there is indication of their reintroduction within a one-year timeframe o Community partners connected to key stakeholders indicate various groups are ready to engage in the conversation o Staff proposes a mid-2021 update to Council on readiness criteria status 2) Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible option with respect to COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach to other plastic items in 2021. Benefits: o Mid-cycle funding available to support engagement. o Advances Council priority with a policy consideration. Risks: o The highly impacted stakeholders may not be available for engagement. o Scope of engagement and policy process is more limited than initially proposed. o May need to be evaluated for consistency with State legislation. o Would require new or redeployed additional staffing, such as a co-lead to support engagement. 3) Comprehensive Approach. In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and maintain comprehensive approach. Benefit: o Delivers comprehensive policy for this Council’s consideration. Risks: o Policy conversation may not get needed buy-in in the current moment. ▪ If the community does not support, may impede future policy work. o Policy may not be possible to implement for several years due to COVID and conditions may change significantly in that time. o To accomplish comprehensive policy work, would require additional staffing or staff resources would have to be diverted from other Environmental Services Department priorities (such as Our Climate Future, Regional Wasteshed, etc.), given the short timeframe now remaining for comprehensive plastics policy engagement. October 27, 2020 Page 5 4) Refer Ballot Initiative. In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag regulation on the April 2021 ballot. Benefit: o If successful, a ballot initiative would enact plastic bag regulation, reducing the amount of plastic bags that become litter. Risks: o Ballot initiative may have similar challenges as the Comprehensive Approach above, specifically, the availability of potentially highly-impacted community members and businesses to inform an equitable policy solution, of staff to develop ballot language, and of reusable alternatives due to the pandemic. o May need to be evaluated for consistency with State legislation. o Few peer or leading city examples are available to learn from. ▪ The only example City staff is currently aware of is Louisville, CO. Louisville has referred a plastic bag fee of 25-cents to the April 2021 ballot. Microplastic Pollution Update 1) BFO offer: Council appropriated $35,000 as part of the 2019 mid-cycle budget process to fund a study to address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways. There is currently an information gap that limits the ability of staff to quantify the occurrence of microplastics and develop a targeted mitigation action plan. Staff proposed hiring a contractor to conduct a scientific review of available microplastics monitoring and analytical methods and best practices and technologies for the collection and treatment of water to mitigate microplastics pollution within the City’s drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. a. Elements that have changed o The project was paused in 2020 due to budgetary restrictions. o The COVID-19 Pandemic has forced program staff to adjust work priorities, workloads and schedules in order to continue providing world class services to our community while also providing necessary care for family members. o Expanded technical support for the Halligan Expansion as well as the emerging monitoring, response and recovery efforts for the Cameron Peak Wildfire have resulted in no staff capacity to complete the Microplastics Pollution Mitigation Project in 2020. b. Progress o Budgetary restrictions and constraints on staff capacity delayed progress on this project. o Staff will re-evaluate by the end of Q2 2021 if it will be feasible to complete in 2021. A reappropriation of 2020 funds will be required to complete this project. By this time, more will be known about the wildfire response and recovery effort resource needs. 2) Council direction: Council desired the project to also focus on outcomes related the health impacts of microplastics on people and wildlife a. How direction would be addressed o The prevalence of microplastics in our local waterways and impacts to humans and wildlife are not well understood. This project will provide an inventory of monitoring and analytical methods. Evaluating the toxicity of microplastics to people and wildlife is beyond the scope of this study; however, mitigating microplastics pollution with the City’s water infrastructure will likely lessen health risks of these pollutants to people and wildlife. October 27, 2020 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Agenda Item Summary - Work Session February 11, 2020 (PDF) 2. Spring Awareness Campaign (PDF) 3. Community Engagement Data (PDF) 4. Data Collection (PDF) 5. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) DATE: STAFF: February 11, 2020 Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Utilities Watershed Program WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Mitigating Plastics Pollution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to share existing best practice research and to propose taking a comprehensive approach to mitigating single-use (macroplastic) pollution, while continuing to study microplastic pollution. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Macroplastics pollution 1.Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement approach to reducing plastic pollution? 2.Does Council have a preference on an initial focus area (e.g., plastic bags, straws, take-out containers)? Microplastics pollution 3.Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing microplastics? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council has identified plastics pollution as a priority concern for the City to mitigate, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero Waste goal to produce zero waste by 2030 and its goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed. Waste Reduction Context In Fort Collins, plastic makes up around 10% of what is landfilled as “municipal solid waste ”. With a community vision of producing zero waste by 2030, mitigating plastic pollution will be a necessary component of achieving this goal. River Health Context A healthy Poudre River and surrounding watershed provides innumerable benefits to the Fort Collins community, some of which include reliable, high quality water supply; flood attenuation and protection; recreation, health and wellness opportunities; healthy plant communities and habitat for fish and wildlife. Accordingly, the City invests considerable resources each year to ensure that the health of Poudre River is maintained and whenever possible, improved. Plastic pollution has the potential to negatively impact all these beneficial functions, whereas conversely, mitigating the problem supports and potentially even enhances outcomes in these areas. Overview of Micro and Macroplastic Pollution Sources and Pathways Practitioner knowledge about micro- and macroplastics differs. While the former is still a relatively new area, more is known about how to measure, track, and mitigate macroplastic pollution. ATTACHMENT 1 COPY February 11, 2020 Page 2 Microplastics Microplastics are small plastic particles that are less than 5 millimeters in size and can include both visible and microscopic particles and fibers. Microplastics include particles that are either intentionally manufactured at very small sizes for the production of other plastic products or particles that form when larger plastic materials break down and fragment into progressively smaller pieces. These plastics originate from a variety of sources, including car tires, road markings, litter, personal care products, synthetic textiles and clothing, among others. The pathways for these materials to enter the environment include domestic and industrial disposal via the wastewater collection system and subsequent discharge of treated wastewater, stormwater runoff from the urban landscape, and improper disposal. Once these materials enter aquatic and terrestrial environments, they present hazards to fish, wildlife and potentially even humans, through ingestion and/or chemical exposure. While the ubiquity of microplastics in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is well recognized, there is much less information available about effective methods for identifying, monitoring and mitigating microplastics pollution. As a result, the City is currently limited in its ability to develop targeted action plans around this issue. To begin addressing this knowledge gap, Utilities provided funding in 2019 towards a microplastics study of the South Platte River Basin that was designed to identify sampling and analytical methods that are well -suited for Rocky Mountain streams. The study is a cooperative effort between Inland Ocean Coalition and the University of Colorado-Boulder. Utilities supporting funds for this project came from the Utilities Watershed Program operational budget and enabled the inclusion of two new study sites on the Poudre River. Additionally, through the 2019 mid-cycle budget revision process, Council funded $35,000 for the purpose of conducting a scientific review focused on (1) analytical and sampling methods for monitoring microplastics; and (2) control technologies and industry best practices for mitigating microplastics pollution during the treatment of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. Macroplastics Macroplastics are plastic particles (or products) larger than 5mm, including but not limited to s ingle-use plastic items such as grocery bags, cups, take-out containers, etc. While some plastic is actively littered, many single- use plastic items enter the environment inadvertently. As depicted in the graphic below, winds can gust lightweight plastic items out of receptacles (or garbage trucks or landfills) and into the surrounding area. From there, storm events move plastic items into natural areas and local waterways. Once in natural areas and waterways, they may persist for hundreds of years, degradi ng into microplastics and at risk of being ingested by wildlife. Global markets and impacts Global markets for recyclable materials have suffered due to sweeping nationwide policy changes in China that halted the import of U.S. recycling commodities, including plastic materials. As the largest end-market for U.S. recycled plastics, this change has dramatically impacted cities’ ability to maintain recycling for some types of low - grade plastic. Single-use items, including those made from low-grade plastic, often have a higher environmental impact than the same items made from sturdier materials that can withstand reuse (for example, durable plastic bags or utensils). While the environmental “payback” period may be longer for reusable items, they reduce environmental impacts along the supply chain, as well as locally. COPY February 11, 2020 Page 3 Regional Wasteshed Coalition Fort Collins, Larimer County, Loveland, Estes Park, and Wellington have collaborated since 2015 to plan for waste, recycling, and composting infrastructure onc e the Larimer County landfill reaches capacity. Waste-to- Energy (WTE), a technical process that converts materials, such as plastic, into energy through a combustion process, was identified as a Tier II recommendation. After Tier I recommendations have bee n implemented, the coalition will evaluate how waste-to-energy could recover single-use plastic items that cannot be recycled. The Regional Wasteshed Coalition’s Policy Advisory Committee is scheduled to re -assess Tier 2 recommendations (including waste to energy) in Q4 of 2020. Past Council Actions In 2014, City Council passed a single-use bag policy requiring grocers to charge a 10-cent fee on plastic and paper bags. Under this ordinance, grocers retained the fee with 50% being directed to the purchase and distribution of free durable bags for customers. This ordinance was repealed later in 2014 in response to the concerns of community members opposing restrictions on single-use bags. Best Practice Approaches to Mitigating Single-Use Plastic Pollution Measures to reduce plastic pollution range in mitigation potential, for example, awareness about littering or recycling plastic items (Attachment 1) may not have the same efficacy as options that reduce consumption of plastic in the first place. Many cities have embraced the “reduce” philosophy in order to disrupt the pathway described above. By reducing the consumption of single -use items, environmental impacts along the supply chain are also addressed. To understand nationwide best practices, staff engaged a Colorado consulting firm Ecocycle to speak with program managers across the U.S. about their plastic policies. Based on this research, some common mechanisms to reduce single-use plastics include: •Banning items •Enacting fees on items •Restricting certain items and/or in certain situations o e.g., making accessory items like utensils available upon request only •Awareness (generally paired with another measure to increase efficacy) Some cities have targeted efforts to reduce single-use plastic as a whole category instead of enacting stand-alone policies that target individual plastic items (e.g., straws, bags, etc.). This comprehensive approach looks across multiple single-use plastic items and bundles of policies that, together, create a larger mitigation strategy to be implemented over time (multiple years). Creating a roadmap means impacted businesses and groups in the community know what to expect, can use up existing stocks, and have time to identify replacement items. Comprehensive approaches also allow time for the community to adjust to changes and learn from each policy component. COPY February 11, 2020 Page 4 Cities with Comprehensive Approaches Attachment 2 lists peer cities, Colorado cities, and other U.S. cities that have acted on single-use plastics. Attachment 3 provides a case study of Palo Alto’s policy work to mitigate plastic pollution. Current Actions - Plastic awareness campaign, data collection, and stakeholder engagement Through the 2019 mid-cycle budget revision process, Council funded $35,000 for an awarene ss and outreach campaign on plastic pollution, covering both macro and microplastics (separate from the $35,000 funded for scientific review on microplastics). The campaign will launch in Q2 and raise awareness on why single -use plastic items (macroplastics) are damaging to the environment, how they get there, and how they may eventually become microplastics. It will also encourage residents to: • Reduce their use of single-use plastic items by declining items when they are offered and un-necessary • Bring their own reusable items • Correctly dispose of plastic items when they can’t be avoided. The campaign will also have a business component that is currently under development. In order to further raise awareness about the problem, the campaign will provide op portunities for the community to take action by: 1. Removing plastic litter from the environment using the Litterati app Litterati <https://www.litterati.org/about> is an app that allows community members to photograph, tag, and geocode litter before disposing of it. Over 100,000 users in 117 countries have used this app to remove litter from their surrounding areas. In a collaboration between Sustainability Services, Natural Areas, and Human Resources, volunteers will be directed to download the app for City-led cleanups. The broader community will also be invited to participate in challenges. An additional benefit of Litterati is its ability to provide staff with data on: • Ratio of plastic to other materials • Percentage of specific types of plastic relative to all plastic found • Whether these data points are influenced by location COPY February 11, 2020 Page 5 2.Providing input on what the City should do to mitigate single-use plastic pollution in Fort Collins. Outreach will include opportunities for community members to share thoughts, as well as engage key stakeholders on a more targeted basis (e.g., the accessibility community and straws), acknowledging that this is a communitywide issue and that certain groups and businesses may be disproportionately impacted. Initial list of stakeholder categories (Subject to refinement based on Council direction) -Residents -Members of the accessibility community who must regularly use single use plastics -Historically underrepresented community groups, residents, and business owners -Local businesses (restaurants, grocery stores, retail stores, etc.) who provide single use plastics to their customers or otherwise rely on them to do business -Local businesses who manage single use plastic waste or who use it as a raw material -Local business associations and chambers of commerce -Local producers and suppliers of single use plastics (for example, wholesale suppliers of single use plastics) -Local nature, environment, and sustainability focused advocacy groups -Organizations directly involved in litter clean up -City departments Key Takeaways Staff’s evaluation of peer, Colorado, and U.S. cities has led to the identification of best practices that Fort Collins could build upon, if Council desires to move forward. Key learnings from staff’s review of other cities actions and best practices are: •Take a comprehensive approach that includes multiple items (e.g., individual type of plastic products), allowing the community to know what to expect, use up existing stocks, and have ti me to identify replacement items. •Phase policy-development and implementation over time (multiple years). •Move toward reusables and away from disposables. •Thoughtfully engage stakeholders, including groups and businesses that will be impacted by policy me asures. Fort Collins is in a strong position of having some of the key characteristics of successful cities, including well - founded policies based on community vision and goals (Zero Waste, Climate Action Plan), as well as collaboration through regional wasteshed planning. Next Steps •Gather community and stakeholder input •Launch plastics awareness campaign and collect data (midcycle offer) o Gather community and stakeholder input •Regional Wasteshed Coalition’s Policy Advisory Committee is scheduled to reas sess Tier 2 recommendations (including waste to energy) in Q4 of 2020. •June 9, 2020 City Council work session. ATTACHMENTS 1.Types of Single-Use Plastic Items (PDF) 2.List of Cities taking action (PDF) 3.Comprehensive Approach Case Study-Palo Alto (PDF) 4.Powerpoint presentation (PDF) COPY 1 Types of Single-Use Plastic Items Types of Single-Use Plastics The broader category of single-use plastic includes a wide-range of items, from cigarette butts and sanitary wipes to plastic bags and straws. The items listed below are those most commonly addressed by municipal plastic policies. Carry-out bags: Bags made of thin, flexible plastic designed to transport purchases Polystyrene: Plastic foam take-out coffee cups, plates, and containers. Foodware: Plastic plates, cups, and utensils. Accessory items: Lids, utensils, straws, stirrers, etc. ATTACHMENT 1 COPY 1 Who is Taking Action? Key: X = has taken action, P = planning to take action, C = comprehensive approach, R = repealed Peer City Carry-out bags Polystyrene food containers Accessory items Food serviceware Fort Collins, CO R Palo Alto, CA C C C P Santa Barbara, CA X X X Santa Rosa, CA X X Portland, ME X X Eugene, OR X X Boulder, CO X Tacoma, WA X Colorado City Denver, CO X Boulder, CO X Avon, CO X P Telluride X Aspen X Carbondale X Breckenridge X Fraser X Frisco X Vail X Nederland X Crested Butte X Avon X Ridgeway X Steamboat Springs X Winter Park X Sample U.S. Cities - Not Comprehensive Seattle, WA C C C C Berkeley, CA C C C C Albuquerque, NM X Austin, TX X San Francisco, CA X X Baltimore, MD X New York City, NY X Davis, CA X X Berkeley, CA X X ATTACHMENT 2 COPY 1 Comprehensive Approach Case Study – Palo Alto Population: 66,666 Disposable Bag Policy (2008) The City of Palo Alto began addressing single-use plastics in 2008 with the adoption of its Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance which banned the distribution of single-use plastic carry-out bags from grocery stores. After subsequent creek cleanup events showed that plastic bags were still prevalent in local creeks and on streets, the policy was updated in 2013 to include all retailers and food service establishments. The updated ordinance also required a 10-cent fee on all paper and reusable bags that were distributed to deter the use of single-use paper bags. In 2019, the policy was updated again to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags for produce, meat, and bulk food bags and require these bags to be certified compostable (paper or bioplastic). The city’s policy is now one of the most comprehensive in the country because it affects many different business types, including all retailers and food service establishments, and many different types of single-use plastic bags, including carry-out bags as well as meat, produce and bulk food bags. Key drivers for success •Other local policies: Palo Alto’s plastic bag ban followed in the footsteps of other California cities including San Francisco and Santa Monica. •Store leadership: Three of the city’s seven supermarkets had stopped distributing plastic bags as the city was exploring the policy. •Community support: Public and City Council supported exploring policy options. Local nonprofits dedicated to the reduction of plastic pollution were helpful in garnering community support. Effectiveness at meeting local goals •City data from creek cleanups showed a 90% reduction in the amount of plastic bags in the creeks after ordinance went into effect. •Compliance checks conducted by the city after implementation in 2008 found that over 90% of businesses complied with the policy. Future compliance checks will be conducted through the ATTACHMENT 3 COPY 2 Zero Waste group and will be scheduled after the next phase of the ordinance goes into effect in January 2020. • Through a survey, Palo Alto saw a sharp decline in plastic bag use and an increase in the use of reusable bags following its plastic bag ban. However, paper bag use increased immediately in response to the plastic bag ban. Paper bag use sharply decreased once the city implemented a fee on paper bags in 2013, and this led to a further increase in reusable bags and customers not using any bags. From 2008-2015, overall plastic bag use has declined from over 50% of bags used to zero, and over 75% of bag use is now reusable bags or no bag. Significant challenges faced • Opposition from plastics industry: The American Chemistry Council and Dart Container Corp., one of the largest manufacturers of polystyrene foam food containers, lobbied against the policy and testified before the city council. The industry group SavethePlasticBag.com also threatened the city with a lawsuit. The California Restaurant Association also closely echoed the concerns of the plastic industry representatives. • Fee: State law prohibits California cities from collecting a bag fee from retailers so retailers keep the entire 10-cent fee on all paper or reusable checkout bags sold. Disposable Foodware Policy (2019) In 2019, Palo Alto adopted the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan, which is a three-phase program with the goal to eliminate the use of disposable foodware items and switch to reusable items in order to protect local watersheds and oceans, reduce litter, encourage Zero Waste, and reduce contamination in the composting program. The first phase of this plan was implemented in 2019 with the passage of the Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance, which banned single-use plastic foodware accessory items including plastic straws, plastic utensils, plastic drink stirrers, plastic drink plugs, plastic food and drink picks, plastic drink accoutrements, and plastic produce bags. Businesses are required to provide only reusable or compostable alternatives, and these products must be offered only upon request or via a self-serve station. The policy applies to any business in Palo Alto that serves food, including restaurants, bars, delis, grocery stores, food trucks, hotels, convenience stores, and cafeterias. Hospitals were exempted from the program. The goal of the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan: • Reduce the amount of single-use, disposable foodware generated in Palo Alto • Encourage the use of reusable foodware • Ensure that single-use disposable items are either recycled or composted The plan has a phased approach: • Phase 1 – 2019: Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance o Bans single-use plastic foodware accessory items such as straws and stirrers. COPY 3 o Requires compostable or reusable alternatives are offered only upon request or via a self-serve station. • Phase 2 – 2021 o Charge for disposable cups and containers o Require reusable foodware for dine-in customers o Require all new construction for food service establishments to install a dishwasher • Phase 3 – 2025 o Ban all single-use disposable foodware for take-out o Require all food service establishments to have one of the following services to support reusable foodware:  Have a dishwasher on site  Sign-up for dishwasher service  Sign-up for reusable foodware service program o Require reusable foodware for take-out, including allowing residents to bring their own containers and/or implementing a citywide reusable food container rental/return program (see p. 59 for current pilot programs) Key drivers for success • Mitigate environmental impact: Palo Alto has a strong history of support for reducing waste, reducing the amount of plastics in oceans, decreasing litter in the community and reducing its climate impact. • Support for compostables in business survey: The city’s survey of food businesses found ⅓ of food service establishments already utilized some form of compostable foodware and 52% reported it would be easy to switch to compostable products. • Local community partners: The city partnered with Girl Scouts and a local high school biology class to conduct business surveys. Several nonprofits and community advocacy groups submitted a letter of support to the city and encouraged the city to take bolder action. Local stakeholders promoted not using plastic disposables and reducing use at local community events (i.e. farmer’s market). • ReThink Disposable proves success stories at local businesses: The city signed a 3-year contract with ReThink, a technical assistance program provided by the City of Palo Alto Watershed Protection and Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. This program helps businesses, institutions, governments, and consumers reduce waste and associated costs by targeting disposable packaging items through outreach and education, and conducted local business case studies to show waste reduction and cost savings. Effectiveness at meeting local goals • The ordinance is expected to reduce waste by 290 tons per year and save 470 tons of carbon pollution once fully implemented. • ReThink Disposables Report on how businesses in Palo Alto successfully reduced disposable foodware showed the effectiveness of minimizing disposable foodware: 111 businesses were COPY 4 recruited and provided with outreach materials; 14 businesses were ReThink certified and found that 1,123,443 single-use foodware items were eliminated annually and had $32,023 combined total annual net-savings. Significant challenges faced • Council members were concerned with the availability of compostable foodware items. • Businesses were primarily concerned about the additional cost of compostable items, the difficulty in finding replacements and that these products would still result in litter. Supporting City Policies and Plans for Bags and Food Serviceware • Palo Alto’s Bag Ordinance was adopted in 2008 to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags at grocery stores. This was updated in 2013 to require a 10-cent fee on paper and reusable bags sold by the retailer, and to include all food service establishments. (There is no charge for customers to bring their own bags. However, retailers cannot provide reusable bags for free and must charge a minimum fee on any bags sold to the customer in order to reduce the distribution of any free bags of any type.) In 2019, the ordinance was updated again to include produce, meat, and bulk food bags, and require them to be reusable or certified compostable. • The Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers Ordinance was adopted in 2009 and updated in 2016. The policy prohibits foodservice and retail establishments from distributing prepared food in plastic foam or other non-recyclable plastic food service containers. o City facilities and events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from plastic foam or non-recyclable plastic. • In 2017, guidelines were updated to prohibit city staff from using Petty Cash and procurement cards to purchase polystyrene products, bottled water, and other plastic products. • The 2018 City of Palo Alto Zero Waste Plan has a goal of 95% waste diversion by 2030. • The Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan was put together in 2018 by the Zero Waste Group, which is a roadmap for the city to switch from disposable foodware items to reusable foodware. • The Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance was adopted in 2019, banning plastic: straws, utensils, stirrers, beverage plugs, and produce bags. Alternative products must be compostable and can only be provided upon request or at a self-serve station. • The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requires the city to eliminate storm drain litter by 2022. COPY 1Mitigating Plastics Pollution Molly Saylor and Richard Thorp 2-11 -2020 ATTACHMENT 4 COPY Questions to Council Macroplastics pollution 1.Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement approach to reducing plastic pollution? 2.Do Councilmembers have a preference on an initial focus area? (such as plastic bags, straws, take-out containers) Microplastics pollution 3.Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing microplastics? 2COPY STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Environmental Health •4.4 Zero waste •4.9 Poudre River health BUDGET Midcycle funding •$35K each for macroplastics and microplastics Plastics Pollution 3 COUNCIL PRIORITY Plastics Pollution •Microplastics •Macroplastics Approximately 10% of Fort Collins’municipal solid waste is plastic COPY State of Science and Policy 4 •Knowledge of pollution pathways •Ability to quantify and monitor •Efficacy of mitigation options More informationLess information MacroplasticsMicroplastics Plastic particles less than 5mm Plastic particles greater than 5mm COPY Microplastics: What are they? Primary –manufactured at a size less than 5mm •Examples: microfibers, microbeads, pellets or “nurdles” Secondary –break down into micro-particles •Examples: water and soda bottles, fishing nets, and plastic bags 5 Fleece fibers Resin pellets / “nurdles” Plastic bag fragmentsCOPY 6 Paint / Coatings Litter Sources of Microplastics Synthetic textiles & clothing Personal Care Products (microbeads) Car Tires / Brake Dust Road MarkingsPellets / manufactured plastics Atmospheric Deposition Artificial turf COPY Current & Proposed Future Actions 7 2019 Rocky Mountain microplastics survey phase II: Methodology Study •Utilities Watershed Program funded two sites on Poudre River •Study led by Inland Ocean Coalition & University of Colorado, Boulder Past Project Current Project Assess current state of the science on microplastics, with focus on: •Analytical & monitoring methods -source identification and monitoring •Control technologies -drinking water, wastewater, stormwaterCOPY Macroplastic Pollution Pathways 8COPY Mitigation Options 9 Mitigation options Challenges Anti-littering awareness Not primary pathway Wa ste-to-Energy Risk of blowing out of bin Recyclable replacements Risk of blowing out of bin Compostable replacements Wildlife risk & contamination COPY Mitigation Options 10 Mitigation options Benefits Fees on items Avoid plastic items entering the environment Avoid supply chain impacts Ban items/require reusables Ban/fee hybrids Item-specific restrictions COPY Ty pes of Plastic Items 11 Carry-out bags Polystyrene (Styrofoam) Foodware Accessory itemsCOPY Carry-Out Bags What is it? Bags made of thin, flexible plastic designed to transport purchases Mitigation options: •Fees •Bans •Fee/ban hybrid Peer cities: Santa Barbara CA, Palo Alto CA, Eugene OR, Portland ME, Santa Rosa CA, Ta coma, WA 12COPY Carry-Out Bags Fort Collins context: Bag Policy 2014: 10-cent fee on plastic and paper bags at grocery stores •Grocers retained fee; 50% for free durable bags to customers •Repealed in 2014 before implementation Current Efforts: Awareness; plastic film recycling at TRC, grocers and box stores 13COPY Polystyrene Food Containers What is it? Plastic foam take-out coffee cups and containers. Mitigation options: •Fees •Bans •Restrictions •Dine-in only Peer cities: Santa Barbara CA, Palo Alto CA, Eugene OR, Portland ME, Santa Rosa CA 14COPY Food Serviceware and Accessory Items What is it? Plastic plates, cups, lids, utensils, straws, stirrers, etc. Mitigation options: •Fees •Bans •Restrictions •Self-service stations; upon request Peer cities: Palo Alto CA, Santa Barbara CA 15COPY Peer Communities 16 Pa lo Alto, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Ro sa, CA Po rtland, ME Eugene, OR Boulder, CO Ta coma, WA Denver,CO COPY Best Practices 17 Successful approaches: •Comprehensive strategy with multiple policies •Policy development and implementation over multiple years •Move away from disposables and toward reusables •Extensive stakeholder outreachCOPY Stakeholder Outreach Considerations •Who should be engaged depends on item •Insight from other cities •Alignment with stakeholder goals Examples of stakeholder types •Accessibility community (need items due to disability) •Local businesses that provide/sell/distribute single-use items •Local businesses that recycle plastic 18COPY Next Steps •Gather community and stakeholder input •Launch plastics awareness campaign and collect data •Continue supporting legislation to facilitate local action •June 9th Council work session, single-use plastics update •Regional Wasteshed: Policy Advisory Committee meeting on Ti er 2 recommendations (including waste to energy) -in Q4 of 2020 •Microplastics study completion in Q3 2020 19COPY Questions to Council Macroplastics pollution 1.Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement approach to reducing plastic pollution? 2.Do Councilmembers have a preference on an initial focus area? (such as plastic bags, straws, take-out containers) Microplastics pollution 3.Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing microplastics? 20COPY Ty pes of Plastic Items 21 Carry-out bags Styrofoam Foodware Accessory itemsCOPY Case Study -Palo Alto 22 Palo Alto, CA Plastic bags (2008) Accessory items (2019) Disposable containers (2021) Ta ke -out containers (2025) •Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan •Reduce single-use •Encourage reusable COPY Sample Project Ti meline 23OCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECRESEARCH MICRO Sampling, Analysis & Control Te chnology MACRO Policy Best Practices Data Collection POLICY OUTREACH B&C B&C, Public & Stakeholders B&C, Public & Stakeholders AW ARENESS Awareness RECOMMENDATIONS WORK SESSION COPY ATTACHMENT II: May the Fork Be With You Spring Awareness Campaign: May the Fork Be With You Description: May The Fork Be With You is an awareness and education campaign designed to raise awareness and provide an action that people can take to reduce single-use plastics. May The Fork Be With You encourages people to skip the utensils when ordering take out. The campaign was designed specifically in response to the increase in take-out ordering due to COVID-19. Messages were shared via social media and City communications and newsletters from May through the summer. Community reception: May The Fork Be With You was well-received and several community members have requested the associated Zoom background. ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT III: Community Engagement Data Bottom line: Staff does not have a complete picture of community support or concern due to generally low sample sizes and very low or no participation from stakeholders who could be disproportionately impacted by a policy. Stakeholders minimally or not engaged through survey: • Member of the LatinX community • Grocery store owner/manager • Coffee shop owner/manager • Restaurant owner/manager • Clothing retail owner/manager • Producer, wholesaler, or supplier of single-use plastics • Waste industry professional • Small business owner/manager • Income less than $25,094 per year • High school or college student • Member of a historically underrepresented group, please describe below • Business owner/manager • Person living with a disability • Minority-owned business owner/manager Stakeholders engaged: • 169 survey responses across two surveys o Plastic Bag Survey – 47 responses o Single-Use Plastic Survey – 122 responses • A significant number of responses were from members of environmental groups and senior community members. Key themes: • The majority of respondents were positive about addressing plastic bags and single-use plastics and mentioned a variety of voluntary and regulatory options in their responses. • Many respondents o Attempt to limit their use of single-use plastics, including bags. o Feel frustrated when they are given single-use plastic items by default and do not have an option to opt out. o Are noticing a significant increase in the amount of single-use plastics due to COVID-19 and fewer alternative options. ATTACHMENT 3 o Reuse single-use plastics, such as bags, before discarding or recycling. • Some respondents (fewer than 15 responses) o Indicate support for action on single-use plastics but responded negatively to the City taking action. o Do not support action on single-use plastics at all. ATTACHMENT IV: Plastic Pollution Data Collection Community science campaign on local plastic pollution: Starting in April 2020, Environmental Services partnered with Human Resources and Natural Areas to launch a community science project using the Litterati app to characterize local plastic pollution. Community members collected over 2,000 pieces of litter, much of which was plastic. Key takeaways: • Plastic litter comprised 48% of all items collected o 19% of items were cigarette butts o 29% of items were other types of plastic Figure 1. Fort Collins Plastic Litter Distribution. Figure excludes cigarette butts to better present the other categories. Note that this is community science data and should be interpreted as directionally correct vs. precise. Existing practices at Fort Collins major grocers: Staff surveyed local bag-related practices by phone and found trends amongst national chains and natural/organic grocers. Key takeaways: • Major national chains in Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 4 o Offer plastic bags. o Do not offer bag credits for bringing reusable bags (3 out of 4 major grocers). o Report approximately 50% of people bring their own bags. • Natural/organic grocers o Do not offer plastic bags (4 out of 5 natural/organic grocers). o Offer bag credits (4 out of 5 natural/organic grocers). o Report that the majority of people bring their own bags. • Bag credits range from 2 – 10 cents and in some cases are associated with a donation program instead of the traditional cash back. 1Mitigating Plastics Pollution Molly Saylor 10-02-2020 ATTACHMENT 5 Questions to Council Which option would Councilmembers like staff to pursue for plastic pollution? 2 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Environmental Health •4.4 Zero waste •4.9 Poudre River health BUDGET Midcycle funding •$35K each for macroplastics and microplastics Plastics Pollution 3 COUNCIL PRIORITY Plastics Pollution •Microplastics •Macroplastics Background Context 4 Grounding in plastic pollution •Plastic pollution threats to waterways and wildlife •More information is needed on how to better quantify and monitor microplastic pollution •Litter as a source of pollution we can act on now •Peer cities and best practices recommend a comprehensive approach •Engagement –broad and targeted –is essential to good policy Councilmember Input 5 1)Ta rgeted engagement and equity lens 2)Robust stakeholder and community engagement 3)Comprehensive approach to policy development 4)More data on the problem and existing solutions 6 Plastic Pollution Awareness 7 May the Fork Be With Yo u -Adapted to be relevant to COVID-19 -Well-received Broad outreach -Businesses & groups: HP, Broadcom, League of Women Voters, Interfaith Council -Virtual Earth Day Upcoming -Business recognition and peer awareness -Business tip guide Engagement Insights Who we’ve heard from •100+ people •Environmental groups •Seniors 8 Who we haven’t heard from •BIPOC •Small businesses •People with disability •People with limited English proficiency What w e’ve heard •Broad support for action on most items •Specific interest in bags and polystyrene •Current lack of alternatives •Concern about plastic pollutions impacts COVID-19 Impacts 1.Ta rgeted engagement and equity lens •COVID-19 disproportionate impact on “most-impacted” stakeholders •Competing priorities for historically underrepresented community members, i.e. housing costs, job loss, childcare, health 2.Robust stakeholder and community engagement •Engaged to date: environmental groups and seniors •Broad engagement tools not getting results 9 COVID-19 Impacts 3.Comprehensive approach to policy development •COVID-19-related restrictions on reusable alternatives •Unclear timeline for return of reusable items 4.More data on the problem and existing solutions •Impact of COVID-19 on businesses makes data collection on existing practices challenging •Litterati campaign launched and data collected!Ye t, limited reach due to COVID-19 10 Council Dir ectio n On track Significant challe nge s Significant barrie r Outreach and awareness work Targeted engagement and equity le ns Ro bust stakeholder and community engagement Comprehensive approach to polic y development More data on the problem and existin g solutio ns Key: COVID-19 Staffing On track COVID-19 and Staffing Impacts 11 Options for Moving Forward 1.Focus on Aw areness and Delay Policy Discussion. Focus awareness work funded through 2020 on making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions; re-evaluate policy work in 2021 based on readiness criteria 2.Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible option with respect to COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach to other plastic items in 2021. 3.Comprehensive Approach.In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and maintain comprehensive approach. 4.Refer Ballot Initiative.In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag regulation on the April 2021 ballot. 12 Questions to Council Which option would Councilmembers like staff to pursue for plastic pollution? 1.Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion 2.Limited Policy Work 3.Comprehensive Approach 4.Ballot Measure 13