ORDINANCES TO BAN PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

(SCH # 2009111104)

Prepared For: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue, 3rd Floor Alhambra, California 91803 Prepared By: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 430 North Halstead Street Pasadena, California 91107

June 2, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS ES PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Proposed Project ......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Areas of Known Controversy........................................................................ ES-1 ES.4 Issues to be Resolved................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Ordinances ....................................... ES-3 ES.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances ..................................................... ES-5 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of the EIR ........................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 Intent of CEQA .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Environmental Review Process .......................................................... 1-2 Organization and Content ............................................................................. 1-4

1.0

1.2 2.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 Proposed Project Location ............................................................................. 2-1 Background ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Contribution of Plastic Carryout Bags to Litter Stream......................... 2-1 2.2.2 County Motion .................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2.1 The County’s Solid Waste Management Function in the Unincorporated County Area ........................................... 2-3 2.2.2.2 The County’s Solid Waste Management Function Countywide ..................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2.3 Key Findings of the LACDPW Report ............................... 2-4 2.2.3 Definitions......................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Single Use Bag Bans and Fees............................................................ 2-5 2.2.5 Litigation History ............................................................................... 2-8 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 2-12 2.3.1 Plastic Carryout Bags ....................................................................... 2-12 2.3.2 Paper Bags....................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.3 Reusable Bags.................................................................................. 2-14 2.3.4 Voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program ........... 2-15 2.3.5 General Plan Land Use Designation................................................. 2-17 2.3.6 Zoning............................................................................................. 2-17 2.3.6.1 Unincorporated Territories of the County of Los Angeles ..... 2-17 2.3.6.2 Incorporated Cities of the County of Los Angeles ................. 2-17 Statement of Objectives ............................................................................... 2-17 2.4.1 Program Goals................................................................................. 2-17 2.4.2 Countywide Objectives ................................................................... 2-18 2.4.3 City Objectives ................................................................................ 2-18 Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 2-18 2.5.1 Transition Period Assumption .......................................................... 2-19 Intended Uses of the EIR.............................................................................. 2-19 Ordinance Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-20
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page i

2.3

2.4

2.5 2.6 2.7

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

3.0

EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, MITIGATION, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION............................................... 3-1 3.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.1 Regulatory Framework .............................................................. 3.1-2 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 3.1-6 3.1.3 Significance Thresholds............................................................. 3.1-9 3.1.4 Impact Analysis....................................................................... 3.1-11 3.1.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................ 3.1-31 3.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation....................................... 3.1-31 Biological Resources................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Framework .............................................................. 3.2-3 3.2.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 3.2-7 3.2.3 Significance Thresholds........................................................... 3.2-17 3.2.4 Impact Analysis....................................................................... 3.2-18 3.2.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................ 3.2-22 3.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation....................................... 3.2-23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.1 Greenhouse Gases and Effects................................................... 3.3-2 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................. 3.3-4 3.3.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................. 3.3-12 3.3.4 Significance Thresholds........................................................... 3.3-14 3.3.5 Impact Analysis....................................................................... 3.3-15 3.3.6 Mitigation Measures................................................................ 3.3-39 3.3.7 Level of Significance after Mitigation....................................... 3.3-39 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................... 3.4-1 3.4.1 Regulatory Framework .............................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 3.4-7 3.4.3 Significance Thresholds........................................................... 3.4-11 3.4.4 Impact Analysis....................................................................... 3.4-12 3.4.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................ 3.4-20 3.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation....................................... 3.4-20 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework .............................................................. 3.5-1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 3.5-4 3.5.3 Significance Thresholds............................................................. 3.5-7 3.5.4 Impact Analysis......................................................................... 3.5-7 3.5.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................ 3.5-25 3.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation....................................... 3.5-25

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.0

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES ................................................ 4-1 4.1 4.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ....................................... 4-2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project............................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 No Project Alternative.................................................................. 4-4 4.2.1.1 Alternative Components ............................................. 4-4
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ii

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

4.3 5.0 6.0

4.2.1.2 Objectives and Feasibility........................................... 4-4 4.2.1.3 Comparative Impacts.................................................. 4-4 4.2.2 Alternative 1: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County ......................................................... 4-6 4.2.2.1 Alternative Components ............................................. 4-6 4.2.2.2 Objectives and Feasibility........................................... 4-7 4.2.2.3 Comparative Impacts.................................................. 4-8 4.2.3 Alternative 2: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County ................... 4-13 4.2.3.1 Alternative Components ........................................... 4-13 4.2.3.2 Objectives and Feasibility......................................... 4-13 4.2.3.3 Comparative Impacts................................................ 4-13 4.2.4 Alternative 3: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County ......................... 4-19 4.2.4.1 Alternative Components ........................................... 4-19 4.2.4.2 Objectives and Feasibility......................................... 4-20 4.2.4.3 Comparative Impacts................................................ 4-20 4.2.5 Alternative 4: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County ........................................................................... 4-45 4.2.5.1 Alternative Components ........................................... 4-45 4.2.5.2 Objectives and Feasibility......................................... 4-46 4.2.5.3 Comparative Impacts................................................ 4-47 Environmentally Superior Alternative.......................................................... 4-56

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 5-1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................. 6-1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.............................................................................. 7-1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................... 8-1 8.1 Public Agencies ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.1 Federal ......................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 State ............................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.3 Regional....................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.4 County of Los Angeles.................................................................. 8-1 8.1.5 Cities............................................................................................ 8-2 8.2 Private Organizations .............................................................................. 8-2 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ...................................................................... 9-1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works ...................................... 9-1 County Counsel............................................................................................. 9-1 County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office................................................ 9-1 Sapphos Environmental, Inc........................................................................... 9-1 Subconsultants............................................................................................... 9-2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page iii

7.0 8.0

9.0

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

10.0 11.0

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 10-1 DISTRIBUTION LIST ............................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Client .......................................................................................................... 11-1 11.2 Public Agencies ........................................................................................... 11-1 11.2.1 State Agencies............................................................................... 11-1 11.2.2 Regional Agencies ........................................................................ 11-3 11.2.3 County Agencies........................................................................... 11-3 11.2.3.1 Supervisorial Districts ..................................................... 11-3 11.2.3.2 Public Service Agencies .................................................. 11-4 11.3 Private Organizations .................................................................................. 11-5 11.4 Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 11-5 FOLLOWS PAGE Project Location Map ................................................................................................ 2-1 Air Quality Management Districts within the County of Los Angeles....................... 3.1-2 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Ecobilan LCA ............................................................................................ 3.1-18 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Boustead LCA............................................................................................ 3.1-21 California 1990 GHG Emissions ............................................................................. 3.3-3 California 2004 GHG Emissions ............................................................................. 3.3-3 California Business-as-usual Emissions and Targets ............................................... 3.3-13 Northern Portion of the County Storm Drain System............................................... 3.4-9 Southern Portion of the County Storm Drain System ............................................... 3.4-9 PAGE Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................ ES-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................... 3.1-3 Summary of 2006–2008 Ambient Air Quality Data in the SCAQMD Portion of the County ........................................................................................................ 3.1-8 Summary of 2007–2009 Ambient Air Quality Data in the AVAQMD Portion of the County ........................................................................................................ 3.1-9 Daily Operational Emission Thresholds of Significance......................................... 3.1-11 Vehicle Fleet Mix ................................................................................................. 3.1-13 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data (Existing Conditions) ......................................................................... 3.1-16 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Paper Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data .......................................................................................................... 3.1-16 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.............................. 3.1-18 Estimated Daily Emissions Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ....................................... 3.1-19 Estimated Daily Emissions Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................ 3.1-20 Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data (Existing Conditions) ......................................................................... 3.1-21 Paper Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data ..... 3.1-21
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page iv

FIGURES 2.1-1 3.1.1-1 3.1.4-1 3.1.4-2 3.3.1-1 3.3.1-2 3.3.3-1 3.4.2-1 3.4.2-2 TABLES ES.5-1 3.1.1-1 3.1.2-1 3.1.2-2 3.1.3-1 3.1.4-1 3.1.4-2 3.1.4-3 3.1.4-4 3.1.4-5 3.1.4-6 3.1.4-7 3.1.4-8

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

3.1.4-9 3.4.1-10 3.1.4-11 3.1.4-12 3.2.2-1 3.2.2-2 3.2.2-3 3.2.2-4 3.2.2-5 3.3-1 3.3.2-1 3.3.3-1 3.3.5-1 3.3.5-2 3.3.5-3 3.3.5-4 3.3.5-5 3.3.5-6 3.3.5-7 3.3.5-8 3.3.5-9 3.3.5-10 3.3.5-11 3.3.5-12 3.3.5-13 3.4.4-1 3.4.4-2 3.5.2-1 3.5.4-1 3.5.4-2 3.5.4-3

Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................ 3.1-23 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................ 3.1-23 Estimated NOx Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data..... 3.1-26 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Delivery Truck Trips..................... 3.1-29 Listed Species with the Potential to Occur in the County ........................................ 3.2-9 Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County........................................... 3.2-12 Marine Species of Concern under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County........................................... 3.2-13 Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the USFWS and/or the CDFG....................................................................................... 3.2-14 Species of Special Concern under the Jurisdiction of the CDFG ............................ 3.2-15 Plastic and Paper Bag Production from 1980 to 2007 ............................................. 3.3-1 California Business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Targets....................... 3.3-7 Characterization of Business-as-Usual and Target GHG Emissions for the County ...................................................................................................... 3.3-14 Vehicle Fleet Mix ................................................................................................. 3.3-17 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-21 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-22 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags ..................................... 3.3-23 GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-24 GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-25 GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPlas Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-26 GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPlas Data Using 100-Percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ................................................................... 3.3-26 GHG Emissions Due to 85- and 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Various Studies .................................................... 3.3-28 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data... 3.3-30 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Boustead Data.. 3.3-31 Potential Increases in Delivery Truck Trips as a Result of the Proposed Ordinances ............................................................................................... 3.3-36 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion Scenario ............................................................. 3.3-37 Eutrophication Due to Use of Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................ 3.4-15 Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.............................. 3.4-16 Class III Landfill Capacity........................................................................................ 3.5-6 Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.............................................................................................. 3.5-9 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ..................... 3.5-11 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .......................................................................................................... 3.5-13
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page v

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

3.5.4-4 3.5.4-5 3.5.4-6 3.5.4-7 3.5.4-8 3.5.4-9 3.5.4-10 3.5.4-11 4-1 4.2.4.3-1 4.2.4.3-2 4.2.4.3-3 4.2.4.3-4 4.2.4.3-5 4.2.4.3-6 4.2.4.3-7 4.2.4.3-8 4.2.4.3-9 4.2.4.3-10 4.2.4.3-11 4.2.4.3-12 4.2.4.3-13 4.2.4.3-14 4.2.4.3-15 4.2.4.3-16 4.2.4.3-17 4.2.5.3-1 4.2.5.3-2 4.2.5.3-3 4.2.5.3-4

Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................................................................... 3.5-15 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ..................... 3.5-16 Solid Waste Generation Due to Disposal of Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data and Adjusted for 2007 Recycling Rates ................ 3.5-18 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................................................................... 3.5-19 Solid Waste Due to Reusable Based Based on Ecobilan Data................................ 3.5-21 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................. 3.5-22 Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data ...................................................................................... 3.5-24 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................ 3.5-25 Ability of the Proposed Ordinances and Alternatives to Attain County Objectives...... 4-2 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data........................................... 4-21 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data........................................... 4-22 Estimated NOx Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data........ 4-24 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions.................................................................... 4-25 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags...................................................................... 4-27 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags...................................................................... 4-28 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data...... 4-30 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data...... 4-31 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ....................... 4-33 Eutrophication Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ...... 4-34 Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .............................................................................................. 4-37 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .............................................................................................. 4-38 Water Consumption Due Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data ............................................................................................. 4-39 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ........................................................................................................... 4-40 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data ............................................................................................................ 4-41 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ............................................................................... 4-43 Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data ............................................................................................. 4-44 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Ecobilan Data ......................................................................................... 4-48 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Three Times Based on Data from Ecobilan ................................................................................. 4-50 Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data................................. 4-51 Wastewater Generation Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data................... 4-53
Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page vi

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

4.2.5.3-5 4.2.5.3-6 4.2.5.3-7

Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ........................ 4-54 Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..................................... 4-55 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .............................................................................................. 4-56

APPENDICES A B C D E Bag Usage Data Collection Study Biodegradable and Compostable Bags Fact Sheet Calculation Data Initial Study and Comment Letters Key Personnel Resumes

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page vii

SECTION ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (proposed ordinances). The proposed ordinances would be implemented for certain stores within the County of Los Angeles (County), California. The proposed ordinances consist of an ordinance that would prohibit certain stores and retail establishments from issuing plastic carryout bags in the unincorporated territory of the County, as well as the County’s encouragement of the adoption of comparable ordinances by each of the 88 incorporated cities within the County. ES.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances currently offer a combination of paper carryout bags, plastic carryout bags, and reusable bags to consumers. Based on a survey of bag usage in the County in 2009, 18 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that do not make plastic carryout bags readily available were reusable bags; however only 2 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that do make plastic carryout bags readily available were reusable bags (Appendix A, Bag Usage Data Collection Study). ES.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed ordinances would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags by any retail establishment, defined herein, that is located in the unincorporated territory or incorporated cities of the County. The retail establishments that would be subject to the proposed ordinances include any that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code, Section 14526.5; (2) are buildings that have over 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. ES.3 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY 1

The proposed ordinances involve several areas of known controversy. Several public comments were received during the scoping period for Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that can be grouped into four broad categories: socioeconomic impacts, impacts of compostable bags, impacts to public health, and impacts of plastic carryout bags versus impacts of paper carryout bags. Socioeconomic Impacts During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances, members of the public (including representatives from the plastic bag industry) indicated concern about the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed ordinances upon the plastic bag manufacturing industry, stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances, and retail customers. The County will
1

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 1 December 2009. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Pasadena, CA. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ES-1

prepare an economic impact analysis of the proposed ordinances for consideration during the decision-making process for the EIR. The economic impact analysis will model various scenarios of impacts to illustrate the potential range of costs that may be caused as an indirect impact of the proposed ordinances. Compostable Bags During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances, certain members of the public suggested that the County should consider requiring stores to provide compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags as an alternative to offering just plastic or paper carryout bags. However, the proposed ordinances include a ban on the issuance of compostable and biodegradable bags due to the lack of commercial composting facilities in the County that would be needed to process compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags.1 This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances, of this EIR. Public Health Impacts Several public comments were received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that indicated concern about the public health impacts of the use of reusable bags. However, as is the case for any reusable household item that comes into contact with food items, such as chopping boards, tableware, or table linens, reusable bags do not pose a serious public health risk if consumers care for the bags accordingly and/or clean the bags regularly. Similarly, carts, shelves, and conveyor belts at food stores must be kept clean to avoid health risks. Reusable bags that are made of cloth or fabric, by the definition established by the proposed ordinances, must be machine washable. Reusable bags made of durable plastic are not machine washable, but can be rinsed or wiped clean. Commentators do note that the health risks, if any, from reusable bags can be minimized if the consumer takes appropriate steps, such as washing and disinfecting the bags, using them only for groceries and using separate bags for raw meat products, being careful with where they are stored, and allowing bags to dry before folding and storing.2 A representative of the County Department of Public Health has stated that the public health risks of reusable bags are minimal.3 Impacts of Plastic Carryout Bags versus Impacts of Paper Carryout Bags Several public comments (including those from representatives of the plastic bag industry) were received during the scoping period for Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that indicated concern that the proposed ordinances would cause an increase in the number of paper carryout bags used in the County, which would cause corresponding impacts to the environment. As a result of these public comments, impacts of paper carryout bags on air quality pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, wastewater generation, water consumption, energy consumption, eutrophication, solid waste generation, and water quality have been addressed throughout Section 3.0, Existing Conditions, Impacts, Mitigation, and Level of Significance after Mitigation, of this EIR.
1

County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. August 2007. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra, CA. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.pdf

Dragan, James, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 17 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. E-mail correspondence with Nilda Gemeniano, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Dragan, James, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 17 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. E-mail correspondence with Nilda Gemeniano, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ES-2
3

2

During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received that indicated concern that an increase in paper carryout bags would lead to increased numbers of delivery trucks required to transport paper carryout bags to stores. However, as detailed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, and Section 3.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the number of delivery trucks required as a potential indirect impact of the proposed ordinances would be minimal, and therefore would not be expected to result in significant impacts upon traffic and transportation. During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received about the potential impacts of plastic carryout bags with regard to aesthetics, particularly at litter hotspots in the County. As the proposed ordinances aim to reduce the amount of plastic carryout bags in litter in the County, the proposed ordinances would not be expected to cause indirect adverse impacts to aesthetics, and no further analysis is warranted. During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received about the potential impacts of plastic carryout bags with regard to depletion of fossil fuel resources. As the proposed ordinances aim to decrease the number of plastic carryout bags used throughout the County, there would be no expected adverse impacts upon fossil fuel reserves, and no further analysis is warranted. ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

The analysis undertaken in support of this EIR determined that there are several environmental issue areas related to CEQA that are not expected to have significant impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. These issue areas are agriculture and forest resources, aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. These issue areas, therefore, were not carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIR. Certain plastic bag industry representatives have postulated that the banning of plastic carryout bags could potentially result in the increased manufacture of paper carryout bags, which may lead to potentially significant environmental impacts; therefore, the County has decided to carry forward five environmental issues for more detailed analysis in this EIR: air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. ES.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES

The analysis undertaken in support of this EIR evaluated whether implementation of the proposed ordinances would cause significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. Table ES.5-1, Summary of Impacts, summarizes the impacts related to each issue area analyzed that might result or can be reasonably expected to result from implementation of the proposed ordinances.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ES-3

TABLE ES.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impact Air Quality The proposed ordinances may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags, which may subsequently result in increased criteria pollutant emissions from the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset to some degree by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags and increase in reusable bags. Biological Resources The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that The proposed ordinances would be expected to no significant adverse impacts related to biological result in beneficial impacts to biological resources would be expected to arise from resources. implementation of the proposed ordinances. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that direct impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. However, because there are no local, regional, State, or federal regulations establishing significance on a cumulative level, and because certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have claimed that paper bags are significantly worse for the environment from a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions perspective, on this basis, and specific to this project only, and because the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts of the project from a very conservative worst-case scenario, it can be determined that the impacts may have the potential to be cumulatively significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for these cumulative impacts, so the consideration of alternatives is required. However, GHG emissions from any paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities or landfills affected by the proposed ordinances will be controlled by the owners of the facilities in accordance with any applicable regional, State, and federal regulations pertaining to GHG emissions. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to air quality that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance

The proposed ordinances may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increase in demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset to some degree by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags and increase in reusable bags.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ES-4

TABLE ES.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, Continued
Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increase in demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased eutrophication impacts during the manufacture of paper carryout bags, which would be offset, to some degree, by positive impacts to surface water quality caused by anticipated reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increased demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased water consumption, energy consumption, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation due to the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset, to some degree, by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags.

The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to hydrology and water quality that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to utilities and service systems that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

ES.6

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES

As a result of the formulation process for the proposed ordinances, the County explored alternatives to the proposed ordinances to assess their ability to meet most of the objectives of the proposed ordinances and provide additional beneficial impacts to the environment. Alternative ordinances were recommended during the scoping process and were evaluated in relation to the objectives of the proposed ordinances and the ability of the alternatives to result in additional beneficial impacts to the environment (Section 4.0). Five alternatives to the proposed ordinances required under CEQA have been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR: x x x x x No Project Alternative Alternative 1, Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 2, Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 3, Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative 4, Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County

Although the No Project Alternative would reduce potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions compared with the proposed ordinances, impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems would be exacerbated, rather than avoided or reduced. In addition, the No Project Alternative is incapable of meeting any of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County. As with the proposed ordinances, and when considering that the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts resulting from paper carryout bags from a conservative worst-case scenario, Alternatives 2 and 3 may have the potential
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page ES-5

Alternative 4 is anticipated to result in the greatest reduction in use of both plastic and paper carryout bags. However. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Inc. and is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. while still meeting all of the objectives identified by the County. Alternative 2 would be expected to reduce consumption of paper carryout bags through implementation of a fee.1 Executive Summary. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Alternative 3 would result in additional benefits to biological resources as a result of reduced consumption of plastic carryout bags and would still meet all of the objectives identified by the County. Page ES-6 . Alternatives 1 and 4 would not be expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions and would be expected to result in additional beneficial impacts.

the County has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives.). As a program-level EIR. an environmental impact analysis. as defined by CEQA. and social issues (Section 15021 of the State CEQA Guidelines). and cumulative impacts. To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. The findings and conclusions of the EIR regarding environmental impacts do not control the County’s or any of the 88 incorporated cities' discretion to approve.0 Introduction. Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines describe the required content of an EIR: a description of the project and the environmental setting (existing conditions). In discharging this duty.SECTION 1. where necessary. The County is the lead agency for the County ordinance pursuant to CEQA.0 INTRODUCTION The project.1 Intent of CEQA As provided in the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. Inc. This EIR has been prepared by the County to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed ordinances to ban plastic carryout bags in the unincorporated areas of the County as well as in the 88 incorporated cities. 1. being considered by the County consists of proposed Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (proposed ordinances). To enhance public participation in the planning process. environmental. and the individual incorporated cities within the County would be the lead agencies for their respective city ordinances. and the adoption of comparable ordinances by the 88 incorporated cities within the County. To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. or modify the proposed ordinances. the County (and other agencies that rely on this EIR) must consider the information in the EIR and make appropriate findings. This “project” would entail adoption of an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags issued by certain stores in the unincorporated territories of the County. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 1.1. this document focuses on the changes in the environment that would be expected to result from implementation of the proposed ordinance within the unincorporated territories of the County. public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\1.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. including economic. deny. mitigation measures. but instead are presented as information intended to aid the decision-making process. To disclose to the public reasons for agency approvals of projects with significant environmental effects.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EIR The County has prepared this EIR to support the fulfillment of the six major goals of CEQA (Section 15002 of the State CEQA Guidelines): x x x x x x To disclose to the decision makers and the public significant environmental effects of the proposed activities. growth-inducing impacts. should the cities decide to adopt comparable ordinances. significant irreversible environmental changes. Although the EIR neither controls nor anticipates the ultimate decision on the proposed ordinances. alternatives. as well as potential changes in the environment that would be expected to Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 1-1 .

All verbal and written comments related to environmental issues that were provided during public review of the NOP and at scoping meetings were considered in the preparation of this EIR. An Initial Study was prepared to focus the environmental topic areas to be analyzed in the EIR. Calabasas. 8. The NOP advertised six public scoping meetings for interested parties to receive information on the proposed ordinances and the CEQA process. California 91745 Castaic Regional Sports Complex. 8773 East Avenue R. 4750 West 62nd Street (Baldwin Hills / Ladera Heights Area). hazards and hazardous materials. Alhambra. Inc. 2009. Copies of the NOP and the comment letters submitted in response to the Initial Study are included in this document (Appendix D. and closed on January 4. regional and local government agencies. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\1. The comment period for the NOP and Initial Study closed on January 4. A total of five comment letters were received in response to the NOP and Initial Study (Appendix D). Monterey Park. Burke Community and Senior Center. and distributed to various federal. The County will review and consider the information in the EIR. Founder’s Hall. This EIR considers alternatives that are capable of avoiding or reducing significant effects of the proposed ordinances. land Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. in making final decisions regarding the proposed ordinance for the unincorporated territories of the County (Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines). 101 Civic Center Way. Littlerock. California 93543 A total of 18 individuals attended the scoping meetings. cultural resources.result from implementation of similar ordinances in the 88 incorporated cities in the County. Conference Room C. Based on the analysis undertaken in the Initial Study. Los Angeles. 1. geology and soils. 11.0 Introduction. Hacienda Heights. 10. The County requested information from the public related to the range of actions under consideration and alternatives.1. 1700 Avenida Cesar Chavez. agriculture and forest resources. California 91803 Calabasas Library. 2009. Page 1-2 .2 Environmental Review Process A Notice of Preparation (NOP) concerning the EIR for the proposed ordinances was circulated for a 30-day review period that began on December 1. mitigation measures. 900 South Fremont Avenue. State. The meetings were held on December 7. at the following seven locations: x x x x x x x East Los Angeles College. California 91754 Yvonne B. The NOP and Initial Study were mailed (or e-mailed) directly to approximately 480 agencies and interested parties. 31230 North Castaic Road. The NOP and Initial Study were sent to the State Clearinghouse on November 30. 2010. and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. 9. As a result of the analysis undertaken in the Initial Study. The scoping meetings facilitated early consultation with interested parties in compliance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines. and 14. the County determined that the proposed ordinances may have a significant effect on the environment and that the preparation of an EIR would be required. Initial Study and Comment Letters). California 91302 Steinmetz Senior Center. as well as providing an opportunity for the submittal of comments. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed ordinances identified the contents of the EIR on environmental issue areas potentially subject to significant impacts. California 91384 Jackie Robinson Park. it was determined that the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in impacts to aesthetics. 2010. along with any other relevant information. 2009. 1545 South Stimson Avenue. Castaic.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. California 90056 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW) headquarters. A public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the NOP was provided in the Los Angeles Times.

which are the subject of the detailed evaluation undertaken in this EIR: x x x x x Air Quality Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems The Draft EIR has been distributed to various federal. at the following location: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Attn: Mr. The dates of the public review period are specified on the transmittal memo accompanying this Draft EIR. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. California 91803 Telephone: (626) 458-5163 E-mail: CSkye@dpw. recreation. Upon completion of the evaluation. 3rd Floor Alhambra. Page 1-3 . Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. which noted certain arguments raised by certain members of the plastic bag industry. on July 16. However. copies of this Draft EIR are available during the public review period at the following locations: Sapphos Environmental. mineral resources. for additional distribution to agencies. The Draft EIR was provided to the State Clearinghouse on June 1. Pasadena. regional.lacounty.1 Those issue areas will receive no further analysis. 3rd Floor Alhambra. Laura Watson for an appointment at (626) 683-3547 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue. 1 December 2009. a Final EIR will be prepared and provided to the 1 Sapphos Environmental. Inc. 2010. California 91803 Contact: Mr. Inc. Department of Public Works. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\1. noise. Inc. a public NOA of the EIR will appear in Los Angeles Times and will be mailed directly to interested parties who request the document.use and planning. state.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the analysis in the Initial Study. and local government agencies and interested organizations and individuals for a 45-day public review period. concluded that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to result in significant impacts related to five environmental topics. CA. public services. 430 North Halstead Street Pasadena.gov Written comments provided by the general public and public agencies will be evaluated and written responses will be prepared for all comments received during the designated comment period. Coby Skye for an appointment at (626) 458-5163 Written comments on this Draft EIR should be transmitted during the public review period and received by 5:00 p. population and housing. 2010. or transportation and traffic. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles.m.0 Introduction. In addition. In addition. Coby Skye Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue. California 91107 Contact: Dr.

provides the location and boundaries of the proposed ordinances. Section 2. a list of the related discretionary actions (permits and approvals) required to implement the proposed ordinances. and mitigation measures. provides information related to the purpose and scope of the EIR. regulations. Inc.County for certification of compliance with CEQA. describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed ordinances. Executive Summary. and the organization and content of the EIR. economic. statement of objectives. a description of the technical.2 ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT This Draft EIR consists of the following sections: x Section ES.Doc . Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances. Section 4. considering the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects of the proposed ordinances. 1. the executive summary identifies areas of controversy known to the County. Section 3. including the list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their respective decisionmaking processes.0. Project Description. and Level of Significance after Mitigation.0. and assesses the effectiveness of proposed measures to reduce identified impacts to below the level of significance. This portion of the EIR is organized by the applicable environmental topics resulting from the analysis undertaken in the Initial Study. The project description identifies the intended uses of the EIR.0 Introduction. or policies. In addition. or local laws. Introduction. The executive summary includes a list of the issues to be resolved. CEQA requires an evaluation of the comparative impacts of the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Existing Conditions. identifies available mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. Page 1-4 x x x x Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and a list of any related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal. provides a summary of the existing setting.0. identified significant impacts of the proposed ordinances. CEQA requires that the EIR explore feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed ordinances. and environmental characteristics of the proposed ordinances. lists the thresholds used to assess the potential for the proposed ordinances to result in significant impacts.0. Significance Thresholds. proposed ordinances. Mitigation Measures. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\1. including issues raised by agencies and the public. evaluates the potential impacts on environmental resources that may be generated by the proposed ordinances including the cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other related projects in the area. environmental review process. Those alternatives that were considered to avoid significant effects of the proposed ordinances are identified in the executive summary. state. Section 1. an alternative must be capable of attaining most of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances. To be feasible. describes existing conditions found within the County and related areas. Impacts. and for review and consideration as part of the decision-making process for the proposed ordinances.

Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided If the Proposed Ordinance Is Implemented. either directly or indirectly.0.0. Section 9.0. in the surrounding environment.0. provides a distribution list of agencies receiving this Draft EIR that was made available during the 45-day public review period. communications. Distribution List.ordinances.0. References. evaluates potential uses of non-renewable resources and potential irreversible changes that may occur as a result of the proposed ordinances. Section 6.0. Section 11. Section 7. provides a list of all personnel that provided technical input to this EIR. summarizes the significant effects of the proposed ordinances. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\1. Growth-inducing Impacts. Section 10. lists all sources. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. community groups. Report Preparation Personnel. x x x x x x Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. action alternatives to the proposed ordinances. and other organizations consulted during the preparation of this EIR. x Section 5. evaluates the potential for the proposed ordinances to foster economic growth or population growth. Organizations and Persons Consulted. and the no-project alternative. provides a list of all governmental agencies. Inc. and correspondence used in the preparation of this EIR.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0.0 Introduction. Section 8. Page 1-5 .

” Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study. San Francisco Environment Department.7 percent of all litter collected being unidentified miscellaneous plastic litter. Inc.3 As an example of the prevalence of plastic bag litter found in catch basins. Available at: http://www.. 18 June 2004. The City of San Francisco Litter Audit in 2008 showed that plastic materials were the second most prevalent form of litter. it was observed that 25 percent by weight and 19 percent by volume of the trash collected consisted of plastic bags. economic.SECTION 2.4 percent of California’s overall disposed waste stream by weight. the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. Project Location Map).0 Project Description. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Both San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands are encompassed within the territory of the County and thus are areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinances (Figure 2. and MGM Management Environmental and Management Service.ca.gov/Publications/default. a statement of objectives for the proposed ordinances.2 2. Inc. 2003.2.649 square miles encompassing the unincorporated territories of the County of Los Angeles. a brief characterization of the existing conditions of bag usage within the County.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Consistent with the requirements of Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines. being considered by the County consists of adoption of an ordinance to ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags by certain stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group.1 2. “Table ES-3: Composition of California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type.1-1. San Francisco. Available at: http://portal. Los Angeles.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 2008. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. There are approximately 140 unincorporated communities located within the five County Supervisorial Districts. Integrated Waste Management Board. particularly within catch basins. The affected areas are bounded by Kern County to the north. with 4.6 percent of the total number of large litter items collected. County of Los Angeles Web site. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Berkeley. Inc. and Ventura County to the west.4 Results of a California Department of 1 County of Los Angeles. and 1.lacounty. and a statement describing the intended uses of the EIR. The City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re-audit. San Bernardino County to the east.ciwmb. The “project. 6. December 2004. Prepared by: HDR. CA.2 but have been shown to make a more significant contribution to litter.pdf 4 2 City of Los Angeles. Vence & Associates. Unincorporated Areas. Orange County to the southeast. CA.sfenvironment.gov/ California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www. Characterization of Urban Litter. and branded plastic retail bags constituting 0. during the Great Los Angeles River Clean Up. 2.asp?pubid=1097 3 City of San Francisco.” as defined by CEQA.1 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION The proposed ordinances would affect an area of approximately 2. which collected trash from 30 catch basins in the Los Angeles River. Page 2-1 .1 BACKGROUND Contribution of Plastic Carryout Bags to Litter Stream The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) estimates that plastic grocery and other merchandise bags make up 0. a general delineation of the technical. CA.org/downloads/library/2008_litter_audit. Accessed June 2009.435 square miles encompassing the incorporated cities of the County. Brown. the project description of the proposed ordinances includes the location and boundaries of the proposed ordinances. p. and the adoption of comparable ordinances by the 88 incorporated cities within the County. and environmental characteristics of the proposed ordinances.

LA County 0 5 10 Miles 20 KWF\Q:\1012\1012-035\ArcProjects\ProjLoc.1-1 Project Location Map .LEGEND Incorporated Cities of Los Angeles Unincorporated Territories of Los Angeles Kern County Los Angeles County San Bernardino County tu Ven Islands Not to Scale oun ra C ty Orange County Paci fi cO cea n o SOURCE: SEI.mxd FIGURE 2.

S. 12 June 2007. Sacramento. 2007.2 County Motion On April 10.csus. David Marx. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty. October 2006.7. which is equivalent to approximately 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Available at: http://www.5 According to research conducted by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). Board Meeting Agenda. and disposal.pdf 10 Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. Accessed on: September 2009.8 Public agencies in California spend more than $375 million each year for litter prevention. 2000.12.Transportation (Caltrans) study of catch basins alongside freeways in Los Angeles indicated that plastic film composed 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the total trash collected. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study.14. Investigate the issue of polyethylene plastic and paper sack consumption in the County.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2009/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2007/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Annual%20Rpt%2006-07.pdf County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.pdf 6 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Resolution: Agenda Item 14. October 2008. October 2009. California.10. CA: California Department of Transportation. Sacramento.” Don’t Trash California.lacounty. approximately 6 billion plastic carryout bags are consumed in the County each year. and Kimberly Walter. Page 2-2 13 14 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. John Johnston. Inc.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2006/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/PrincipalPermittee_AnnualReportFY05-06. “Facts at a Glance. Los Angeles.600 bags per household per year. Available at: http://dpw. and Report back to the Board of Supervisors on findings and recommendations to reduce grocery and retail sack waste.gov/qfd/states/06/06037. 7 U. Available at: http://www.pdf Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. 10 April 2007.13 2. CA. any impact an ordinance similar to the one proposed in San Francisco would have on recycling efforts in Los Angeles County.” Available at: http://quickfacts. Gary Lippner.9 The County of Los Angeles Flood Control District alone spends more than $18 million annually for prevention. the County Board of Supervisors instructed the County Chief Administrative Officer to work with the Director of Internal Services and the Director of Public Works to solicit input from outside environmental protection and grocer organizations related to three areas and report their findings and accomplish the following: 1. CA. including the pros and cons of adopting a policy similar to that of San Francisco.15 2. 2001.owp. Census Bureau. and any unintended consequences of the ordinance. “State & County Quick Facts: Los Angeles County.lacounty. Inventory and assess the impact of the current campaigns that urge recycling of paper and plastic sacks. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter.Doc .lacounty.6. cleanup.11.pdf 12 11 Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. Available at: http://dpw. Available at: http://dpw.donttrashcalifornia. 5 Combs.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020.html 8 9 At an average of slightly fewer than three persons per household California Department of Transportation.2. October 2007. Board of Supervisors Motion.info/pdf/Statistics. cleanup.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2008/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Principal%20Permittee%20&%20County%20Annual%20Report%20 FY07-08.pdf Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form.0 Project Description.census. 3. Suzanne.

and disposal services to over 700.pdf County of Los Angeles. recycling. Implements and administers a franchise solid waste collection system which. Alhambra. CA. Assembly Bill 939.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. recycling. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County.lacounty.2 x x x 15 County of Los Angeles. Operates seven Garbage Disposal Districts providing solid waste collection. The County's Solid Waste Management Function Countywide x Implements a variety of innovative Countywide recycling programs.2. which is a planning document that provides for the County’s long-term solid waste management disposal needs.In response to the directive of the Board of Supervisors.Doc . pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 [Assembly Bill (AB) 939]. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.17 2.1 x The County's Solid Waste Management Function in the Unincorporated County Area Implements source reduction and recycling programs in the unincorporated County areas to comply with the State of California’s (State’s) 50 percent waste reduction mandate. In 2004.2. and disposal services for over 300.000 residents. CA.000 residents. Provides staff for the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Task Force (Task Force). “Integrated Waste Management Act. Available at: http://dpw. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. the City of Los x x 2. Department of Public Works. Inc. including: Smart Gardening to teach residents about backyard composting and water wise gardening. and the renowned Household Hazardous/Electronic Waste Management and Used Oil Collection Programs. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. interactive Youth Education/Awareness Programs. Administers the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan which describes how all 89 of the jurisdictions Countywide.” Chapter 1095.0 Project Description. Environmental Programs Division. Alhambra. the County was successful in documenting a 53 percent waste diversion rate for the unincorporated County areas.2.2. once fully implemented. Available at: http://dpw. August 2007. the County is responsible for numerous solid waste management functions throughout the County. The Task Force is comprised of appointees from the League of California Cities. the convenient Environmental Hotline and Environmental Resources Internet Outreach Program. will provide waste collection. Department of Public Works. the County Board of Supervisors.16 As noted in the LACDPW Report. (LACDPW Report) in August 2007. are complying with the State’s waste reduction mandate.pdf California State Assembly.lacounty. Prepares and administers the Countywide Siting Element. Page 2-3 16 17 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the LACDPW prepared and submitted a staff report. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Environmental Programs Division. and will fund franchise area outreach programs to enhance recycling and waste reduction operations in unincorporated County areas that formerly operated under an open market system. acting independently and collaboratively. Waste Tire Amnesty for convenient waste tire recycling. August 2007.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.

the following terms are defined as follows: x x x x Reusable bag(s): a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is either (a) made of cloth or other machine-washable fabric. August 2007.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. such as the Biodegradable Product 18 County of Los Angeles. CA. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. environmental groups.3 Key Findings of the LACDPW Report The LACDPW Report identified four key findings: 1. Accelerating the widespread use of reusable bags will diminish plastic bag litter and redirect environmental preservation efforts and resources toward “greener” practices.Angeles.pdf Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale. excluding a reusable bag but including a compostable plastic carryout bag.lacounty. August 2007.lacounty.18 2. 1.2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. transfer and processing facilities.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. ƒ Assists the Task Force in determining the levels of needs for solid waste disposal.0 Project Description. and ƒ Facilitates the development of multi-jurisdictional marketing strategies for diverted materials.Doc .). Environmental Programs Division. Preface. 2. Reusable bags contribute toward environmental sustainability over plastic and paper carryout bags. 4. Inc. Biodegradable carryout bags are not a practical solution to this issue in Los Angeles County because there are no local commercial composting facilities able to process the biodegradable carryout bags at this time. The County performs the following Task Force functions: ƒ Reviews all major solid waste planning documents prepared by all 89 jurisdictions prior to their submittal to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. governmental agencies. or (b) made of durable plastic that is at least 2. 2. CA. (b) is certified and labeled as meeting the ASTM standard by a recognized verification entity.pdf County of Los Angeles. Plastic carryout bags have been found to significantly contribute to litter and have other negative impacts on marine wildlife and the environment.19 3. Environmental Programs Division. Department of Public Works. which requires meeting the current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard specifications for compostability. Alhambra. Paper carryout bag(s): a carryout bag made of paper that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale. Department of Public Works. solid waste industries. Available at: http://dpw. p.2. and the private sector.25 mils thick. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.2. Plastic carryout bag(s): a plastic carryout bag. Alhambra.3 Definitions For the purposes of this EIR. Page 2-4 19 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Compostable plastic carryout bag(s): a plastic carryout bag that (a) conforms to California labeling law (Public Resources Code Section 42355 et seq. Available at: http://dpw.

and (d) displays the words “reusable” and “recyclable” in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag. Rick. Alhambra.23 As a result of the ordinance. California. known as the Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance. 23 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 2-5 . coli. A retail pharmacy with at least five locations under the same ownership within the geographical limits of San Francisco. City of Malibu. Department of Public Works. and/or reusable bags. 2. “Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance.21 The ordinance further defines stores as a retail establishment located within the geographical limits of the City and County of San Francisco that meets either of the following requirements: (1) A full-line. food poisoning.2. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría. 10 May 2010.asp?id=71355 21 22 20 San Francisco Environment Code. there is a plastic carryout bag fee ordinance in effect in the District of Columbia. California.000. 2007. California. Rick. In addition.000) or more. Section 1703. etc. Galbreath. nor has there been a noticeable increase in traffic congestion in proximity to major supermarkets due to City and County of San Francisco.org/site/sf311csc_index. (2) Since adoption of the ordinance. Chapter 17. Galbreath.4 Single Use Bag Bans and Fees There are currently three city and county governments in California that have imposed bans on plastic carryout bags: City and County of San Francisco. e. self-service supermarket with gross annual sales of 2 million dollars ($2. County of Los Angeles.sfgov. initial feedback from the public has been positive and the use of reusable bags has increased. City and County of San Francisco The City and County of San Francisco adopted an ordinance to ban non-compostable plastic carryout bags. or nonfood items and some perishable items.) related to the increased use of reusable bags.” Web site. stipulates that all stores shall provide only the following as checkout bags to customers: recyclable paper bags. 10 May 2010. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. which sells a line of dry grocery. which became effective on November 20.0 Project Description. (b) is 100-percent recyclable overall and contains a minimum of 40-percent postconsumer recycled content. Recyclable paper bag(s): a paper bag that (a) contains no old growth fiber. County of Los Angeles. Department of Public Works.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and (c) displays the word “compostable” in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag (Appendix B). County of San Francisco. For purposes of determining which retail establishments are supermarkets.20 This ordinance.x Institute. compostable plastic carryout bags. Available at: http://www. County of San Francisco. (c) is compostable. and City of Palo Alto. San Francisco has not noted an increase in the number of waste discharge permits or air quality permits required for paper bag manufacturing in the district.22 There has been no reported negative public health issues (salmonella. Inc. the City shall use the annual updates of the Progressive Grocer Marketing Guidebook and any computer printouts developed in conjunction with the guidebook. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría. Alhambra. California. canned goods.

28.increased paper bag delivery trucks. Due to the lack of available baseline data and the fact that the ordinance is relatively recent. Karen.28 City of Palo Alto On March 30. Alhambra. 18 May 2010. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. California.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Nelson. County of San Francisco.27 Further. Department of Public Works. County of Los Angeles.35 of Title 5.020. Ban on Shopping Bags. Alhambra. Title 5. Health and Sanitation. California. “Health and Sanitation. the City of Malibu has noted a generally positive reaction from the public and an increase in the use of reusable bags. Since the adoption of this ordinance. Inc.020.020. Section 5. 2009.28. Palo Alto. 22 April 2010. provides that no affected retail establishment. California. County of Los Angeles. “Health and Sanitation. vendor or nonprofit vendor shall provide plastic bags or compostable plastic bags to customers. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría.35. or alongside the option of plastic bags. “Public Peace and Welfare.” Chapter 5. Telephone conversation with Luke Mitchell. Since the adoption of this ordinance. 10 May 2010. Alhambra. California. the City of Palo Alto adopted an ordinance banning plastic carryout bags: Chapter 5. County of Los Angeles. Page 2-6 . 10 May 2010. Department of Public Works. Bobel. 2009. Rick. field personnel from the Public Utilities Commission have noted a reduction in the amount of plastic carryout bags in catch-basins and have noted that fewer bags are now being entangled in equipment.24 San Francisco has also not noticed any increase in eutrophication in waterways due to increased use of paper bags. City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.35.35.26 City of Malibu On May 27. City of Malibu Department of Public Works. Alhambra. the ordinance requires that the customer be asked whether he or she requires or prefers paper bags or plastic bags. Phil.31 24 Galbreath. restaurant. Title 9. the City of Palo Alto has not been able to quantify the potential increase in use of reusable bags. California. California. the City of Palo Alto has received a mostly positive reaction from the public. California. Hurst.” Chapter 5. California. the City of Malibu adopted an ordinance banning plastic carryout bags: Chapter 9.35. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría. Rebecca. of the Palo Alto Municipal Code provides that all supermarkets in the City of Palo Alto will only provide reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags. Retail establishments in the City of Palo Alto are required to provide paper bags either as the only option for customers. California. Department of Public Works.25 Although no studies have been performed to document the potential impacts of the ordinance upon plastic carryout bag litter in storm drains. 27 28 26 Malibu Municipal Code.” Chapter 9. Title 5. 2008. this same section of the ordinance prohibits any person from distributing plastic carryout bags or compostable plastic carryout bags at any City facility or any event held on City property.29 If the retail establishment offers a choice between paper and plastic.28.30 All retail establishments and supermarkets were to comply with the requirements of this ordinance by September 18. 22 April 2010. County of Los Angeles. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría. 29 30 31 Palo Alto Municipal Code. 25 Galbreath.0 Project Description. Department of Public Works. “Ban on Shopping Bags. Malibu.” Section 9. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría. Rick. Department of Public Works. which can often slow or stop work in the field.020. County of San Francisco. County of Los Angeles. Palo Alto Municipal Code. California. Section 5. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Alhambra.

. pharmacies.com/dc/2010/03/bag_tax_raises_150000_but_far. Tim. 2010. Since the adoption of this ordinance. Sydney. Chapter 10. and convenience stores that sell food. but far fewer bags used. to implement the provisions of the Anacostia River Clean Up and Protection Act of 2009. The ordinance stipulates that a retail establishment shall charge each customer making a purchase from the establishment a fee of 5 cents ($0.000. one of the first of its kind in the nation.34 Prior to the bag tax taking effect on January 1.37 32 33 District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. Ireland levied a nationwide tax on plastic shopping bags that is paid directly by consumers.5 million bags were being issued per month in 2009.html?wprss=dc 34 Craig. The ordinance also regulates disposable carryout bags used by retail establishments. 29 March 2010. 2009. reusable bags sold for 0.html?wprss=dc GHK Ltd.21. Tim.0 Project Description. 37 36 Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd. “Bag tax raises $150. May 2007. In its first assessment of the new law. including biodegradable polymer bags. with a slight increase in this rate over time. Page 2-7 . grocery stores.com/dc/2010/03/bag_tax_raises_150000_but_far. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. It does not apply to bags for fresh produce. but far fewer bags used. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.33 Under regulations created by the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. but far fewer bags used.” The Washington Post. “Bag tax raises $150. Tim. The Benefits and Effects of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme.” The Washington Post. p.32 The tax.District of Columbia The District of Columbia adopted an ordinance that became effective on September 23. “Retail Establishment Carryout Bags. delicatessens. Available at: http://voices. the Office of the Chief Financial Officer had estimated that approximately 22.” The Washington Post. which suggests a significant decrease. liquor stores and "any business that sells food items. et al. plastic carry bags.” the 0.3 million bags in January. as well as restaurants and street vendors. bakeries. or to bags holding goods sold on board a ship or plane or in an area of a port or airport exclusive to intended passengers. 29 March 2010. Australia.70+ euro. Craig.” Section 1001.washingtonpost. Available at: http://voices.35 Efforts outside the United States Denmark In 1994. Denmark levied a tax on suppliers of both paper and plastic carryout bags. 29 March 2010.15-euro levy is applied at the point-of-sale to retailers and is required to be passed on directly to the consumer as an itemized line on any invoice.washingtonpost. Hong Kong. the District of Columbia has seen a marked decrease in the number of bags consumed. China.05) for each disposable carryout bag provided to the customer with the purchase. Available at: http://voices.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.com/dc/2010/03/bag_tax_raises_150000_but_far. The PlasTax applies to all single-use. “Bag tax raises $150. the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue estimates that city food and grocery establishments issued about 3.html?wprss=dc 35 Craig. December 2002. Prepared for: Environmental Protection Department. Environment Australia: Department of the Environment and Heritage: Plastic Shopping Bags –Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts: Final Report.washingtonpost. Inc.000." must charge the tax on paper or plastic carryout bags. Known as the “PlasTax. Title 21.36 Ireland In 2002. is designed to change consumer behavior and limit pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Denmark experienced an initial reduction of 60 percent in total use of disposable bags.000.

Decision Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the impacts of plastic bags. China. there was also a significant rate of conversion to paper bags and alternative bags. p. and subsequently leveled off closer to 75 percent of the original value. August 2005. Page 2-8 . the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling petitioned for a Writ of Mandate against the City of Oakland for its adopted plastic bag ordinance. The Benefits and Effects of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme.savetheplasticbag. including the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. On June 18. May 2007. Available at: http://www. GHK Ltd. On April 17. plastic carryout bag usage in Ireland initially declined 90 to 95 percent. 2007. April 2008. from 2002 to 2005. The initial ban on thin plastic carryout bags was withdrawn from application to storefront restaurants following an increase in total plastic use and problems with compliance. Case No. Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling vs.41 2.36 billion bags in 2006. The charge resulted in a 68-percent reduction in plastic carryout bag use. Hong Kong.Extended Impact Assessment: Volume 1: Main Report: Final Report. City of Manhattan Beach On June 12. May 2007.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Edinburgh. which represents a 44-percent decrease over four years from voluntary activities. the Taiwanese government set a direct charge to consumers as part of a wider waste-reduction initiative. the Alameda Superior Court in California invalidated the City of Oakland’s ordinance banning plastic carryout bags. Tentative Decision Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate. Adelaide.92 billion bags. 17 April 2008.40 Taiwan In 2003.pdf 40 39 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 2008. Mike Holland and Richard Boyd. Scotland: Scottish Executive. James. However. China. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy -.0 Project Description.2. Suzanne Evans. the Save the 38 Cadman. however. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. City of Oakland et al. 2008. Hong Kong. Australia. City of Oakland On November 21.7. plastic carryout bag use fell from 5.com/UploadedFiles/Oakland%20ruling%20on%20plastic%20bag%20ordinance.95 billion bags to 3.38.” As a result. Prepared for: Environmental Protection Department.Since implementation of the PlasTax. Retailers support single-use carryout bag reductions via a voluntary “Retailers Code. 2008.42 The City of Oakland ordinance was subsequently revoked by the City Council. and then fell again to 3.93 billion bags in 2007. Environment Protection and Heritage Council. The Benefits and Effects of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs.5 Litigation History Numerous city and county governments in California have attempted to impose bans on plastic carryout bags that have been challenged by certain members of the plastic bag industry. 41 GHK Ltd.39 Australia The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council in Australia has been very active in attempting to reduce plastic carryout bag use. the City of Manhattan Beach issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for a proposed ordinance to ban certain retailers in the City of Manhattan Beach from providing plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. RG07-339097. 42 California Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda. Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling vs. Inc. and the tentative decision was adopted as final by the court. a 17-percent increase from 2006. Prepared for: Environmental Protection Department. consumption of plastic carryout bags rose back up to 3.

specifically noted that prior to considering the adoption of any ordinance banning plastic bags. County of Los Angeles. The Coalition claimed that the County should have prepared an EIR before it adopted the voluntary Program. Inc.com/UploadedFiles/Manhattan%20Beach%20appeal%20decision. Peter M. 43 Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. 2008. Action filed: 12 August 2008. Available at: http://www.46 On January 27. The County also acknowledged that the action by the Board of Supervisors on January 22.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Joseph. Case No. at which the City Council voted to adopt the ordinance to ban plastic bags. the Coalition filed a lawsuit against the City of Manhattan Beach for adopting the ordinance without first preparing an EIR. Case No. Yaffe. Second Appellate District..pdf 46 45 Court of Appeal of the State of California. Supplemental Objections to the City of Manhattan Beach. David P. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tiburon.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. 2008. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs. Esq. City of Manhattan Beach. Division Five. San Francisco. Decision: 27 January 2009. it would complete any necessary environmental review under CEQA. First Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality Act and Declaratory Judgment. Joseph.45 The trial court found that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the ordinance may cause increased use of paper bags. Judge. BS116362. 2008.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20supplemental%20objections%20to%20Manhattan%20Beach. 2010. On July 1. BS115845. CA. and County of Los Angeles. the Manhattan Beach City Council held a hearing to vote on a proposed ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags. the California Supreme Court granted review of this decision. the Court of Appeal affirmed the trail court decision and vacated the ordinance and disallowed reenactment. CA. Available at: http://www.44 On February 20.pdf 44 Law Offices of Stephen L. 2010. Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles. Available at: http://www.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20mot%20for%20preliminary%20inj%20against%20Manhattan%20 Beach.com/UploadedFiles/Manhattan%20Beach%20appeal%20decision. Tiburon. Joseph. California. Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Staying Plastic Bag Ordinance. Second Appellate District.43 On the day of the hearing. since participation in the Program was voluntary. County of Los Angeles. pending preparation of an EIR.com/UploadedFiles/Manhattan%20Beach%20ruling. Grande and Catherine Brown.savetheplasticbag. Decision: 27 January 2009.pdf Superior Court of California. 2008. the Coalition filed supplemental legal objections to the proposed ordinance and testified at the City Council hearing. Judge. Ruling: 20 February 2009. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. the Coalition filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County for adopting the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Program) on January 22. Yaffe. City Council of Manhattan Beach.47 On April 23. Available at: http://www. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. David P. City of Manhattan Beach. San Francisco. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. On August 12. Los Angeles County On July 17. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the City of Manhattan Beach should have prepared an EIR for the ordinance. California. 12 December 2008.savetheplasticbag. On behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition.savetheplasticbag. Declarations of Stephen L. Division Five. Page 2-9 . 2009. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate. City of Manhattan Beach et al. Available at: http://www. thus requiring an EIR for further evaluation of the potential environmental impacts. BS116362. Available at: http://www. California.pdf 47 48 Law Offices of Stephen L. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. Esq.savetheplasticbag. Department of Public Works. 2008.0 Project Description.Plastic Bag Coalition (Coalition) filed formal legal objections with the City of Manhattan Beach on the premise that the ordinance should not be exempt from further environmental analysis under CEQA. City of Manhattan Beach.48 The County claimed that the voluntary Program did not require preparation of an EIR because it was not a "project" under CEQA.pdf Court of Appeal of the State of California. and that the County did not have the power to ban plastic carryout bags. Action Filed: 17 July 2008.. which may have a significant negative impact on the environment.com//UploadedFiles/STPB%20LA%20County%20Complaint. July 2008. Case No.savetheplasticbag.savetheplasticbag. 16 July 2008.

Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Esq. County of Santa Clara. 2008. Letter to City of Palo Alto Planning Department. CA. On this same day. San Francisco. Esq. Case No. City of Palo Alto. 3 May 2010. Esq.savetheplasticbag.pdf 51 50 49 Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph. In reaching this conclusion. County of Los Angeles.The Los Angeles Superior Court conducted the writ hearing on April 29.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20Santa%20Clara%20County%201. and March 16. Tiburon. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. 2008. On behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Action Filed: 21 April 2009.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20objections%20to%20Palo%20Alto%20negative%20declarati on. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. The City of Palo Alto adopted the ordinance in March 2009 banning plastic bags at four stores. Joseph. Inc. Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief. 19 November 2008. the Coalition filed a lawsuit against the City of Palo Alto for adopting an ordinance banning plastic bags without preparing an EIR. 17 September 2009. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.51 The City of Palo Alto and the Coalition settled their case on July 28. Law Offices of Stephen L. Agreement between Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. San Francisco. regarding its proposed plastic bag ban ordinance. Palo Alto. 2010. 2010. the Superior Court noted that the January 22. Tiburon. California.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20Palo%20Alto%20settlement. San Francisco. California. the Coalition filed formal legal objections with Santa Clara County regarding its proposed plastic bag ordinance. 27 July 2009. 2009. California. California. regarding its proposed plastic bag ban ordinance. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag. San Francisco. California. CA. legal objections. cannot be granted because the issue is not ripe.0 Project Description. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs.50 The Coalition filed further formal legal objections with the City of Palo Alto on February 13. et al. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality Act. Tiburon. Santa Clara County On November 19. the Superior Court issued its order in favor of the County on the Declaratory Judgment and denying the petition. 2008. County of Los Angeles. 2009. 2009. California. CA. California. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Subject: Objections to Proposed Negative Declaration and Notice of Intent to File Lawsuit. Letter to Kathy Kretchmer. Board of Supervisors action approved creation of the framework for a voluntary program for single-use bag reduction and recycling that had voluntary goals.. Available at: http://www.49 The Superior Court held that the declaratory relief requested by the Coalition. notice of intent to file lawsuit. CEQA demand. the Coalition contacted the County and settled with the County on the CEQA issue and dismissed its CEQA claim with prejudice on May 3.savetheplasticbag. Esq. the City of Palo Alto agreed not to expand the ordinance to any more stores without first preparing an EIR. CA.. On April 21. 1-09-CV-140463. Available at: http://www. Esq. BS115845. including completion of any necessary environmental review under CEQA..53 Superior Court of California.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. San Francisco. the Coalition filed formal legal objections with the City of Palo Alto.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. City of Palo Alto On September 17. Page 2-10 53 .pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. San Francisco. Tiburon. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. and directed that an ordinance banning plastic bags be drafted subject to certain contingencies. Joseph. Shortly following the hearing. California.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20Petition%20against%20Palo%20Alto. In the settlement agreement. The Court could not evaluate the issue of preemption as requested by the Coalition without an ordinance in place banning plastic bags.pdf 52 Law Offices of Stephen L. 2009.savetheplasticbag.52 The original ordinance is still in effect. CA... and City of Palo Alto. Settlement Agreement and Mutual Releases. 20 April 2009. CA. on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. that AB 2449 preempts the County's authority to ban plastic bags. Available at: http://www. Joseph. namely. Filed on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs.

CA. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. City of San Jose On January 29. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. legal objections. City Council. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance. CEQA demand. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance. 18 September 2009. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. San Francisco. Subject: CEQA demand and objection.59 On October 22. the Coalition filed further formal legal objections with the City of San Jose. 12 January 2009. California. San Francisco.56 Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs. California. CA. Letter to Mayor. CEQA demand. 2009. CA. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. City of San Jose. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition.pdf 59 Law Offices of Stephen L.savetheplasticbag. Joseph. the Coalition filed formal objections with the City of Mountain View regarding the City’s failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed plastic bag ordinance. Esq. notice of intent to file lawsuit. 26 January 2009.pdf 58 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. City of Morgan Hill. legal objections. and City Attorney. California. notice of intent to file lawsuit. Director. California.. Page 2-11 . California. California. San Francisco. Joseph. CEQA demand. City of Mountain View On January 26. Letter to Mayor. objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag fee. Available at: http://www. Letter to Mayor.savetheplasticbag. San Francisco. the City of San Jose issued a Notice 54 Law Offices of Stephen L. California. Tiburon. the Coalition filed formal objections with the City of Santa Monica for its failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed plastic bag ordinance. Esq. Letter to Mayor and City Council.0 Project Description. 2009. Joseph. notice of intent to file lawsuit. City Council.. California. Available at: http://www. City Council.savetheplasticbag. 2008.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20CEQA%20objections%20to%20Santa%20Monica%20plastic% 20bag%20ban%20ordinance.savetheplasticbag. notice of intent to file lawsuit. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance. California. objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag ban. Letter to City Council and City Attorney. City of San Jose. Joseph. City of Morgan Hill On January 26.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. CEQA demand.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. City of Santa Monica On January 12. 2009. California. Tiburon.pdf 57 Law Offices of Stephen L. 29 January 2009. Available at: http://www. California. San Francisco. Tiburon. 26 January 2009. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition.58 On September 18. legal objections. the Coalition filed formal objections with the City of San Jose regarding a proposed plastic bag ordinance. Joseph.. 2009. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance.savetheplasticbag.. City of Santa Monica. California. 28 November 2008. CEQA demand. CA. CA. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%202%20to%20San%20Jose.. Director. legal objections. Available at: http://www.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20Mountain%20View.55 The City of Santa Monica initiated preparation of an EIR. Esq. Director. notice of intent to file lawsuit.57 Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs. legal objections. 2009. Letter to Mayor and City Council. 2009. Inc. Esq.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20San%20Diego%201. and released its Notice of Preparation in March 2010.. the Coalition filed formal objections with the City of Morgan Hill regarding its proposed plastic bag ordinance because the City of Morgan Hill did not prepare an EIR. CA.54 Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs. San Francisco. City of San Diego. City of San Diego On November 28. and City Attorney.pdf 56 55 Law Offices of Stephen L. Tiburon. City of Mountain View.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20Morgan%20Hill. Available at: http://www.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20San%20Jose.Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs. Tiburon. Esq. Joseph. Tiburon. and City Attorney. Available at: http://www. Esq. the Coalition filed formal legal objections with the City of San Diego regarding its proposed plastic bag ordinance. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs.

CA.plasticsindustry. Environmental Programs Division. John Johnston. Esq. 67 66 65 County of Los Angeles. Resolution: Agenda Item 14. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20City%20of%20Encinitas.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Plastic Carryout Bags In 1977. Available at: http://dpw. Available at: http://www. Sacramento. Subject: CEQA demand and objection. Available at: http://www. David Marx. Nairobi. Available at: http://dpw. Web site.60 2. CA. and exacerbates the cost to.62 By 1996. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge. Environmental Programs Division. Available at: http://dpw. City of Encinitas.65. 2007. Letter to Mayor and City Council.pdf California Integrated Waste Management Board. August 2007. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. Sacramento.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. Sacramento.pdf SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association. Environmental Programs Division. Department of Public Works.pdf 63 64 United Nations Environment Programme.68. Alhambra. The period for comments on the scope of the EIR ended on November 30. the Coalition filed formal legal objections with the City of Encinitas regarding its proposed plastic bag ban ordinance. four out of every five grocery stores were using plastic carryout bags.org/ County of Los Angeles.pdf 70 Combs.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. August 2007. Department of Public Works. Available at: http://www. Available at : http://www. 1998–2000.pdf California Integrated Waste Management Board.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.63.66. Department of Public Works. Joseph.. 2009.pdf 61 62 SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association. Resolution: Agenda Item 14. the prevalence of plastic bag litter in the storm water system and coastal waterways hampers the ability of.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. City of Encinitas On September 17. Board Meeting Agenda.3. CA: California Department of Transportation. Tiburon. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra. and other public agencies. local agencies to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 60 Law Offices of Stephen L. supermarkets began offering to customers plastic carryout bags designed for single use.67 The prevalence of litter from plastic bags in the urban environment also compromises the efficiency of systems designed to channel storm water runoff. CA. CA. San Francisco. 12 June 2007. Furthermore.70 Plastic bag litter also contributes to environmental degradation and degradation of the quality of life for County residents and visitors. Alhambra.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.0 Project Description. Inc.3 2. Web site. Gary Lippner.of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed single-use plastic carryout bag ordinance. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. 69 68 County of Los Angeles.lacounty. plastic bag litter leads to increased clean-up costs for the County. 2007. 2009. Board Meeting Agenda. objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag fee.lacounty. 2009. August 2007.plasticsindustry. In particular. Page 2-12 .61. CA.64 Plastic carryout bags have been found to contribute substantially to the litter stream and to have adverse effects on marine wildlife. April 2009. Available at: http://dpw. objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag ban. 12 June 2007. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. The City of San Jose has since scheduled citywide community meetings for April and May 2010 to discuss the proposed ordinance. Alhambra. Suzanne. 17 September 2009.69. CA. and Kimberly Walter. CA. August 2007.org/ County of Los Angeles.lacounty.unep.lacounty. Environmental Programs Division. California. Department of Public Works. and held a public scoping meeting on November 12.savetheplasticbag. Caltrans. Kenya. California.

and despite the use of roving patrols to pick up littered bags. Available at: http://www.4 percent for plastic carryout bags related to grocery and other merchandise. Berkeley. or plastic with a thickness of 2. Available at: http://dpw. 72 County of Los Angeles. Section 303(d).71. Section 42250–42257. Available at: http://dpw. 0. 6. August 2007. plastic bag litter remains prevalent throughout the County.asp?pubid=1097 74 Note: Plastics make up approximately 9. Assembly Bill 2449. June 2006.7 percent for non-bag commercial and industrial packaging film. Alhambra. Environmental Programs Division. Available at: http://dpw. California. Department of Public Works. which represents approximately 0. Inc.74 Several organizations have studied the effects of plastic litter: Caltrans conducted a study on freeway storm water litter.pdf County of Los Angeles. 2006. 1998–2000. Alhambra. Inc.lacounty.4 percent of the total waste stream in California. Sacramento. CA.” Clean Water Act. County of Los Angeles.79 AB 2449 requires all supermarkets (grocery stores with more than $2 million in annual sales) and retail businesses of at least 10.lacounty. 73 Combs. John Johnston. “Table ES-3: Composition of California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type.76 the City of Los Angeles conducted a waste characterization study on 30 storm drain basins. Page 2-13 78 79 80 81 82 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Environmental Programs Division.gov/Publications/default. 2006. Integrated Waste Management Board.ca. including 0. David Marx. CA: California Department of Transportation. 2003. Public Resources Code. and 1 percent for plastic trash bags.75 the Friends of Los Angeles River conducted a waste characterization study on the Los Angeles River. Assembly Bill 2449. CA.25 mils or greater.81 The stores are allowed to charge their patrons for reusable bags.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency. CA.pdf Public Resources Code. Public Resources Code. CA. Title 33. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Section 1313.77 and LACDPW conducted a trash reduction and a waste characterization study of street sweeping and trash capture systems near and within the Hamilton Bowl. Starting on July 1. December 2004.ciwmb. Great Los Angeles River. These bags can be made of cloth.73.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). and facilities to prevent airborne bags from escaping. CA.78 These studies concluded that plastic film (including plastic bag litter) composed between 7 to 30 percent by mass and between 12 to 34 percent by volume of the total litter collected. Alhambra. Assembly Bill 2449.0 Project Description. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. catch basins. 76 77 75 Friends of the Los Angeles River and American Rivers. Los Angeles. Department of Public Works.72 The CIWMB estimates that approximately 3. Section 42250–42257. p. Department of Public Works. Environmental Programs Division.” Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. 2007. Technical Report: Assessment of Catch Basin Opening Screen Covers.lacounty.82 Store operators must maintain 71 United States Code. located in Long Beach. August 2007.000 square feet with a licensed pharmacy to establish a plastic carryout bag recycling program at each store. and Kimberly Walter. the affected stores must make reusable bags available to their patrons. each store must provide a clearly marked bin that is easily available for customers to deposit plastic carryout bags for recycling. Sanitation Department of Public Works. fabric. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group. Section 42250–42257.5 percent of California’s waste stream by weight. August 2007.”80 In addition. 2004.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. 2006. Gary Lippner. The stores’ plastic bags must display the words “please return to a participating store for recycling.and total maximum daily loads (TMDL) limits for trash. “Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. CA. Suzanne. installation of litter control devices such as cover fences for trucks. Los Angeles and Nevada City. Despite the implementation of best management practices (BMPs).9 percent of plastic waste can be attributed to plastic carryout bags related to grocery and other merchandise. Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. City of Los Angeles.Doc .

DC. moisture. they are denser and less susceptible to becoming airborne.9 percent in 2007. trees that are felled.3. and paper carryout bags. Los Angeles. Page 2-14 91 90 89 . Inc. compostable plastic carryout bags.3. it did not include conversion/fabrication scrap.pdf. 88 California Environmental Protection Agency. 84 County of Los Angeles.000 tons of paper carryout bags are disposed of each year by consumers throughout the County.1 percent of plastic recovered in this category. Washington. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group. October 2008. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reported that the recycling rate for high-density polyethylene plastic bags and sacks was 11.83 2. which estimates the life of a reusable bag as being between two and five years.S.gov/publications/localasst/34004005.epa. The County of Los Angeles conservatively estimates that the percentage of plastic bags in this category for the County of Los Angeles is less than 5 percent.ciwmb.91 83 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Washington. distribution. Inc. Resolution: Agenda Item 14. County of Los Angeles Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program – Program Resource Packet. Available at: http://www. The U. today.2 Paper Bags The production. sacks. Alhambra.S. Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Resolution and Alternative 5). paper carryout bags are less likely to become litter than are plastic carryout bags. CA. Prepared by ICF International. Green Seal Proposed Revised Environmental Standard For Reusable Bags (GS-16). The report includes the recovery of plastic bags. soil. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. Environmental Protection Agency. CA. paper bags have the potential to biodegrade if they are sufficiently exposed to oxygen. and pollution that is generated in the production of paper carryout bags. 22 January 2008. and wraps (excluding packaging) for a total of 9. and disposal of paper carryout bags also have known adverse effects on the environment.ca.pdf U.89 Therefore. sunlight. December 2004.gov/epd/PlasticBags/Resources.88 However. 1960 to 2007. Environmental Programs Division.85 There is a considerable amount of energy that is used.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. CA. 12 June 2007. Environmental Programs Division. such as the 2008 report by Green Seal.program records for a minimum of three years and make the records available to the local jurisdiction. “Table 21: Recovery of Products in Municipal Solid Waste.8 percent of paper bags and sacks. based upon the available evidence.90 In 1994.” Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Green Seal. Alhambra. November 2008. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags.84. Integrated Waste Management Board.87 The CIWMB determined in the 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study that approximately 117.org/certification/gsOrdinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.greenseal. CA. and they generally have a higher recycling rate than do plastic bags. San Francisco. and microorganisms (such as bacteria).lacounty. Inc. This amount accounts for approximately 1 percent of the total 12 million tons of solid waste generated each year. Department of Public Works. Green Seal recommends a more ambitious standard of a minimum of 500 uses under wet conditions (bag testing under wet conditions is more stringent testing). 86 85 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. and practices. Department of Public Works. 13 October 2008. Available at: http://dpw. DC. Available at: http://www. County of Los Angeles Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program – Program Resource Packet.3 Reusable Bags Reusable bags offer an alternative to plastic carryout bags. CA. The utility of a reusable bag has been noted in various reports. Contractor’s Report to the Board: 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Berkeley.0 Project Description.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 2. is an independent non-profit organization that uses science-based standards and the power of the marketplace to provide recommendations regarding sustainable products. Green Cities California. CA. Board Meeting Agenda. the Green Seal report encouraged an industry standard of a minimum of 300 reusable bag uses. Green Seal. March 2010. The referenced table included the recovery of postconsumer wastes for the purposes of recycling or composting.86. Inc. Sacramento. compared to a recycling rate of 36.cfm 87 County of Los Angeles. October 2008. Available at: http://www. standards.

cfm Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.96 Currently. Green Seal. however. Inc.asp?CID=1106&DID=7212 Green Cities California.com/healthy_living/green_living/Pages/reusable_bags. CA.Furthermore. Green Seal.org/certification/gs16_reusable_bag_proposed_revised_standard_background%20document. CA. DC. recyclers and other key stakeholders. offer reusable bags for purchase at registers and offer various incentives such as store rewards or store credit to customers who use reusable bags.gov/epd/PlasticBags/Resources. and efforts related to consumer education 16_reusable_bag_proposed_revised_standard_background%20document. Available at: http://www. Prepared by: ICF International. 2009. 2008. life cycle studies for plastic products have documented the adverse impacts related to various types of plastic and paper bags. reduce consumption of single-use bags. and promote public awareness of the effects of litter and consumer responsibility in the County.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 2013. the plastic bag industry. 2007.pdf Ralphs Grocery Company.” Web site. Compostable.ralphs.greenseal. Other stores. increase at-store recycling of plastic bags. Recyclable Paper. Washington. The voluntary program establishes benchmarks for measuring the effectiveness of the program. including the use of recycled materials. Large supermarket and retail stores: develop and implement store-specific programs such as employee training. Available at: http://www. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. increase the post-consumer recycled material content of paper bags.0 Project Description.lacounty.com/s_plastics/doc. and Recycled. environmental organizations. 22 January 2008. Washington.97 2. such as certain Whole Foods divisions.aspx 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. DC. Ltd. Los Angeles. such as certain Ralph’s divisions. and manufacturers as part of the voluntary program’s key components: 1.pdf Reusable bag manufacturers are also expected to enforce industry standards and recommendations to avoid adverse environmental impacts. the County Board of Supervisors approved a motion to implement the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Alternative 5) in partnership with large supermarkets and retail stores.98 The County identified three tasks to be undertaken by the County. 13 October 2008. Page 2-15 . March 2010. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. San Francisco. The program aims to promote the use of reusable bags. reusable-bag incentives. Inc.org/certification/gs16_reusable_bag_proposed_revised_standard_background%20document. Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Resolution and Alternative 5). 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. do not offer plastic carryout bags at checkout and instead offer reusable bags for sale and provide rebates if its patrons bring their own reusable bags.pdf Boustead Consulting & Associates. seeking a 30-percent decrease in the disposal rate of carryout plastic bags from the fiscal year 2007–2008 usage levels by July 1. Available at: http://www. Inc. “Doing Your Part: Try Reusable Shopping Bags.4 Voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program On January 22.americanchemistry. and a 65-percent decrease by July 1. Biodegradable Plastic. Green Seal Proposed Revised Environmental Standard For Reusable Bags (GS-16).94.93. 13 October 2008. Available at: http://dpw. stores. Green Seal Proposed Revised Environmental Standard For Reusable Bags (GS-16). 2010. Available at: http://www.greenseal.3. some stores within the County. life cycle studies have also indicated that reusable bags92 are the preferable option to both paper bags and plastic bags.95 Reusable bags are intended to provide a viable alternative to the use of paper or plastic carryout bags.

environmental organizations. The County is currently evaluating the efficacy of volunteer programs. progress reports. and Signal Hill. plastic bag industry groups. Methodology consumption rates based upon plastic bags generated in fiscal year 2007–2008. and provide and solicit support for reusable bags. and develop and coordinate program specifics such as educational material.0 Project Description. and to encourage a considerable transition to the use of reusable bags. a consultant of the American Chemistry Council. and others. Bell. waste management industry groups. establishing committees focused on community outreach. (2) the total number of plastic carryout bags recycled at stores.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. attend community events. The letter invited the cities to join the County in a collaborative effort and to take advantage of the framework already developed by the County. Information related to the LACDPW’s efforts was presented to all 88 cities regarding the proposed ordinances and their actions. Department of Public Works. Azusa. CA. including its own Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. visit stores. Glendale. and milestones In March 2008. Hermosa Beach. various governmental entities. and coordinate with large supermarkets and stores County of Los Angeles Working Group: facilitate program meetings. has visited grocery stores within the County to provide stores and consumers with additional information and assistance to enhance their plastic bag recycling programs. reduction strategies. 3. Redondo Beach. Page 2-16 99 . Manufacturer and trade associations: encourage members to participate in the program. interested members of the public. the County has facilitated meetings that have been attended by representatives of grocery stores. in relation to the disposal rate of plastic carryout bags using three criteria:99 (1) the reduction in consumption of plastic carryout bags. These endeavors were undertaken in an effort to increase the participation of grocery stores. These cities have implemented a variety of public education and outreach efforts to encourage participation within their cities. Since August 2007. the County provided each of the 88 incorporated cities in the County with a sample “Resolution to Join” letter that extended to the cities an opportunity to join the County in the abovementioned activities related to the Single Use Plastic Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. establish a framework describing participant levels and participation expectations. and (3) the total number of plastic carryout bags recycled via curbside recycling programs. Pomona. The methodology is described in its entirety in County of Los Angeles Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program – Program Resource Packet. The County has led further efforts to disseminate outreach materials. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Environmental Programs Division. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. There are currently 11 cities within the County that have signed resolutions to join the County in its efforts and in adopting similar ordinances for their respective cities: Agoura Hills. and distributing recycled-content reusable bags at community events. determine specific definitions for target stores. as provided in data reported to the California Integrated Waste Management Board as required by AB 2449. including developing public education brochures. running public service announcements on their city’s cable television channel. The Plastic Recycling Corporation of California. Lomita. work with cities within the County.2. Santa Fe Springs. Inc. provide technical assistance and marketing recommendations. published by County of Los Angeles. establishment of disposal rates and measurement methodology. Pico Rivera. to shift consumer behavior to the use of recycled plastic bags. Alhambra.

5 General Plan Land Use Designation The proposed ordinances would apply to stores within the County that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code.4 2.2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2.2 Incorporated Cities of the County of Los Angeles The affected stores may occur within any of the zoning designations that allow for commercial or retail uses defined by the 88 incorporated cities within the County. Available at: http://ordlink.6. (5) Publicly Owned Property. Section 14526. and reduce the associated government funds used for prevention. The proposed ordinances would not require any changes to the established zoning ordinances in any of the incorporated cities.6.3. (4) sustainability (as it relates to the County’s energy and environmental goals). Title 22: “Planning and Zoning.1 Zoning Unincorporated Territories of the County of Los Angeles The Los Angeles County Code (County Code) contains ordinances that regulate zoning within the unincorporated territories of the County: Title 22.com/codes/lacounty/index. setback. (2) are buildings that have over 10. or community standards districts). an alternative to the proposed ordinances being studied in this EIR considers application of the proposed ordinances to all supermarkets.” Chapter 22.com/codes/lacounty/index.6 2. which further describe the zoning within each of the communities.46.4. clean-up. particularly the component of the litter stream composed of plastic bags. 2. pharmacies. Planning and Zoning. (4) Industrial. and convenience stores within the County with no limits on square footage or sales volumes. and (5) landfill disposal reduction. 100 101 Los Angeles County Code.100 As with the land use designation.000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.5.” Available at: http://ordlink.3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc. Title 22: “Planning and Zoning. and (7) Supplemental Districts (such as equestrian. listed in order of importance: (1) litter reduction. (2) Agricultural. (3) Commercial. (3) coastal waterways and animal and wildlife protection.3. the stores may occur within any of the seven general zoning designations: (1) Residential.0 Project Description. and enforcement efforts. In addition.46 of Title 22 establishes procedures for consideration of specific plans within the unincorporated territories.101 The proposed ordinance would not require any changes to the established land use zoning designations.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES Program Goals The County is seeking to substantially reduce the operational cost and environmental degradation associated with the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. (2) blight prevention.htm Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. (6) Special Purpose and Combining. 2.htm Los Angeles County Code. 2. Page 2-17 . The County has identified five goals of the proposed ordinances. Chapter 22. flood protection.3. the County Code provides for planning and zoning within these unincorporated territories and includes zones and districts for each of the 140 unincorporated communities.

4. cities would implement objectives comparable with the Countywide objectives. 102 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter in the County by $4 million Substantially increase awareness of the negative impacts of plastic carryout bags and the benefits of reusable bags. working with the Director of Public Works and County Counsel. if any.Doc . The draft ordinance would ban the issuance of plastic bags at large supermarkets and retail stores in the unincorporated territories of the County. 22 January 2008. CA. the County Board of Supervisors instructed the Chief Executive Officer. (subsequently revised to as early as September 2010) banning plastic bags for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.103 The proposed ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags consists of an ordinance to be adopted prohibiting certain retail establishments from issuing plastic carryout bags in the unincorporated territories of the County.000 residents (5 percent of the population) with an environmental awareness message Reduce Countywide disposal of plastic carryout bags in landfills by 50 percent from 2007 annual amounts City Objectives If using a comparable standard to that of the County’s standard. Page 2-18 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 2008. there are currently 11 cities within the County that have signed resolutions to join the County in adopting similar ordinances in their cities. Minutes of the Board of Supervisors. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.lacounty.600 plastic carryout bags per household in 2007.2 Countywide Objectives The proposed ordinance program would have six objectives: x x x x x x 2. Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Resolution and Alternative 5). 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. 2.gov/epd/PlasticBags/Resources. clean-up. Inc. and reach at least 50. Cities’. to prepare a draft ordinance by April 1.3 Conduct outreach to all 88 incorporated cities of the County to encourage adoption of comparable ordinances Reduce the Countywide consumption of plastic carryout bags from the estimated 1. Los Angeles.0 Project Description. and Flood Control District’s costs for prevention. The analysis of the proposed ordinances in this EIR anticipates the adoption of similar proposed ordinances for each of the 88 incorporated cities within the County. Any necessary environmental review in compliance with CEQA would be completed before the Board of Supervisors would consider the draft ordinance. The County would also encourage adoption of comparable ordinances by each of the 88 incorporated cities in the County.102.cfm 103 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. to fewer than 800 plastic bags per household in 2013 Reduce the Countywide contribution of plastic carryout bags to litter that blights public spaces Countywide by 50 percent by 2013 Reduce the County’s.2.4. CA. Available at: http://dpw. those objectives may need to be evaluated to determine what further CEQA analysis would be required. Should the cities prepare different objectives. 2009. Los Angeles.5 PROPOSED PROJECT On January 22. As previously mentioned. 22 January 2008.

The proposed ordinances being considered would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags by any retail establishment. which would affect the unincorporated territories of the County. it was determined that more in-depth research and secondary source data would be appropriate to further substantiate the technical information and findings in the EIR. to include all supermarkets.5. lists all reviewing agencies that have been notified of the proposed ordinances.1 Transition Period Assumption Should the proposed ordinances be adopted. Inc. If the County chooses to expand the scope of the ordinance or include a performance standard for reusable bags. 2010. 2. may substitute plastic carryout bags with paper carryout bags where paper carryout bags are available. The County anticipates that a measurable percentage of affected consumers would subsequently use reusable bags (this percentage includes consumers currently using reusable bags) once the proposed ordinances take effect. and convenience stores with no limits on square footage or sales volumes. it is anticipated that there would be a transition period during which consumers would switch to reusable bags. of this Draft EIR. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2. it may recommend that the 88 incorporated cities of the County consider the same in any proposed ordinances.The proposed ordinances aim to significantly reduce the number of plastic carryout bags that are disposed of or that enter the litter stream by ensuring that certain retail establishments located in the County will not distribute or make available to customers any plastic carryout bags or compostable plastic bags. Section 11. the County Chief Executive Office notified the Board of Supervisors that the Final EIR and draft ordinance would be presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration as early as September 2010. should the cities decide to adopt comparable ordinances. those who choose to forgo reusable bags. Based on the EIR scoping meetings. that is located in the unincorporated territory or incorporated cities of the County. On March 12. Page 2-19 . or (2) are buildings with over 10. and the individual incorporated cities within the County would be the lead agencies for their respective city ordinances.6 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR The County of Los Angeles is the lead agency for the proposed County ordinance. defined herein.5.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.0 Project Description. the County is considering expanding the scope of the proposed County ordinance. 2. The County Board of Supervisors will consider certification of the EIR and has authorization to render a decision on the proposed ordinance that would affect the County’s unincorporated territories. The County further anticipates that some of the remaining consumers. Distribution List. In addition. The retail establishments that would be affected by the proposed ordinances include any that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as stated in the California Public Resources Code. pharmacies. Section 14526. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The County is also considering expanding the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 2-20 . and Pharmacies and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative 4.0. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for all Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. and analyzes the ability of each alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed ordinances. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for all Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. and Pharmacies and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Section 4. Inc. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 3. which is required by the State CEQA Guidelines. evaluates potential environmental impacts of each alternative.2. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 2. A total of five project alternatives were evaluated for the proposed ordinances. of this EIR describes the alternatives. Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances. The No Project Alternative. several alternatives were considered and analyzed. Convenience Stores.0 Project Description. The five alternatives to the proposed ordinances are as follows: x x x x x No Project Alternative Alternative 1. Convenience Stores. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\2.7 ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVES During the initial conceptual phases of the proposed ordinances.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. was also assessed and all five alternatives have been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR.

0. county. MITIGATION. mitigation measures for significant impacts.1 However. Mitigation measures were derived from public and agency input. biological resources. Department of Public Works.0 Environmental Analysis. greenhouse gas emissions.2 The potential for cumulative impacts was considered as a result of scoping and agency consultation. and includes a description of existing carryout bags available in the County. and utilities and service systems. Project Description. Significance thresholds were established in accordance with Appendix G. Chapter 3. Inc. geology and soils. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. of this Draft EIR. hazards and hazardous materials. impact analysis. land use and planning.Doc .SECTION 3. Inc. The existing conditions portion of the analysis has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. population and housing. Pasadena. Division 6. and provides a full scope of environmental analysis in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines. of the State CEQA Guidelines. Environmental Checklist Form. or transportation and traffic. existing conditions. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. IMPACTS. and current programs and other related ordinances intended to reduce carryout bag use. Sections 15000–15387. The applicable federal. The existing conditions are described based on literature review and archived resources.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS. 1 Sapphos Environmental. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. 1 December 2009. and level of significance after mitigation. recreation. Title 14. agriculture and forestry resources. and field surveys. 2 California Code of Regulations. and local statutes and regulations that govern individual environmental resources that must be considered by the County Board of Supervisors in the decision-making process are included in the regulatory framework described for each environmental resource. noise. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. regional. cultural resources. thresholds of significance. The level of significance after mitigation was evaluated in accordance with the thresholds of significance and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigations to reduce potentially significant impacts to below the significance threshold. State. Appendix G. this section describes the regulatory framework. AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This section of the EIR evaluates the potential of the proposed ordinances to result in significant impacts to the environment. hydrology and water quality. Page 3-1 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. For each environmental resource. agency coordination. CA. The impact analysis contained in this environmental document is based solely on the implementation of the proposed ordinances as described in Section 2. public services. the Initial Study identified the potential for the proposed ordinances to result in significant impacts to 5 environmental resources warranting further analysis: air quality. The Initial Study for the proposed ordinances determined that there was no evidence that the proposed ordinances would cause significant environmental effects related to 12 environmental resources: aesthetics. mineral resources.

Chapter 3. Appendix G. Inc.gov/air/criteria. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Sections 15000–15387. Diamond Bar. Sacramento. Data on existing air quality in the SCAQMD portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and the AVAQMD portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB).3 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CA. Pasadena. California Air Resources Board. Available at: http://www. Lancaster. CA. CA. CA.1 it was identified that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to result in significant impacts to air quality. Page 3. CA. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The analysis of air quality consists of a summary of the regulatory framework to be considered during the decision-making process. the County has decided to present the analysis of air quality in the EIR. CA.html 5 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality Specialist. 2005. Inc. 2 3 California Code of Regulations. CA.9 and a review of public comments received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. CA. therefore. Environmental Protection Agency. Sapphos Environmental. 1 December 2009. 1993. The potential for impacts to air quality has been analyzed in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Inc.1 AIR QUALITY As a result of the Initial Study. 9 Jeannie Blakeslee. 16 March 2010. Daniel. reduce. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. 21 January 2010.10 1 Sapphos Environmental. Therefore. a description of the existing conditions within the County. in which the unincorporated territory and the 88 incorporated cities of the County are located. Inc. mitigation measures. Operations Manager. Pasadena. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. or otherwise mitigate potential significant impacts to air quality and identify potential alternatives. November 1980. County of Los Angeles.8 and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Available at: http://www. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. and cumulative).S. and the SCAQMD and AVAQMD. Office of Climate Change. Diamond Bar. Title I. this issue has been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR. County of Los Angeles General Plan. Inc. CARB. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.. 8 March 2010. Department of Public Works. Available at: http://www. Updated 14 July 2009. Bret.1-1 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2..5 and the CAA. Department of Regional Planning. and level of significance after mitigation. anticipated impacts (direct. Certain plastic bag industry representatives have claimed that the banning of plastic carryout bags could potentially result in the increased manufacture of paper carryout bags. thresholds for determining if the proposed ordinances would result in significant impacts.html 7 Garcia. Federal Clean Air Act. Air Pollution Prevention and Control. Pasadena. Sapphos Environmental.6 guidance provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).epa. Pasadena.. indirect. The conclusions contained herein reflect guidelines established by SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook.htm 6 4 U.Doc . National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).ca. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. This analysis was undertaken to identify opportunities to avoid. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. CA. Los Angeles.epa.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.gov/oar/caa/contents. is monitored by a network of air monitoring stations operated by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Reviewed 5 March 2008.S. which may lead to increased emissions of criteria pollutants.3. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Title 14. Division 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Environmental Protection Agency.4 the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). 8 Banks. Sapphos Environmental.2 the methodologies and significance thresholds provided by the County General Plan.1 Air Quality.7 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD). 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District.arb. U.

Section 176(c) of the CAA as amended in 1990.12 The USEPA sets NAAQS for the criteria pollutants (O3. Ambient Air Quality Standards). the USEPA revoked the annual suspended particulate matter (PM10) standard in 2006 due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to PM10 emissions. “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Redesignation of Puget Sound. 62 (158). Page 3.1-1. SOx. and PM2.1-1.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/e1f3db8b006eff1a88256dcf007885c6/$ FILE/61%20FR%2050438%20Seattle%20Tacoma%20Ozone%20MP. “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining. regional. The provisions of Code of Federal Regulations. Primary standards are designed to protect public health. CO. Federal Federal Clean Air Act The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that federally supported activities must conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Available at: http://yosemite.epa.1. Environmental Protection Agency. Title 23). whereas secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare. Areas of control for the regional districts are set by CARB. The unincorporated territory of the County is within the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB (Figure 3. apply in all non-attainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated non-attainment or has a maintenance plan. or by county boundaries. 15 August 1997. PM10.htm Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Existing national standards and State standards were considered in the evaluation of air quality impacts for the proposed ordinances (Table 3.1. These air basins are based largely on topography that limits air flow. 26 September 1996.gov/EPA-AIR/1997/August/Day-15/a20968.” In Federal Register. such as visibility and crop or material damage. which divides the state into air basins.S. including sensitive individuals such as children and the elderly. Available at: http://www. Washington for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Ozone. Responsibility for attaining and maintaining ambient air quality standards in California is divided between the CARB and regional air pollution control or air quality management districts.gov/r10/airpage. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.5). Parts 51 and 93.1 Regulatory Framework This regulatory framework identifies the federal. programs. whose purpose is that of attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.11 and metropolitan planning organizations determine the conformity of federally funded or approved highway and transit plans. Air Quality Management Districts within the County of Los Angeles). and projects to SIPs.3. Title 40.S.” In Federal Register. NOx.Doc . established the criteria and procedures by which the Federal Highway Administration (United States Code. 61 (188). and local laws that govern the regulation of air quality and must be considered by the County when rendering decisions on projects that would have the potential to result in air emissions. the Federal Transit Administration. For example. The CAA requires the USEPA to routinely review and update the NAAQS in accordance with the latest available scientific evidence. U.1.1 Air Quality. State.epa.pdf 12 11 U. Environmental Protection Agency.1-2 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The 1-hour standard for ozone (O3) was revoked in 2005 in favor of a new 8-hour standard that is intended to be more protective of public health. Inc.

1. LA County § ¦ ¨ 91 Orange County § ¦ ¨ 5 Mapped Area LEGEND § ¦ ¨ 405 Paci fic O Air Quality Management Districts cea n Antelope Valley AQMD South Coast AQMD FIGURE 3.mxd o 0 5 10 Miles 20 Kern County San Bernardino County § ¦ ¨ 5 § ¦ ¨ 14 Ventura County Los Angeles County § ¦ ¨ 118 § ¦ ¨ 101 § ¦ ¨ 170 § ¦ ¨ 210 § ¦ ¨ 210 § ¦ ¨ 405 § ¦ ¨ 10 § ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 110 105 § ¦ § ¨ ¦ ¨ 605 710 § ¦ ¨ 60 SOURCE: SEI.1-1 Air Quality Management Districts within the County of Los Angeles .KWF\Q:\1012\1012-035\ArcProjects\AirQuality.

053 ppm. 3-hr avg. 24-hr avg. calendar quarter 1.5).053 ppm.03 ppm. 3 15 —g/m . 0. 1-hr 0. annual avg.03 ppm. Inc. (SO2) 0. 8-hr avg. The SCAB as a whole is an extreme non-attainment area for O3. = average 4. (2008) None 0. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.ca.gov/air/criteria. 1-hr avg. (1997) 0. 24-hr avg.” depending on the severity of their pollution.5) Sulfates (SO4) Lead (Pb) Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) Vinyl chloride Visibility-reducing particles 35 —g/m3. 8-hr avg. 0. annual avg.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.5 —g/m3. 0. 3 3 1. 8-hr avg. 20 ppm. 35 ppm. 150 —g/m3.14 ppm. Suspended particulate 150 —g/m3. U. (1997) 0. 35 —g/m3.epa.arb. —g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter SOURCES: 1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 1997 standard of 0.07 ppm. ----25 —g/m3. and a serious non-attainment area for Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). 24-hr avg. Environmental Protection Agency.1 Air Quality. rolling 3-month 0. 1-hr avg.5 —g/m . annual avg. Updated 14 July 2009. 24-hr avg. 8-hr avg. Reviewed 5 March 2008.09 ppm. ppm = parts per million by volume 3. Extinction coefficient of 0. The County is currently designated as a severe-17 non-attainment area for O3. 1-hr avg. 24-hr avg. ----0.25 ppm.1. 2.1-3 .07--30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent (8-hr avg. 30-day avg.075 ppm. 12 —g/m3. annual avg.15 —g/m3.08 ppm. and Antelope Valley is a severe-17 non-attainment area for O3.S. annual avg. annual avg.htm The 1990 amendments to the CAA divide the nation into five categories of planning regions ranging from “marginal” to “extreme. calendar quarter 1.1-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Air Pollutant Ozone (O3)1 Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Primary 0. Secondary 0. 9 ppm.23 per kilometer — visibility of 10 miles or more (0. State Standard 0. 24-hr avg. 8-hr avg. ----0. 0. 1-hr avg. and set new timetables for attaining the NAAQS. 0.08 ppm will remain in place for implementation purposes as USEPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition to the 2008 ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Attainment deadlines are from 3 years to 20 years. 1-hr avg.03 ppm. Sulfur dioxide 0. 24-hr avg. avg. Page 3. Available at: http://www.5 —g/m . 20 —g/m3. Available at: http://www.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 24-hr avg. 50 —g/m3. 8-hr avg. 0. depending on the category. annual avg. California Air Resources Board.5 ppm.) --- --- NOTES: 1.18 ppm.075 ppm.04 ppm.01 ppm.075 ppm. (2008) 9 ppm. 15 —g/m3. 24-hr avg. a non-attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM2. 8-hr avg. matter (PM10) Fine particulate matter (PM2. avg.TABLE 3. 0.html 2.15 —g/m3. annual avg. rolling 3-month avg.

The SCAB has until 2021 to achieve the 8-hour O3 standards and until 2010 to achieve the PM2. respectively. State California Clean Air Act The California CAA of 1988 requires all air pollution control districts in the state to aim to achieve and maintain State ambient air quality standards for O3.PM10. 14 Although the SCAB as a whole is designated as a non-attainment area for PM10. Diamond Bar. hydrogen sulfide. Areas designated as serious for non-attainment of the federal PM10 air quality standard have a maximum of 10 years to reduce PM10 emissions to attainment levels. CO. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. June 2007. All non-attainment areas for PM2. and NO2 by the earliest practicable date and to develop plans and regulations specifying how they will meet this goal. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. June 2007.5 air quality standards. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. vinyl chloride. June 2007. The California CAA. Non-attainment areas classified as serious or worse are required to revise their respective air quality management plans to include specific emission reduction strategies to meet interim milestones in implementing emission controls and improving air quality. CA. The CAAQS are generally stricter than national standards for the same pollutants. which became part of Cal/EPA in 1991.Doc . If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within 2 years of federal notification.13 but the SCAB has achieved the federal 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) air quality standards since 1990 and 2002.16 Section 182(e)(5) of the federal CAA allows the USEPA administrator to approve provisions of an attainment strategy in an extreme area that anticipates development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies if a state has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions. 15 August 2008.1 Air Quality. are required to reach attainment levels within 17 years of designation. and the County has met the federal air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 1992. South Coast Air Quality Management District. the USEPA is required to develop a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the identified non-attainment area or areas. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. for which there are no national standards (Table 3. U. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. such as the County.5 standards. the County is currently in compliance of federal PM10 standards at all monitoring stations. administrating the California CAA. Areas designated as severe-17 for non-attainment of the federal 8-hour O3 standard. but there is no penalty for non-attainment.S. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Available at: http://www. amended in 1992.1-4 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. requires all air districts in the state to aim to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. Inc.1. The CARB.1-1). CA.15 The Antelope Valley is unclassified for the federal PM10 standards. CA. California has also established standards for sulfates.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ 14 15 16 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District.epa.5 have 3 years after designation to meet the PM2. Diamond Bar. Diamond Bar. There are no planning requirements for the State PM10 standard. and visibility-reducing particles. Environmental Protection Agency. Page 3. and establishing the CAAQS. is responsible for meeting State requirements of the federal CAA. The USEPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the CAA.

1.Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD.1 Air Quality. and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain federal and State ambient air quality standards in the district. 2007.5 air quality standards and the federal 8-hour O3 air quality standard. emission inventories. ambient measurements. In addition. This act merged four county air pollution agencies into one regional district to improve air quality in Southern California. AVAQMD Rule 1150. The most recent update to the SCAQMD AQMP was prepared for air quality improvements to meet both State and federal CAA planning requirements for all areas under AQMP jurisdiction. control strategies.17 As with SCAQMD Rule 1150. CARB approved an SIP revision for attainment of the 8-hour O3 NAAQS in Antelope Valley. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.1 applies to all active landfills in the SCAB and requires the installation of a control system that is designed to reduce VOC emissions by at least 98 percent. and air quality modeling. SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have responsibility under State law to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP sets forth strategies for attaining the federal PM10 and PM2. On September 27. Antelope Valley exceeds the federal O3 standards. With the incorporation of new scientific data.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.1-5 . Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. CA. the update was adopted by CARB for inclusion in the SIP. which contains measures to meet State and federal requirements. At a public hearing held on June 26. SCAQMD is responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring that new. Page 3. which monitors air quality within the County. the 2007 AQMP focuses on O3 and PM2. or related stationary sources do not create net emission increases. as well as for meeting State standards at the earliest practicable date. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District The Antelope Valley portion of the County was detached from the SCAQMD when AB 2666 (Knight) established the AVAQMD in 1997. When approved by CARB and the USEPA. SCAQMD Rule 1150. SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality as well as planning. The AVAQMD Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan provides planning strategies for attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for O3 by 2021. the Kern County border to the north. Rule 1150.1 requires emission controls for active landfills within the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB.5 attainments. and the San Bernardino County border to the east. by targeting reductions in the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). On a regional level. AVAQMD Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. Inc. 2008. 20 May 2008. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. The Antelope Valley. The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management Act created SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout Southern California. has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10. 17 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. Lancaster. the AQMP becomes part of the SIP. is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west. was adopted by SCAQMD in 1985 to limit landfill emissions to prevent public nuisance and protect public health.1. modified. located in the western MDAB portion of northern Los Angeles County. implementing.743 square miles and a population of over 16 million.

and the San Diego County line to the south. development in the area is governed by the policies. and moderate humidity. and standards set forth in the County General Plan. During the dry season. temperature. Los Angeles.Local County of Los Angeles General Plan The jurisdiction of the proposed County ordinance is within the County.1. The proposed ordinance would be expected to be consistent with the County General Plan governing air quality and would not be expected to result in a change to the population growth assumption used by the SCAG for attainment planning.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. therefore.1 Air Quality. and the eastern-most portion of Riverside County. or Santa Ana winds. This mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by extremely hot summers. 3. mild winters. and winds in the SCAB. CA. The analysis of existing conditions related to air quality includes a summary of pollutant levels prior to implementation of the proposed ordinances. carpooling. Inc. November 1980. and continued research to improve air quality. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. City General Plans Any incorporated cities in the County that adopt individual ordinances will need to determine if they must comply with the adopted air quality policies set forth in the respective city general plans. The northern portion of the County is located within the MDAB. light winds. Many policies are transportation-based because of the direct link between air quality and the circulation element. Promote vanpooling. procedures. and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. which includes the eastern portion of Kern County. The County General Plan has developed goals and policies for improving air quality in the County. Department of Regional Planning. winter storms. High mountains surround the rest of the SCAB perimeter. County of Los Angeles General Plan. the San Gabriel.745-square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles.2 Existing Conditions South Coast Air Basin The unincorporated territory of the County is located primarily in the SCAB. which comprises a 6. Policy: Actively support strict air quality regulations for mobile and stationary sources. The County portion of the SCAB is a subregion of SCAQMD and is in an area of high air pollution potential due to its climate and topography. and improved public transportation. infrequent rainfalls. The SCAB is a coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west. 18 County of Los Angeles. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. if any. Riverside. contributing to the variation of rainfall. the northeastern portion of Los Angeles County. the Eastern Pacific High-Pressure Area (a semi-permanent feature of the general hemispheric circulation pattern) dominates the weather over much of Southern California. The climate of the SCAB is characterized by warm summers. resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speed. San Bernardino County. There is one objective and related policy relevant to the proposed ordinance that is capable of contributing toward avoiding and reducing the generation of air pollutants:18 x x Objective: To support local efforts to improve air quality. and San Bernardino Counties.1-6 . San Bernardino. Page 3.

temperature decreases with altitude. CO concentrations are generally worse in the morning and late evening (around 10:00 p. The County portion of the MDAB is located within the AVAQMD.The MDAB is composed of four air districts: the Kern County Air Pollution Control District. caused by air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating and channeled inland through mountain passes. which causes a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form O3. The County portion of the MDAB.20 Temperature Inversions Consistent with the conditions throughout the SCAB. The large majority of the MDAB is relatively rural and sparsely populated. as the pollution rises it reaches an area where the ambient temperature exceeds the temperature of the pollution. The Sierra Nevada Mountains provide a natural barrier to the north. Available at: http://www. as recorded at a monitoring site in Lancaster. averages fewer than 8 inches of precipitation per year19 and is classified as a dry-hot desert climate. trapping it close to the ground. preventing cold air masses from Canada and Alaska from moving down into the MDAB. Page 3.1-7 . High CO levels during the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.dri. inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. Inc. CO concentrations have also dropped significantly throughout the non-desert portion of the County as a result of strict new emission controls and reformulated gasoline sold in winter months. a condition characterized by an increase in temperature with an increase in altitude. and its climate is characterized by hot. the AVAQMD. NO2 levels are also generally higher during fall and winter days. However. mild winters. Since CO is produced almost entirely from automobiles.m. moderate to high wind episodes. so the MDAB experiences infrequent rainfalls.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Peak O3 concentrations in the non-desert portion of the County over the past two decades have occurred at the base of the mountains around Azusa and Glendora. CO levels are relatively high due to cold temperatures and the large number of cars traveling. With an upper layer of warm air mass over the cool marine layer. Additional air quality problems in the non-desert portion of the County can be attributed to the bright sunshine. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. and low humidity. In the morning. air pollutants are prevented from dispersing upward. During summer. thereby limiting vertical dispersion of air pollutants and causing the pollution to sink back to the surface. The MDAB contains a number of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. 5 April 2006.1 Air Quality. in a temperature inversion condition. During fall and winter. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. In a normal atmosphere. and the eastern portion of the SCAQMD. the MDAB is influenced by the Eastern Pacific High-Pressure Area.pl?cateha 20 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. the non-desert portion of the County frequently experiences temperature inversions. During the summer months. the highest CO concentrations in the non-desert portion of the County are associated with heavy traffic. the interaction between the ocean surface and the low layer of the atmosphere creates a marine layer. Antelope Valley AQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. Available at: http://www. Both the peak O3 concentrations and the number of days the standards were exceeded decreased everywhere in the non-desert portion of the County throughout the 1990s.gov/Modules/ShowDocument. dry summers.aspx?documentid=916 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.wrcc.). the greatest pollution problems are CO and NOx emissions. Period of Record General Climate Summary—Precipitation. infrequent rainfalls. 19 Western Regional Climate Center.ca. The San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges block the majority of cool moist costal air from the south. which are trapped and concentrated by the inversion layer. May 2005.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.mdaqmd.

Accessed on: 20 January 2010.1 0 0.8 Yes 0.htm Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.0 ppm (State 8-hr standard) Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) Days > 0.011 0 0. causes a significant impact to the air quality conditions within the Mojave Desert portion of the County. agriculture. TABLE 3.25 ppm (State 24-hr standard) 0.3 0 0. Page 3.07 ppm (State 8-hr standard)? Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 20 ppm (State 1-hour standard) Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 9.128 Yes 8 0 6. based on similar meteorological and topographical features. Inc.116 Yes 8 0 5.1.7 Yes 0. and estimated changes in CO concentrations generally reflect operational air quality impacts associated with projects.131 Yes 6 0 4. respectively. Summary of 2006–2008 Ambient Air Quality Data in the SCAQMD Portion of the County).010 0 0.18 Yes 2007 0.158 Yes 2008 0.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.14 0 117 Yes 16.and 8-hour background concentrations are approximately 8 parts per million (ppm) and 6. Transportation of pollutants from other regions.1 Air Quality.09 ppm (State 1-hr standard)? Ozone Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) Exceed 0. and other anthropogenic activities.2-1 SUMMARY OF 2006–2008 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA IN THE SCAQMD PORTION OF THE COUNTY Pollutants Pollutant Concentration & Standards Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) Exceed 0. Historical Data by Year.4 ppm.7 Yes 0. The ambient air quality data in the SCAQMD portion of the County and the applicable State standards indicates exceedances for the applicable State standards or federal standards for O3 and particulate matter (Table 3. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Available at: http://www.and 8-hour background concentrations do not exceed the California CO standards of 20 ppm and 9.gov/smog/historicaldata. such as the SCAB.2-1. Background CO concentration in the County is established because CO concentrations are typically used as an indicator of the conformity with CAAQS.5 Sulfur dioxide SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District.13 0 98 Yes 15.0 ppm.160 Yes Carbon monoxide Nitrogen dioxide PM10 PM2. Source Receptor Area The SCAQMD is divided into source receptor areas. Sources receptor areas 1 through 13 are located within the County.012 0 Number of Days Above State Standard 2006 0.Emission Sources Emissions within the non-desert portion of the County are generated daily from vehicle exhaust emissions. industry.1.18 ppm (State 1-hr standard) Maximum 24-hr concentration (—g/m3) Exceed 50 —g/m3 (State 24-hr standard)? Maximum Annual Average (—g/m3) Exceed State standard (12 —g/m3 annual arithmetic mean)? Maximum 24-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 0.12 0 131+ Yes 16. The existing 1.aqmd.4 0 0. A review of SCAQMD data for the County from 2006 to 2008 indicates that the 1.1-8 . The Mojave Desert portion of the County is also affected by similar local and regional emission sources. The highest reading of the CO concentrations over the past three years is defined by SCAQMD as the background level. respectively.

Summary of 2007–2009 Ambient Air Quality Data in the AVAQMD Portion of the County).09 ppm (State 1-hr standard) Ozone Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 0.2-2.2 0 1. namely.062 0 0.1 0 199 5 0. This station measures particulate matter (PM10). California 93535. playgrounds. Accessed on: 20 January 2010. SOURCE: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. CO. schools.065 0 Number of Days Above State Standard 2007 0. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.8 0 1.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors.0 ppm (State 8-hr standard) Maximum 24-hr concentration (—g/m3) Days > 50 —g/m3 (State 24-hr standard) Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 0.101 >1* 2. child care centers.103 59 2.102 70 1.064 0 0. Page 3.1-9 . CA.1 Air Quality. O3. located at 43301 Division Street. the elderly over 65 years of age.ca. such as those with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function due to other illnesses. Lancaster.1.1. would the proposed ordinances have the potential for one or more of five potential effects: Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.” Lancaster. athletic facilities.avaqmd.1. Available at: http://www.116 18 2009 0. rehabilitation centers. Land uses identified to be sensitive receptors by SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook include residences. Web site. and retirement homes. can be particularly sensitive to emissions of criteria pollutants. The potential for the proposed ordinances to result in impacts related to air quality was analyzed in relation to the questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.3 Significance Thresholds The potential air quality impacts from the proposed ordinances may occur on a local and regional scale.18 ppm (State 1-hr standard_ 0. TABLE 3.2-2 SUMMARY OF 2007–2009 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA IN THE AVAQMD PORTION OF THE COUNTY Pollutants Pollutant Concentration & Standards Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) Days >0.gov/index. There are many sensitive receptors located throughout the unincorporated territory of the County and the incorporated cities. long-term health care facilities.Air quality data in the AVAQMD portion of the County is monitored at the Lancaster–Division Street Monitoring Station.2 0 86 8 0.07 ppm (State 8-hr standard) Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 20 ppm (State 1-hour standard) Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) Days > 9. “Annual Air Monitoring Reports. convalescent centers.0 0 153 16 0. and children under 14 years of age. and NO2.122 22 Carbon monoxide PM10 Nitrogen dioxide NOTE: * AVAQMD did not report the number of days that exceeded the State 8-hr standard in 2007. Inc.aspx?page=98 Sensitive Receptors Some persons.5 0 1. 3. A summary of the air quality data from 2007 to 2009 at the Lancaster–Division Street monitoring station indicates exceedances for the applicable State standards or federal standards for O3 and suspended particulate matter (PM10) (Table 3.118 16 2008 0.

Daily Operational Emission Thresholds of Significance) The CAAQS for the 1. therefore. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. CA.x x x x x 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 release in emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursor) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The County relies on significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. However. Page 3.1-10 . respectively. NOx.3-1. 3. VOCs.0 ppm. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. 1993. Inc. to determine whether projects will have significant impacts to air quality.5.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.0 ppm over no-project conditions for the 1-hour period would be considered a significant impact. Antelope Valley AQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. an incremental increase of 0. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. as revised in November 1993 and approved by the SCAQMD Board of Directors. four significance criteria are relevant to the consideration of the proposed ordinances: x x Daily SCAQMD and AVAQMD operational emissions thresholds for CO.21 The SCAQMD’s emission thresholds apply to all federally regulated air pollutants except lead. The chapters completed to date make no change in significance thresholds or analysis methodology. Diamond Bar. SOx.1 Air Quality.and 8-hour periods of CO concentrations of 20 ppm and 9. if CO concentrations currently exceed the CAAQS. The AVAQMD also provides guidelines and significance thresholds for performing air quality analyses in CEQA documents and states that the methodologies as presented in the latest SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are acceptable for projects under the jurisdiction of the AVAQMD. Available at: http://www. then an incremental increase of 1. Chapters 2. which is not exceeded in the SCAB.45 ppm over the no-project conditions for the 8-hour period would be considered significant Emissions of toxic air contaminants Odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD’s Rule 402 x x 21 22 South Coast Air Quality Management District. the air quality impacts of the proposed ordinances are not analyzed in comparison to construction emission thresholds of significance provided by SCAQMD or AVAQMD. and PM10 (Table 3.1.22 The SCAQMD is currently in the process of preparing a new air quality handbook. and 4 related to air quality background information and the roles of regulatory agencies are available online at the SCAQMD Web site. Significance Criteria The proposed ordinances do not involve any construction activities. AQMD Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.aspx?documentid=916 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. PM2. May 2005.ca. Other chapters will be posted on the site as they become available.mdaqmd.

one can assume that in a conservative worst-case scenario. the analysis will assume both an 85-percent conversion and a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags in order to quantify the potential worst-case air quality impacts.4 Impact Analysis This section analyzes the potential for significant impacts to air quality that would occur from implementation of the proposed ordinances. Therefore. Construction emissions vary substantially from day to day. reusable bags made up 18 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that did not make plastic carryout bags readily available to customers. 1993. and reusable bags are all currently manufactured and generally available in the marketplace. Operational Regional Impacts: primarily gaseous emissions from natural gas and electricity usage and vehicles traveling to and from a project site.5) Particulate matter (PM10) SCAQMD Project Operation Threshold (lbs/day) 550 55 55 150 55 150 AVAQMD Project Operation Threshold (lbs/day) 548 137 137 137 N/A 82 SOURCES: 1. 2.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. South Coast Air Quality Management District. it is reasonable to estimate that a ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags would increase the number of reusable bags used by customers by at least 15 percent.TABLE 3. For the purposes of this EIR. demolition. Cumulative Impacts: air quality changes resulting from the incremental impact of the project when added to other projects in the vicinity.3-1 DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Criteria Air Pollutant Carbon monoxide (CO) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Sulfur oxides (SOx) Fine particulate matter (PM2. 3. Inc. including airborne dust from grading. (2) (3) (4) The consideration of construction impacts is not relevant to the proposed ordinances because plastic carryout bags. and paints and coatings. employee vehicles. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Assessment Methods and Models Based on a survey of bag usage in the County conducted by Sapphos Environmental. Accordingly. reusable bags made up only 2 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that did make plastic carryout bags readily available (Appendix A).1.1 Air Quality. paper carryout bags.1-11 .1. 2005. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. delivery and dirt hauling trucks. primarily CO. Air quality impacts of a project generally fall into four major categories: (1) Construction Impacts: temporary impacts.. Page 3. resulting from traffic increases in the immediate vicinity of a project. the proposed ordinances would potentially prompt an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags. and dirt hauling and gaseous emissions from heavy equipment. However. Operational Local Impacts: increases in pollutant concentrations. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. depending on the level of construction activity (which varies by construction phase) and weather conditions. Inc. as well as any toxic and odor emissions generated on site.

Polypropylene. vehicle speeds. and final disposal. One way to analyze these indirect impacts is to review available life cycle assessments (LCAs) that quantify the air pollutant emissions of various types of bags. The URBEMIS 2007 model directly calculates VOCs. version 2. NOx. CA. and disposal of paper carryout bags. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. 24 Green Cities California. San Francisco. version 2. and temperature conditions for the estimated effective date of the proposed ordinances. An LCA assesses environmental impacts by analyzing the entire life cycle of a product. differences in the definition of a particular product. and office buildings. manufacturing. was used to evaluate the proposed ordinances’ air pollutant emissions caused by delivery trucks trips. concerns were raised that the proposed ordinances might be expected to have an indirect impact upon air quality due to a potential increase in the production. Inc. CA. November 1983. Diamond Bar. commute distances. URBEMIS is a computer program used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods. material selection. fireplaces. and end-of-life fates can be widely different and are not always comparable. March 2010. and Polystyrene Resins. shopping centers. and construction projects. manufacturing technologies. and the manufacture of plastic carryout bags is not a process that involves Pb. its extensive data requirements make it highly complicated. PM2. or activity.24 URBEMIS Model The methodology used in this EIR to analyze operational air quality impacts is consistent with the methods described in the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. distribution. recycling. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. energy mixes. which is imbedded within the URBEMIS Green Cities California. March 2010. Page 3. wood stoves. transportation and distribution. and CO2 emissions. 1993. CO.1-12 . Prepared by ICF International. and landscape maintenance equipment.1 Air Quality. Although this method enables very specific and detailed analyses. manufacture. CA. water. was used to estimate operational emissions from truck delivery trips to and from the stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene. 26 EMFAC 2007 Model The CARB Emissions Factors (EMFAC) 2007 model. and raw materials). San Francisco. SCAQMD and AVAQMD regional significance thresholds were used to compare the proposed ordinances’ regional operational emission impacts to determine significance.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 26 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District. process. use/reuse/maintenance. identifies relevant inputs (such as energy. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. including extraction and processing of raw materials. Prepared by ICF International.25 The CARB URBEMIS 2007. 23 An LCA considers each individual process within specific geographical boundaries. based on the expected vehicle fleet mix. The comparison of two LCAs of the same product can be challenging due to differences in system boundaries. area sources such as gas appliances. PM10.3. When comparing LCAs for different types of bags produced and disposed in different countries. U.5. and calculates outputs (such as air emissions) that are associated with each process.Life Cycle Assessments During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the EIR for the proposed ordinances. different functional units and input parameters.S. The concentrations and emissions of lead (Pb) were not analyzed for the proposed ordinances because the proposed ordinances do not contain an industrial component that is considered a Pb emission source. and the application of different methodologies.2.3. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. version 9. SO2.4. The EMFAC 2007.

The vehicle fleet mix was defined as a mixture of light to heavy trucks (less than 3.6 57.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.750 pounds and up to 60.750 lbs Light truck 3.8 53.5 1.000 lbs Heavy-heavy truck 33.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diesel Percentage N/A 6. area sources from natural gas combustion.751–5.2007 model. direct daily emissions of all six criteria pollutants (O3. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for this EIR.1 0.5) due to area and mobile sources would be expected to be below the level of significance.e. vehicle speeds. and the proposed ordinances would not directly cause an increase in vehicle trips in the County.. therefore. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.501–10. architectural coatings.751–8.000 lbs Medium-heavy truck 14. Long-term air emissions within the unincorporated territories of the County could result from both stationary sources (i.4-1.000 lbs Light-heavy truck 8. Page 3.750 lbs Medium truck 5. and PM2.000 lbs Other bus Urban bus Motorcycle School bus Motor home Non-catalyst Percentage N/A 2. SO2.4-1 VEHICLE FLEET MIX Fleet Percentage 0 15.001–60.501–10. TABLE 3.1 1. Inc.9 10 1.3 1 0.6 98.500 lbs Light-heavy truck 8. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.5 0 28. commute distances. and reusable bags are all currently manufactured and generally available in the marketplace. NOx.1.1 Air Quality. once implemented. and landscape fuel) and mobile sources. there would be no regional or localized construction impacts. PM10.9 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Catalyst Percentage N/A 91. Operational Impacts The proposed ordinances would not be anticipated to cause significant impacts to air quality. and temperature conditions were based on the default values in the URBEMIS 2007 and EMFAC 2007 models.2 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Light auto Light truck less than 3. concerns were raised that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to cause indirect impacts upon air quality.1.000 pounds). Vehicle Fleet Mix). The percentage of each type of truck was based on the ratios defined by EMFAC 2007 for the County (Table 3. paper carryout bags. The proposed ordinances do not include any elements that would directly increase emissions from stationary sources. In this analysis.1-13 .1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTE: lbs = pounds Construction Impacts The proposed ordinances do not involve any construction activities.1 23. includes emission factors for criteria pollutants.4 42.001–33. consumer products.1 2. These potential indirect impacts are evaluated in more detail below.1 71.5 99. The consideration of construction impacts is not relevant to the proposed ordinances because plastic carryout bags. CO.1 90 98. However. Therefore.2 3.

Prairie Village. Ecobilan. 2000.32 However. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. reusable low-density polyethylene plastic bags. which could further reduce air quality impacts. plastic carryout bags were found to contribute 63 percent to 73 percent less air emissions than paper carryout bags contribute. Neuilly-sur-Seine.31 This contrasts with a more recent study in 2000. the majority of LCAs and other studies that compare plastic.ecobilan.35. C. France. Ltd. and Biodegradable Material. the County is considering expanding the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Paper. The Winnipeg Packaging Project: Comparison of Grocery Bags. 37 prepared a comprehensive LCA in 2004 that shows the impacts of paper carryout bags. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Paper.27.33. 34 Nolan-Itu Pty. and plastic carryout bags made of high-density polyethylene upon the emission of various air pollutants. France. Distribution in Paper Sacks. Also. SOx. as is the case with any manufactured product. KS. 2007.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Ltd.1-14 .. The ULS Report. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Ecobilan Study Ecobilan. 32 33 31 CIT Ekologik. and Reusable Grocery Bags. Department of Economics. distribution. France. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 29 Fenton.38 The Ecobilan Study presents emissions of NOx. Canada. 28. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Neuilly-sur-Seine. VOCs. Prairie Village. so the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced.000 liters of groceries packed. 1990. 30 27 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.30 For example. Inc. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. which is assumed to be a typical volume of groceries purchased annually in Ecobilan. MI. Prepared for: Department of the Environment. the CIT Ekologik Study. Water. Recyclable Paper. 1 June 2007. Rochester. which found that the production of paper carryout bags contributes significantly less air emissions than does the production of plastic carryout bags. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. and Biodegradable Material. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and reusable bags concur that a switch to reusable bags would result in the most beneficial impacts to air quality. Belgium.php Ecobilan. Australia. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 37 38 Ecobilan. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. September 2004. Brussels..29. paper. 35 36 Marlet.36 Although the production. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. EuroCommerce. Paper.. although several studies show that production of plastic carryout bags generally produces less air pollutant emissions than does the production of paper carryout bags. Available at: https://www. 1990. Banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. and Recycled. Page 3. Sweden. Goteborg. Ltd. in the Franklin Study performed in 1990. Company Web site. February 2004. Biodegradable Plastic. KS. and Heritage: Canberra. Franklin Associates. and particulates in terms of grams per 9. University of Winnipeg: Manitoba.34.1 Air Quality. February 2004. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. these emissions are significantly reduced when calculated on a per-use basis. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. R. manufacture. Chalmers Industriteknik. a department of PricewaterhouseCoopers that provides analysis of the environmental performance of products and services. and Biodegradable Material. 28 Franklin Associates. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does cause air pollutant emissions. February 2004.com/uk_who. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Compostable. 2002. CO.Indirect Emissions Based on Life Cycle Assessments Comparisons of LCAs for plastic versus paper provide varying results on the environmental impacts. 1991.

Prepared for: Carrefour Group.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may not accurately reflect the actual number of bags consumed per day on average per store in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas. Calculation Data).4-2) can be considered as the existing conditions.1. contains relatively sophisticated modeling and data processing techniques.000 bags per day.700 stores statewide affected by AB 2449 reported an average of 4. 4.000 square feet or higher.1-15 43 . 40 39 As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. The Ecobilan LCA was chosen above the other studies reviewed during preparation of this EIR because it is relatively recent. A daily average per store was then calculated at 10.1. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Biodegradable Material. CA. France. considers paper. Page 3. February 2004.695 bags used per store per day. In order to make the Ecobilan data more applicable to bag usage in the County. it was determined that approximately 10.984 bags per day.42 It is important to note that this number is likely very high. 41 It was assumed that each store currently uses approximately 10. Table 3. as it is more than twice the bag average reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2008 for AB 2449 affected stores.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10. These calculations were performed using the assumption that there are 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County40 and 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County that would be affected by the proposed ordinances (Appendix C). Sacramento. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data (Existing Conditions)] and the criteria pollutant emissions that could be anticipated given an 85-percent and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Table 3. CA.000 plastic carryout bags per day. for the purposes of this EIR.1. Database accessed on: 29 April 2010.000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day.4-5. Ecobilan. considers a wide range of environmental indicators. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4-3. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-Percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. and reusable bags. was critically reviewed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency.4-2. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122. E-mail to Luke Mitchell.43 While 10. and contains detailed emission data for individual pollutants. This method was used to estimate the current criteria pollutant emissions per day resulting from plastic carryout bags [Table 3. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Paper Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data. and then multiplied by an overly conservative estimate of the number of bags that are currently used per day in the unincorporated territories of the County and in the 88 incorporated cities.France per customer. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns. 29 April 2010. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario. Dona Sturgess. multiplied by the number of liters of groceries per bag. Inc. the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed County ordinance. California Department of Public Works. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential.4-4. 41 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.1.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. plastic.39 The results of the Ecobilan Study were used to analyze the potential emissions of criteria pollutants due to an 85-percent conversion and a 100-percent conversion of use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags. the emissions were calculated in terms of pounds per liter of groceries packed. 42 Based on coordination between the County Department of Public Works and several large supermarket chains in the County. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-Percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Paper.1. Table 3. The criteria pollutant emissions due to plastic carryout bags (Table 3.1 Air Quality. Alhambra. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. and Appendix C. In 2008.

The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. and acetone. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. February 2004. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. and Biodegradable Material.836 paper carryout bags used per day per store)2 Total emissions VOCs1 65 Air Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day) NOx CO SOx 167 21 60 PM 11 450 515 1. Neuilly-sur-Seine. France. TABLE 3.000 x (14/20.836]. Inc. Paper. Page 3. the majority of emissions associated with plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags come from material Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study.1-16 . apart from methane.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. ethane. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. CO. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 2. According to the Ecobilan data. but would be expected to increase emissions of NOx (Table 3.000 plastic carryout bags per day. France. A comparison of the plastic carryout bag–related emissions and paper carryout bag–related emissions indicates that conversion to paper carryout bags under the proposed ordinances would be expected to decrease emissions of VOCs. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6. NOTE: 1.48) = 6. February 2004.000 plastic carryout bags used per day per store) Emissions attributed to the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County (assuming 10. SOx. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.4-2 CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DUE TO PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAG LCA BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Air Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day) NOx CO SOx Particulates 62 111 54 44 Emissions Sources Emissions attributed to the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County (assuming 10.1. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. and PM.1. and Biodegradable Material.1 Air Quality. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data). Paper.836 paper carryout bags used per day per store)2 Emissions attributed to the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County (assuming 6. and acetone. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study.150 1.4-3 CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DUE TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAG LCA BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Emission Sources Emissions attributed to the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County (assuming 6. apart from methane. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.4-4.1. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.TABLE 3.48 liters.317 148 169 414 473 75 86 SOURCE: Ecobilan. NOTES: 1.000 plastic carryout bags used per day per store) Total emissions VOCs1 87 601 688 429 492 764 874 371 425 304 348 SOURCE: Ecobilan. ethane.

depending on which criteria pollutants are analyzed. 15 July 2009. or disposal. distribution. this result is largely a tradeoff and is inconclusive because the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in both beneficial and adverse impacts to air quality. The manufacture and production of paper carryout bags appears not to occur in the SCAB or the MDAB. regional. Watt. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. However.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. such as Canada.1-17 . Page 3. transportation.44 When considering VOCs.production and bag manufacturing processes.46 it is not necessary to extrapolate LCA data to determine emission levels for the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB. February 2004. CA. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. KY. Paper. and national air quality standards. Carol Trout. whereas LCA data cover all stages of production. 44 Ecobilan. France. with manufacturing facilities located in other air basins in the United States and in other countries that may have different emission thresholds and regulations. Santa Monica. Accordingly.1 Air Quality. resulting in an overall improvement in air quality. a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would reduce the daily air emissions. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and PM.. and end-of-life procedures related to a particular product. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Sapphos Environmental.45 or from countries outside of the United States. Neuilly-sur-Seine. These results cannot reasonably be evaluated in relation to the operational thresholds of significance set by SCAQMD for the SCAB or by AVAQMD for the MDAB because the operational thresholds are intended for specific projects located in the SCAB and MDAB. Telephone communication with Ms. Inc. CO. 5 February 2010. Stephanie. 46 45 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. SOx. Florence. It is also important to note that any indirect increase in air pollutant emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that would be affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. Inc. rather than bag use. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Customer Service Department. the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in NOx emissions.

Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 3. and PM. apart from methane. and Biodegradable Material.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. when considering VOCs. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study. However. NOTES: 1.4-2 from the data in Table 3.1. As before. a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would reduce the total weight of daily air emissions.4-1.1-18 . NOx. The emissions of NOx mainly occur during the processes of paper production and bag manufacturing (Figure 3.1 Air Quality. and acetone. this result is largely a tradeoff and is inconclusive because the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in both beneficial and adverse impacts to air quality.1. SOx.48) = 5.811].1.000 x (14/20. Page 3. ethane.4-5. 2. As before. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data in Table 3.4-4 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Emission Sources Emission changes attributed to an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emission changes attributed to an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs 1 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)3 NOx CO SOx PM -32 80 -93 -3 -35 -219 -251 548 628 -638 -731 -19 -22 -241 -276 SOURCE: Ecobilan. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. Similar conclusions would be true if one were to apply the Ecobilan data in the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Table 3. CO. Neuilly-sur-Seine.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.TABLE 3. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data). resulting in an overall improvement in air quality. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would result in increased NOx emissions.85 * 10. depending on which criteria pollutants are analyzed.1.48 liters. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Paper. France.4-3. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20.1. February 2004. Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Ecobilan LCA). Inc. so an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using approximately 5.811paper carryout bags per day [0.

4-1 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Ecobilan LCA . Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Biodegradable Material.1.LEGEND Paper Production Bag Manufacture Transport End of Life 21% 9% 59% 11% SOURCE: Ecobilan. February 2004. Paper. Report prepared for: Carrefour Group. FIGURE 3.

Page 3.47 The impacts of the reusable polyethylene bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102.000 plastic carryout bags per day. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of four times (Table 3. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.48) = 6. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.8 mils thick. February 2004. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20.1. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.4-5 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Emission Sources Emission changes caused by a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emission changes caused by an 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs 1 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)3 NOx CO SOx PM -22 105 -89 6 -33 -151 -173 721 825 -616 -705 43 49 -229 -263 SOURCE: Ecobilan. Neuilly-sur-Seine. weighs 44 grams. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study.TABLE 3. which could further reduce air quality impacts. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Biodegradable Material. France. it illustrates the general concept of how air quality impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. February 2004.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Ecobilan.4-6. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data in Table 3. Paper. The Ecobilan Study also presented an LCA analysis of a reusable polyethylene bag that is approximately 2.4-2). so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.1.4-3.1. France.4-2 from the data in Table 3. 2. and holds 37 liters of groceries.836]. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.1 Air Quality. Also. NOTES: 1. Therefore. as compared to Table 3. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.000 x (14/20. The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable polyethylene bag has a smaller impact on air pollutant emissions than a plastic carryout bag. and acetone. ethane. and Biodegradable Material. Paper. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Neuilly-sur-Seine. apart from methane.1.48 liters. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon air quality.1-19 47 . 3.1. Estimated Daily Emissions Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Data Ecobilan. Inc.

1. Biodegradable Plastic. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. and (3) a paper carryout bag made using at least 30 percent recycled fibers. Based on each reusable bag being used 4 times. Boustead Study Boustead Consulting & Associates (Boustead) prepared an LCA on behalf of the Progressive Bag Affiliates in 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.TABLE 3. and Recycled. (2) a compostable plastic carryout bag (a blend of 65 percent EcoFlex. Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data (Existing Conditions). France.48 In 2007.4-7. Compostable.4-6 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSIONS DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS USED FOUR TIMES BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Emission Sources Emissions assuming 10. and Biodegradable Material. In order to make the data more applicable to the County. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 reusable bags used per day in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs1 27 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day) NOx CO SOx 44 16 40 PM 31 189 216 303 347 111 127 277 317 212 242 SOURCE: Ecobilan. 49 The Boustead Study presents air emissions in terms of milligrams per thousand bags. Web site accessed 21 May 2010. February 2004. Progressive Bag Affiliates. Available at: http://www. and 25 percent calcium carbonate).4-8. Inc.americanchemistry.asp?CID=1106&DID=6983 49 48 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.1-20 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. emissions were converted to pounds per day. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. This LCA analyzes three types of grocery bags: (1) a traditional plastic carryout bag.1. based on the number of stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances and the average number of bags used per day per store [Table 3. and Table 3. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and acetone. Neuilly-sur-Seine.1. NOTES: 1. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study.com/s_plastics/doc. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Paper. Emissions are reduced further when the bags are used additional times. apart from methane.000 reusable bags used per day in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emissions assuming 10.Doc .1 Air Quality. Recyclable Paper. 10 percent polylactic acid. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. The Progressive Bag Alliance was founded in 2005 and is a group of American plastic carryout bag manufacturers who advocate recycling plastic shopping bags as an alternative to banning the bags. Page 3. ethane. Paper Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data]. 2007. they became the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Counsel. 2.

and Table 3. Recyclable Paper. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.1 Air Quality. Page 3. According to the Boustead data. Biodegradable Plastic. A comparison of the plastic carryout bag–related emissions and paper carryout bag–related emissions indicates that conversion to paper carryout bags under the proposed ordinances would be expected to decrease emissions of VOCs. Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Compostable. the majority of emissions associated with plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags come from fuel production. Inc.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Compostable. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data). Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.4-10. NOx. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data. Recyclable Paper. rather than bag usage or transportation (Figure 3. and CO to a lesser extent (Table 3.5 ratio of plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use. and Recycled.4-7 PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAG LCA CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Air Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day) NOx CO SOx Particulates 67 100 75 21 Emissions Sources Emissions due to the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County (assuming 10.4-9.105 842 965 4.020 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.1.TABLE 3. TABLE 3. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.000 plastic carryout bags used per day per store) Emissions due to the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County (assuming 10. but would be expected to increase emissions of SOx.4-8 PAPER CARRYOUT BAG LCA CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Air Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day) NOx CO SOx Particulates 267 122 585 129 Emissions Sources Emissions due to the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County (assuming 8. Total VOCs are reported as non-methane VOC. 2.031 4. 2007. The calculations presented here assume an approximately 1:1.203 paper carryout bags used per day per store)2 Emissions due to the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County (assuming 8.203 paper carryout bags used per day per store)2 Total Emissions VOCs 0 1 0 0 1.1.616 891 1. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Biodegradable Plastic.838 2. and Recycled.1. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. NOTES: 1.1. PM. NOTE: 1.000 plastic carryout bags used per day per store) Total Emissions VOCs 1 1 10 12 462 529 686 786 514 589 146 167 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007.1-21 .4-2.1. Total VOCs are reported as non-methane VOC.

Prepared for: Progressive Bag Alliance FIGURE 3. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Compostable. and Recycled. Recyclable Paper.LEGEND Fuel Production Fuel Use ¬ Transport Process 0% 10% 10% ¬ 33% 57% SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.4-2 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Boustead LCA . 2007. Biodegradable Plastic.1.

Customer Service Department.52 it is not necessary to extrapolate LCA data to determine emission levels for the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB. KY. Inc. that result in the delivery of fuel or energy to a final consumer. Sapphos Environmental. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. which may have different emission thresholds and regulations. When considering the total mass of SOx. distribution.1 Air Quality. with manufacturing facilities located in other air basins in the United States and in other countries. 50 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. and end-of-life procedures related to a particular product. Page 3. The LCA results cannot reasonably be evaluated in relation to the operational thresholds of significance set by SCAQMD for the SCAB because the operational thresholds are intended for specific projects located in the SCAB. regional. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.50 Fuel production is defined as processing operations. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Inc. Carol Trout. The manufacture and production of paper carryout bags appears not to occur in the SCAB or MDAB. a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would increase the total weight of daily air emissions.1-22 . 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. whereas LCA data cover all stages of production. any indirect increase in air pollutant emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that would be affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. apart from transport. CA. resulting in an overall reduction in air quality. Santa Monica. 5 February 2010. Telephone communication with Ms. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. As noted before. 15 July 2009. CO. 2007. Stephanie. NOx. The Boustead Study did not include details of individual criteria pollutant emissions due to disposal of paper and plastic carryout bags. Biodegradable Plastic.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Recyclable Paper.Boustead LCA). and PM. and Recycled. These results are considerably different than those obtained from the Ecobilan data. Compostable. such as Canada.51 or from countries outside of the United States. Watt. Florence. 52 51 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. and national air quality standards. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.

Recyclable Paper. NOTES: 1. 3.4-8. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data in Table 3. The calculations presented here assume an approximately 1:1.1. and Recycled. and Recycled.4-8.517 4.5 ratio of plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use.1.1. Biodegradable Plastic.1.260 30 34 2. Biodegradable Plastic.1. 2.1. Recyclable Paper. Page 3.912 3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc.4-10 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Emission Sources Emission changes corresponding to an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emission changes corresponding to an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs 1 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)3 NOx CO SOx PM -1 200 23 510 108 -10 -12 1.335 612 701 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.5 ratio of plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use. The calculations presented here assume an approximately 1:1.575 156 179 3. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.376 1. 2. NOTES: 1.1-23 . Compostable. 2007.TABLE 3. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.4-7 from the data in Table 3. 2007. Total VOCs are reported as non-methane VOC. 3. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.4-9 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Emission Sources Emission changes corresponding to a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emission changes corresponding to a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs 1 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)3 NOx CO SOx PM -1 160 4 422 89 -10 -12 1. Total VOCs are reported as non-methane VOC. TABLE 3. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4-7 from the data in Table 3.100 1.027 746 854 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data in Table 3. Compostable.1 Air Quality. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.

Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks.1-24 . due to the different parameters.. Prairie Village. These seemingly conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study and the importance of understanding study boundaries. Inc. raw materials. KY. and methodologies. Watt.1. However. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.56 it is not necessary to extrapolate LCA data to determine emission 53 Franklin Associates. However. regional. Santa Monica. such as Canada. Inc. The Franklin Study also does not provide details about which processes during the life cycle are responsible for the majority of the air pollutant emissions. and national air quality standards. March 2010. and PM. SOx. Sapphos Environmental. It is also important to note that the Franklin Study was prepared in 1990. CA. prepared an LCA in 1990 to compare the environmental impacts of paper carryout bags and those of plastic carryout bags. 54 These conflicting results also illustrate the speculative nature of the results when using LCA data from the various studies.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the data from the Boustead Study shows that a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would increase emissions of these criteria pollutants. The Boustead and Ecobilan LCAs agree that the majority of criteria pollutant emissions originate from processes that occur early on in the life cycle of paper and plastic carryout bags. The Franklin Study does not present atmospheric emissions of each type of criteria pollutant individually. San Francisco. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. Conclusions from LCAs Application of the LCA data in the manner presented above must be interpreted carefully. Stephanie. the quantitative number for the emissions varies widely. CA. a quantitative analysis of the Franklin Study would have limited relevance to the proposed ordinances. Telephone communication with Ms. Any indirect increase in air pollutant emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that would be affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. NOx. so assumptions about technology use. depending on which LCA is used. the 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in NOx emissions of between 825 to 1. 54 Green Cities California. the Franklin Study concludes that paper carryout bags emit more CO. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada. Prepared by ICF International. CO. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company.4-1 and Figure 3. Customer Service Department. and PM than do plastic carryout bags. For example. Therefore. such as raw material extraction and product manufacturing (Figure 3. and energy use will likely have changed since the study was prepared. an LCA consulting company. The different LCAs analyzed present very different results about criteria pollutant emissions from paper and plastic carryout bags. inputs. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.55 or from countries outside of the United States. The three LCAs reviewed here agree that a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in NOx emissions and a decrease in VOC emissions. but instead only states the total air pollutant emissions. KS. but less VOCs. environmental conditions. models. Florence. 15 July 2009. Page 3.575 pounds per day for the entire County.4-2). Carol Trout. 5 February 2010. 56 55 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Ltd.1.Franklin Study Franklin Associates Ltd. and assumptions used. 53 As with the Boustead Study. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. The data from the Ecobilan Study indicates that a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would decrease emissions of SOx. 1990.1 Air Quality..

Sections 15000–15387.1-25 59 . Operations Manager. Estimated NOx Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Data From Ecobilan). Bret. Pasadena. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. and any quantifiable analysis would be speculative. Sapphos Environmental.levels for the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB. Even though these results generated from the LCA data may not be applicable to the operational thresholds of significance. Lancaster. Title 14. However. The end-of-life data includes emissions due to transport of waste from households to landfills. CA. Inc. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. If an alternative scenario is used where all bags go to landfills at the end of life and are not incinerated. Appendix G. Diamond Bar. CA.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Using the Ecobilan data for the end of life for plastic and paper carryout bags for a scenario in which all bags go to landfills at the end of life and are not incinerated. 57 58 California Code of Regulations. 58 AVAQMD similarly suggested that using the results from LCAs would be “very difficult” and “nebulous” due to the large number of assumptions and details contained within the calculations. Division 6. these results would still be below the level of significance if compared to the operational thresholds of significance set by SCAQMD for the SCAB and AVAQMD for the MDAB. Pasadena. which are intended for discrete projects.1 Air Quality.”57 Aside from being speculative. 21 January 2010. which assumes that a large percentage of solid waste is incinerated.. Inc. an assumption that is not accurate for the County. Inc. 8 March 2010. Banks. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. after thorough investigation. NOx emissions are significantly reduced. Garcia. Daniel. A 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the entire County would be expected to generate approximately 50 pounds of NOx emissions per day throughout the County.. the increase in NOx emissions from transport of paper carryout bags to landfills due to an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags throughout the entire County would be approximately 40 pounds per day (Table 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District. the LCA data assumes a typical disposal scenario for French households. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “if. Air Quality Specialist. it is also not necessary to extrapolate LCA data to determine emission levels for the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and adjusting for USEPA 2007 recycling rates. The results from the analysis for the LCAs presented in this EIR demonstrate the largely speculative nature of the analysis due to the large number of assumptions used in the studies and the challenges inherent in applying the results of these studies to Los Angeles County. Chapter 3. Page 3. when it appears that paper carryout bag manufacturing does not occur in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB.1. Coordination with SCAQMD further indicates that evaluating indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances due to increases in the production of paper carryout bags would be beyond the level of analysis usually required for CEQA documents because emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing would not necessarily occur in the SCAB. CA.4-11. Sapphos Environmental.1.4-1). a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation.59 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Resulting from Disposal of Paper Carryout Bags in Landfills Ecobilan data indicates that approximately 21 percent of the NOx emissions generated during the life cycle of paper carryout bags can be attributed to end of life (Figure 3. CA.

2.000 x (14/20.000 plastic carryout bags per day. France.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.48) = 6.836 paper bags per day [10.TABLE 3. Available at: http://www.2 Bags1. Environmental Protection Agency.811 paper bags per day. Paper. 2. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Assuming 36.1. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rate for paper bags and sacks. An URBEMIS 2007 simulation was performed to assess the air quality impacts of additional truck trips that would be required to deliver paper carryout bags.4-11 ESTIMATED NOx EMISSION INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Air Pollutant NOx (Pounds/Day) 85-percent Conversion 100-percent Conversion from Plastic Bags to from Plastic Bags to Paper Paper Bags1. California Department of Public Works. given that calculations done with the Ecobilan Study are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not take into account the potential for an increased number of customers using reusable bags as a result of the proposed ordinances. In addition.to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags. Alhambra. February 2004. and therefore would be applicable to the SCAQMD and AVAQMD operational thresholds of significance.1-26 60 . Inc. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic bag to paper bag use would result in each store using 6. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.48 liters. CA. 29 April 2010.8 percent of paper bags are diverted from landfills. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. Sacramento. and Biodegradable Material. a worst-case scenario was assumed where the proposed ordinances would result in an 85.pdf NOTES: 1.000 square feet currently uses 10.S. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.epa. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper bags have a volume of 20. concerns were raised that the proposed ordinances might be expected to indirectly impact air quality due to a potential increase in the distribution of paper carryout bags. emissions resulting from paper carryout bag deliveries to stores would all occur within the County. the assumption that every store above 10.836].2 5 35 40 6 44 50 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic bags to paper bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic bags to paper bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions SOURCES: 1. It is important to note that the impacts to air quality due to end of life may be even lower. The SCAQMD was consulted regarding this methodology and they agreed that the only air quality emissions affected by the proposed ordinances that could reasonably be Dona Sturgess.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate. Page 3. An 85-percent conversion from plastic bag to paper bag use would result in each store using 5. November 2008. DC. Ecobilan. as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to approximately 5. U.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. CA. To quantify the number of delivery trucks. Washington. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.60 Emissions Resulting from Increased Delivery Trips During the scoping period for the Initial Study for this EIR.000 plastic bags per day. Unlike emissions generated from manufacturing facilities.1 Air Quality.

Pasadena. it was assumed each of the 24 pallets would contain 18 cases. Inc. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.000 paper carryout bags. France. Rick. Sapphos Environmental. Page 3. Compostable. CA. Neuilly-sur-Seine. CA. Crandall. Air Quality Specialist. Sapphos Environmental. CA.. Operations Manager. Ecobilan.304.000 paper carryout bags per truck According to the above calculations.000 paper carryout bags per truck = 9 2.85 x 2. 1990. (Appendix A).Doc . E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson. Inc. and Boustead Studies. Daniel.. 62 Banks. Inc. CA.000 plastic carryout bags. a typical delivery truck would be able to transport 216. Pasadena.61 The AVAQMD also agreed that quantifying vehicle miles traveled would be the most effective way of quantifying the indirect air quality impacts due to the proposed ordinances. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. including the Franklin. Rick. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Los Angeles. Ltd. 2007.1-27 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.66 and a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would require approximately 11 times the number of trucks.64 Number of plastic carryout bags per truck = 24 pallets x 48 cases x 2. Ecobilan. 25–26 January 2010.67 However. CA. Albertsons. a typical delivery truck would be able to transport 2. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. Albertsons. Inc.1 Air Quality. Inc. KS. and each case would contain 500 paper carryout bags.. 66 67 68 65 64 (0. several studies. February 2004. Bret. Biodegradable Plastic. Albertsons. 63 Crandall. Director of Environmental Stewardship. Sapphos Environmental. and Recycled. 70 69 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Pasadena.. Diamond Bar.62 Based on data provided by a supermarket in the County. Los Angeles. 8 March 2010. Based on that assumption.000 plastic carryout bags per truck / 216. and each case containing 2. have stated that it can be reasonable to assume that paper carryout bags can hold approximately 1. CA.304. 25–26 January 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. an 85. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson.5 times the amount of groceries than plastic carryout bags hold. 21 January 2010.000 plastic carryout bags per case = 2. Inc.304. Rick. Sapphos Environmental. Director of Environmental Stewardship. CA.to 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in 61 Garcia. with each pallet carrying 48 cases.65 Number of paper carryout bags per truck = 24 pallets x 18 cases x 500 paper carryout bags per case = 216.quantified and presented in this EIR would be emissions due to potential increases in delivery trips. Los Angeles. Lancaster. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.000 plastic carryout bags. 25–26 January 2010. CA. Crandall.68. 63 Therefore. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Recyclable Paper.304.. Sapphos Environmental. CA.000 paper carryout bags per truck = 11 Franklin Associates. Prairie Village. Paper. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. Pasadena. it was assumed that an average delivery truck would hold 24 pallets. and Biodegradable Material. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Inc. Director of Environmental Stewardship.69.000 plastic carryout bags per truck For paper carryout bags.70 which is consistent with the one-time trial performed by Sapphos Environmental. Pasadena..000 plastic carryout bags per truck) / 216. Therefore. CA. an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would require approximately 9 times the number of trucks currently required to deliver carryout bags to supermarkets. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.

000 plastic carryout bags measuring 12 inches by 7 inches by 15 inches each (not including the handles) and with a thickness of 0.000 plastic carryout bags per truck x 13 = approximately 4 daily truck trips 76 75 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Inc. and the volume of 1.368 square inches. Inc. each using 10. Inc.304. Therefore. Pasadena.304. Page 3. the volume of 1.76 An increase in demand for reusable bags would also result in additional transport of reusable bags to stores.approximately 6 to 7 times the number of trucks currently required to deliver carryout bags to supermarkets. Uline. it can be assumed that an 85.. Pasadena. it was assumed that a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would require 13 times the number of delivery trips currently required to transport carryout bags to stores.. 26 January 2010. 74 (0. Therefore.1 Air Quality. respectively.71. In order to model a conservative worst-case scenario. 1. CA. Sapphos Environmental.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2. when considering delivery truck trips. Telephone correspondence with Leanna Guillermo. the number of reusable bags required would be expected to be far less than the number of carryout bags currently used.000 paper carryout bags per truck) x (1 paper carryout bag / 1. it can be reasonably expected that a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would result in a smaller number of delivery trips than the number of delivery trips required as a result of a conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags. 26 January 2010.77 Assuming that in the 88 incorporated cities of the County there are 462 stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances. CA. Telephone correspondence with Leanna Guillermo.000 of these particular plastic carryout bags is equal to approximately 720 square inches.304. 500 paper grocery bags (without handles) measuring 12 inches by 17 inches by 7 inches are packaged in a box measuring 24 inches by 18 inches by 12 inches. due to the fact that reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. with each store using 10. Amanda (last name not provided). According to this calculation. According to Uline. Based solely on these volumes and the usable volume ratio for these particular bags.000 plastic carryout bags per day.5 plastic carryout bags) = approximately 7 times the number of truck trips required 73 72 71 Amanda (last name not provided).1-28 .73 According to the same source. paper carryout bags occupy approximately 14.000 plastic carryout bags per truck / 216. 74 Therefore.85 x 10.72 Sapphos Environmental. Inc. a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in fewer than 4 additional truck trips per day.4 times more volume than do plastic carryout bags. Assuming that in the unincorporated territories of the County there are 67 stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances.368 square inches / 720 square inches) x (12-inch x 7-inch x 15-inch plastic carryout bag / 12-inch x 7-inch x 17-inch paper carryout bag) = approximately 11 times the number of truck trips required (10.5 mil are packed into a flat box measuring 12 inches by 12 inches by 5 inches. also compared the volume of plastic and paper carryout bags available from Uline.368 square inches / 720 square inches) x (12-inch x 7-inch x 15-inch plastic carryout bag / 12-inch x 7-inch x 17-inch paper carryout bag) = approximately 13 times the number of truck trips required 77 67 stores x 10.000 plastic carryout bags 0.000 plastic carryout bags per truck / 216. Uline.000 paper carryout bags per truck) x (1 paper carryout bag / 1. a bag distribution company with a location in Los Angeles. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Sapphos Environmental. However. 75.000 of these particular paper carryout bags is equal to approximately 10.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would be the worst-case scenario.to 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would require approximately 11 to 13 times the number of delivery truck trips that plastic carryout bags currently require.5 plastic carryout bags) = approximately 6 times the number of truck trips required (2.85 x (2. which is the largest increase in delivery trips calculated above.

In addition. an unlikely worst-case scenario of a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags in the unincorporated territory and the 88 incorporated cities of the County would be expected to result in emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources that would be below the SCAQMD operational thresholds of significance. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to generate a substantial number of vehicle trips.1 Air Quality.61 1 150 82 No According to the analysis presented in this EIR. a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in approximately 26 additional truck trips required per day. 462 stores x 10.per day.4-12 ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS DUE TO DELIVERY TRUCK TRIPS Emission Sources 4 delivery truck trips in the unincorporated territory of the County 26 delivery truck trips in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions SCAQMD Threshold AVAQMD Threshold Exceedance of Significance? VOCs 0. and approximately 26 additional truck trips per day to and from the 462 stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. Page 3.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2. the operational impacts of the proposed ordinances would be expected to be below the level of significance.51 1 55 137 No Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day) CO SOx PM2.78 URBEMIS 2007 was used to calculate the criteria pollutant emissions that would be anticipated to result in fewer than 4 additional truck trips per day to and from the 67 stores in the unincorporated territories of the County.00 0 150 137 No 0. any trips generated due to delivery of bags to stores would be dispersed throughout the County and would not be concentrated in any particular area.4-12). As described above.5 0. In addition.12 <1 55 No PM10 0.1. thus.1. no significant increase in CO concentrations at sensitive receptor locations would be expected. Inc.000 residents to encourage the use of reusable bags.04 0.02 0. additional analysis is required when a project is likely to expose sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. The increase in use of reusable bags will decrease the number of truck trips required to deliver both plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags. Therefore. Therefore.00 0.50 3. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.304.22 <1 55 137 No NOx 0.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. TABLE 3. but to send an environmental awareness message to at least 50.09 0.25 4 550 548 No 0.1-29 78 .1.4 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Delivery Truck Trips) (Appendix C).08 0.000 plastic carryout bags per truck x 13 = approximately 26 daily truck trips Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The unmitigated emissions from delivery truck trips would be expected to be well below the SCAQMD and AVAQMD thresholds of significance (Table 3. and localized operational CO emissions would be below the level of significance. it is important to note that one of the primary intentions of the proposed ordinances is not to cause consumers to change from using plastic carryout bags to using paper carryout bags. Indirect Local Impacts CO is considered a localized problem under Section 9.4-12.

dairies. Since there appears to be no manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags in SCAB and MDAB. Daily operational emissions. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. chemical plants. and national air quality standards.79 Since the proposed ordinances do not fall into any of these categories. and national air quality standards. and fiberglass molding facilities. regional. Cumulative Impacts SCAQMD’s methodological framework was used to assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed ordinances. Any indirect increase in air pollutant emissions from the decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills within the County would be controlled by the individual landfills in compliance with AVAQMD Rule 1150. waste water treatment plants. Diamond Bar. In order to assess cumulative impacts based on the AQMP’s forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards set forth in the federal and State CAAs. Therefore.1. this methodological framework considers forecasted regional growth projections from SCAG.1-30 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. results from LCAs vary widely but indicate that an increase in paper carryout bag manufacturing would cause an increase in NOx emissions and would decrease emissions of VOCs. landfills. and any indirect increase in air pollutant emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Quantification of these indirect emission impacts is speculative given the conflicting data between the various studies. and odor impacts would be expected to be below the level of significance. operational odor impacts from the proposed ordinances would be expected to be below the level of significance. Therefore. there would be no expected toxic air contaminant emissions as a result of the proposed ordinances.Doc . toxic air contaminant levels.1 or SCAQMD Rule 1150.Toxic air contaminants can result from manufacturing industries. As described above. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Any indirect increase in odor emissions from the decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills within the County would also be controlled by the individual landfills in compliance with AVAQMD Rule 1150. there would be no impacts to air quality resulting wherefrom. automobile repair facilities. regional. indirect air quality impacts due to a potential increase in the demand for paper 79 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Any indirect increase in odor emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that would be affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. refineries. the long-term exposure of sensitive receptors within the County to air pollutants would be expected to be below the level of significance. and national air quality standards. and there would be no corresponding significant impacts to human health. 1993. The proposed ordinances would not include any elements that would generate a substantial number of heavy-duty equipment operations or daily truck trips in a localized area and would not directly involve manufacturing industries or automobile repair facilities. and diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy-duty equipment operations. Consequently. Any indirect increase in toxic air contaminant emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities affected by the proposed ordinances—though it appears none are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas or the SCAB and MDAB—would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. odor nuisances are associated with land uses and industrial operations including agricultural uses.1 Air Quality.1 or SCAQMD Rule 1150. regional. Inc. CA. Page 3. food processing plants. composting.1.

3. or reasonably foreseeable. and would not be expected to promote employment or population growth. 3. implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in cumulative impacts when considered with construction and operation of the related past.1. Inc. Therefore. Any related projects in the County must also comply with the County’s air quality regulations. no mitigation measures would be required.carryout bag manufacturing would be expected to be below the level of significance. Page 3. plans. Therefore. Since the proposed ordinances would not be expected to create a significant impact on air quality within the SCAQMD or the AVAQMD.1. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.5 Mitigation Measures The analysis undertaken for this environmental compliance document determined that the proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse impacts related to air quality. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. probable future projects.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.1-31 .1 Air Quality.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the proposed ordinances would not result in a significant adverse impact related to air quality that would need to be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures. and regulations for air quality set forth by the County. Implementation of the proposed ordinances would be consistent with the policies. would not be expected to create a significant number of vehicle trips. present. the proposed ordinances would be expected to cause a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.

indirect.3.5 During the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup conducted by the Ocean Conservancy.S.gov/Plastics/Film/#Problem California Integrated Waste Management Board. streams.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. Accessed on: 1 March 2010. Inc.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 1 in every 10 items was a plastic bag. Plastic bags were the second most prevalent form of marine debris collected during the cleanup. A total of 1. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.649-square-mile area encompassing the unincorporated territory of the County and an approximately 1. published and unpublished literature. and information from the U.2 a review of public comments received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances.”4 Currently. Inc. The analysis of biological resources consists of a summary of the regulatory framework to be considered in the decision-making process. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). thresholds for determining the significant level of impacts. CA.1 However.2-1 6 . Pasadena. Accessed on: 1 March 2010. and ocean beaches around the world. Inc. Sacramento.377. Biological resources within the County were evaluated with regard to a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the U.4 percent of the state’s overall waste stream by weight.oceanconservancy. and cumulative). 1 December 2009. and causes serious negative impacts to shore birds and sea life.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.5-minute series topographic quadrangle maps that include an approximately 2. The CIWMB estimates that approximately 147. anticipated impacts (direct.141 plastic bags were collected during the cleanup.calrecycle. costly to clean up. December 2004.ca. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). “plastic film. one of the County’s basic purposes in considering the proposed ordinances is to provide improved fresh and free water aquatic habitats for plant and wildlife resources through the reduction of total litter through the banning of plastic carryout bags issued by certain stores. CA. mitigation measures. Page 3. Problem Statement. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. Pasadena. Department of Public Works.038 tons of plastic grocery and other merchandise bags were disposed of in California in 2003. 3 4 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Problem Statement. constitutes a high percentage of litter. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. 2 Sapphos Environmental. which was 12 percent of the total number of items collected. Therefore. California Integrated Waste Management Board. about 0.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As a result of the Initial Study.6 1 Sapphos Environmental. a survey of over 200 stores in the County regarding plastic carryout bag usage habits of consumers in grocery stores. Plastic Film Cooperative Recycling Initiative. CA.ca.2 Biological Resources. Available at: http://www. 400. and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bag Usage Data Collection Study. as well as a description of the existing conditions within the County. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. and level of significance after mitigation.000 volunteers picked up 6.gov/Plastics/Film/#Problem 5 Ocean Conservancy.3 CIWMB states. Of the items collected. the biological resources issue area has been carried forward for detailed analysis to characterize the anticipated effects of such ordinances on biological resources. Available at: http://www. Available at: http://www. especially grocery bags. Department of Public Works.calrecycle.S. especially when it enters marine environments.8 million pounds of trash from lakes. 22 January 2010.435-square-mile area encompassing the incorporated cities of the County. the County determined that the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Geological Survey (USGS) 7. after cigarettes / cigarette filters. CIWMB estimates that less than 5 percent of plastic film in California is recycled. rivers. which is unsightly. Plastic Film Cooperative Recycling Initiative.

funded by the USEPA. Moore. Moore. Italy. and Switzerland have instituted a fee on plastic carryout bags. More than 20 percent of trash in rivers was also attributed to plastic bags. and was even greater after a storm. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. with an average annual increase of 5. 12 11 10 California Ocean Protection Council. and were not present downstream. “Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics. S. 20 November 2008.8 However. S. Denmark. 76 pp. S. The average mass of plastic was two and a half times greater than that of plankton. F.4 percent. so they persist in the marine environment. Grant Number X83053401-02. with Ireland’s 20-cent (Euro) fee resulting in a more than 90-percent reduction in the use of plastic bags since the fee was imposed in March 2002. Weisberg. “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton Abundance in Southern California's Coastal Waters. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. showed that plastic bag trash accounted for 45 percent of the number of items of trash collected in tributary streams. S. Thompson.7 Plastics break down into smaller pieces over time eventually forming tiny particles of plastics that are often called microplastics.J. 2007. California. Paper products were not found in the streams except in localized areas. R. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Lattin. plastic beverage bottles. plastics are chemically resistant and do not biodegrade. 304 (5672): 843. 364: 1977–1984. and Mike A. McDonnell. probably due to the amount of brush and vegetation in streams that can snag the bags. The national survey results indicated that plastic bags with a seam of less than 1 meter in length made up 9 percent of the total number of items recorded. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Ferreira. Page 3.. Data Analysis and Summary. 2009. The study stated that political action to eliminate the use of free plastic carryout bags would effectively remove a significant portion of trash from streams and rivers.” In Marine Pollution Bulletin.11 The California Ocean Protection Council has adopted a strategy to reduce marine debris.ca.10 A study performed in Washington. and plastic bags. including plastic bottles and plastic bags.. S. 2007. Inc. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. October 2002.2-2 13 .L. Neal.13 7 Sheavly. The survey indicated that approximately 50 percent of all marine debris in the United States originates from land-based activities.opc. December 2008. "Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?" In Science.2 Biological Resources. Based on the evidence that plastic carryout bags pose a significant threat to marine wildlife.9 A 2002 study of the coastal ocean near Long Beach. National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program Report. G. C. Belgium.B. “The Most Popular Tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish Plastic Bags Levy.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy. Anthony L. 7 May 2004. The most abundant debris items surveyed nationally during this monitoring program were straws.pdf Convery. and A.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the strategy recommends a fee or a ban on plastic bags as part of the top three priority actions to reduce marine debris.The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy. District of Columbia (DC). 8 9 Andrady. 44 (10): 1035–1038. used standardized methodology to monitor marine debris in the United States over a five-year period. The survey showed a substantial increase in general source items over the five-year monitoring period. C. and was the most abundant type of trash in the streams.B. Available at: http://www. and approximately 30 percent of all marine debris originates from general sources. Zellers.L.” In Environmental and Resource Economics.F. showed that average plastic density during the study was eight pieces per cubic meter. Anacostia Watershed Society.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 38: 1–11.12 Ireland.

the proposed ordinances would help advance the goal of the federal ESA to protect wildlife.S. funding. organizations.3. The federal ESA defines take as an action “. killing.1 Regulatory Framework This regulatory framework identifies the federal. or other authorization. capture.2-3 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. As with the federal ESA. Section 10(a) of the federal ESA includes provisions for take that is incidental to. Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the take of species listed by the USFWS as threatened or endangered. Page 3. The federal ESA declares. and 2 reptiles. plastic bag usage has the potential to jeopardize federally endangered and threatened species by harming. Secretary of the Interior to issue permits 14 Ocean Conservancy. and other non-Federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal lands. wounding. Federal agencies must undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. 24 fish. kill. to evaluate proposed projects with respect to any species proposed for listing or already listed as endangered or threatened and their critical habitat. pursue.2 Biological Resources. hunt.. Available at: http://www. otherwise lawful activities. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. including 1 amphibian. 9 birds. wound. and local statutes. including the USFWS. ordinances. and are prohibited from authorizing. Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits (incidental take permits) may be issued if taking is incidental and does not jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. “individuals.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Mexico. or involve Federal funding. require a Federal permit. In banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags while encouraging the use of reusable bags. nest. capture. Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The purpose of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems that endangered and threatened species depend on and to provide a program for conservation and recovery of these species.pdf Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.2. states. shoot. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. and the countries of the former Soviet Union. the MBTA authorizes the U. Section 7(a)(2) of the federal ESA requires all federal agencies. Japan. The federal ESA defines species as “endangered” and “threatened” and provides regulatory protection for any species thus designated. or policies that govern the conservation and protection of biological resources that must be considered by the County when rendering decisions on projects that would have the potential to affect biological resources. license.14 Therefore. Great Britain. or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct.oceanconservancy.” In recognition that take cannot always be avoided. and trapping them. or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part. Inc.Doc .” Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue. local governments. State. or carrying out any action that will jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its critical habitat. Volunteers participating in the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup discovered 47 animals and birds entangled or trapped by plastic bags. or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States. harm. if any is proposed or designated.to harass. kill. 11 invertebrates.. trap. but not the purpose of.

3 acre of waters of the United States. The MMPA prohibits. citizens on the high seas. The USACOE also has discretionary authority to require an Environmental Impact Statement for projects that result in impacts to an area between 0.1 and 0. provided that a proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. Inc. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report.3 acre of waters of the United States can normally be conducted pursuant to one of the nationwide permits. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). physical.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts.S. with certain exceptions. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 of the federal CWA. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent upon the activities having no impacts to endangered species. if consistent with the standard permit conditions. Due to the fact that plastic products are considered floatable material that are a component of pollution under the CWA.16 the proposed ordinances would be expected to contribute to the MBTA in its goal to protect migratory birds.3 acre. Congress passed the MMPA of 1972 based on the following findings and policies: x x x x x Some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities These species or stocks must not be permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level ("depleted") Measures should be taken to replenish these species or stocks There is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics Marine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance The MMPA was amended substantially in 1994 to provide for the following: x x Certain exceptions to the take prohibitions. regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. 2008. and radiological integrity of water. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. biological. the proposed ordinances would serve to reduce pollutant discharge into the waters of the United States in accordance with the goals of the CWA.S.15. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. Page 3.S.pdf National Research Council. Due to the potential for plastic bag litter to entangle or trap birds.oceanconservancy. Marine Mammal Protection Act The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21. Normally.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U. the USACOE requires an individual permit for an activity that will affect an area equal to or in excess of 0. Washington. Projects that result in impacts to less than 0. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. waters and by U.2-4 16 . The USACOE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters of the United States. Available at: http://www.S.2 Biological Resources.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. 1972. the term ‘‘pollution’’ means the manmade or man-induced alteration of the chemical. Under the CWA. such as for Alaska Native subsistence and permits and authorizations for scientific research A program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations 15 Ocean Conservancy. which is administered by the U. the take of marine mammals in U. All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA.for incidental take. DC.

S. State lead agencies are required to consult with the CDFG to ensure that any actions undertaken by that lead agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any State-listed species or result in destruction or degradation of required habitat. Available at: http://www.19 In banning the issuance of plastic bags while encouraging the use of reusable bags. 2008.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. or endangered species to be present. Under Section 2081 of the Code.2-5 19 18 . and scientific or educational institutions to import.17. Washington. National Research Council. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. the proposed ordinances would contribute to the California ESA in its goal to protect wildlife. Unlike the federal ESA. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. wound. Washington. export.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. export out of this state. The CDFG shall make this determination based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available and shall include consideration of the species' capability to survive and 17 Ocean Conservancy. or trap wildlife. or management purposes. export. (2) impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated. public agencies. or any part or product thereof. and (4) the applicant ensures adequate funding to implement the measures required by CDFG.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.2 Biological Resources. or take. the CDFG may authorize individuals or public agencies to import. the Native Plant Protection Act. (3) the permit is consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to any recovery plan for the species. or the California Desert Native Plants Act. except as otherwise provided in this chapter. DC. educational. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. jurisdiction Studies of pinniped-fishery interactions State California Endangered Species Act The California ESA prohibits the taking of listed species except as otherwise provided in State law. zoological gardens. Section 2080 and 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code Section 2080 of the State Fish and Game Code (Code) states. concentrate. kill. or candidate species. purchase. any species. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. take. or possess. The California ESA was considered due to the potential for State-listed rare. The CDFG is authorized to enter into memoranda of understanding with individuals. or sell within this state.oceanconservancy.18 The National Research Council’s 2008 report Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century also states that plastics are able to absorb.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. Inc. any State-listed endangered. or attempt any of those acts. Plastic bag usage jeopardizes the State’s endangered and threatened species through the potential for plastic bag litter to harm. universities. No person shall import into this state [California]. These otherwise prohibited acts may be authorized through permits or memoranda of understanding if (1) the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. DC. take.pdf National Research Council.x x Preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U. the California ESA applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (State candidates). threatened. that the commission [State Fish and Game Commission] determines to be an endangered species or threatened species. Page 3. threatened. possess. and deliver toxic compounds to organisms that eat the plastic. or possess listed species for scientific. 2008.

except in compliance with provisions of the act. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.oceanconservancy. kill.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. Available at: http://www. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. stream. or endangered plant species to be present within the County. or intermittently. or changes to the natural flow or bed. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report.reproduce.pdf National Research Council. requiring preparation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. or lake in California are subject to the regulatory authority of the CDFG pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1603 of the Code. and also has jurisdiction over dry washes that carry water ephemerally during storm events. 2008. the list of native plants afforded protection pursuant to this act includes those listed as rare and endangered under the California ESA.23 the proposed ordinances to ban the issuance of carryout plastic bags would contribute to Section 3503 and 3503. through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Washington. Native Plant Protection Act The Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 3. threatened. and enhance rare and endangered native plants. Use of plastic bags jeopardizes the State’s endangered and threatened species through the potential for plastic bag litter to harm. 2008.5 of the Code in the goal to protect resident and migratory birds and birds of prey. possess. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. DC. The definitions of rare and endangered differ from those contained in the California ESA. wound. Due to the potential of plastic bag litter to entangle or trap birds. or trap wildlife. Section 3503 and 3503. DC.2-6 23 . a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically.. or endangered species to be present.oceanconservancy. The CDFG also has jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Sections 2080 and 2081. in its goal to protect wildlife. 22 Ocean Conservancy.22. The Native Plant Protection Act was considered in this analysis due to the potential for State-listed rare. which contribute to 20 Ocean Conservancy. obstructions. In banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags.no person will import into this State.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. or take. Under the Code. Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code All diversions.pdf 21 National Research Council.21 In banning the issuance of plastic bags while encouraging the use of reusable bags. Available at: http://www. Included in this definition are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation.20. including the prohibition of the taking of nests and eggs unless otherwise provided for by the Code.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. channel. Section 2081 of the Code was considered due to the potential for State-listed rare.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts.. Inc.5 of the State Fish and Game Code These sections of the Code provide regulatory protection to resident and migratory birds and all birds of prey within the state. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. However. protect. Individual land owners are required to notify the CDFG at least 10 days in advance of changing land uses to allow the CDFG to salvage any rare or endangered native plant material. or bank of any river. the proposed ordinances would contribute to the Code. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. The Native Plant Protection Act provides limitations on take as follows: “.2 Biological Resources. threatened. Washington. or sell within this State” any rare or endangered native plant.

2 Biological Resources. or both. including preservation. A federally or State-listed threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the absence of special protection or management efforts provided by the listing. or by the State government as a species of special concern or fully protected species. Ocean Conservancy. Preserve significant ecological areas by appropriate measures. Open Space. 24 Anacostia Watershed Society. 2. soil erosion and sedimentation. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. mitigation. maintain natural habitats. 3. CA. Protect the quality of the coastal environment.2-7 26 25 . Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the California ESA. December 2008. Available at: http://www. A candidate species is one that is proposed by the federal or State government for listing as endangered or threatened. streams. 4. Inc. November 1980. . and riparian vegetation to minimize water pollution. A federally or State-listed endangered species is a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. if any. County County of Los Angeles General Plan The Conservation. The following four policies are relevant to the proposed ordinances:26 1. especially lagoons and salt water marshes. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Federal species of concern is a term-of-art that describes a taxon whose conservation status may be of concern to the USFWS. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report.S.2 Existing Conditions Listed species are those species provided special legal protection under the federal ESA. In addition. Page 3.24 25 the proposed ordinances would contribute to Section 1600 of the Code in its goal to protect waterways. or candidate species. and enhancement. but that does not have official status.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. and Recreation element of the County General Plan aims to preserve and protect ecological areas and biotic resources. Preserve and restore marine resources emphasizing the shore and near shore zone. Los Angeles. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. City General Plans Any incorporated city in the County that adopts individual ordinances will need to determine if they have to comply with the adopted policies regarding biological resources set forth in the respective city general plans. 3.2.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.litter found in waterways. the sensitive species include those designated as such by the Bureau of Land Management and the U. but which are categorized by the federal government as a federal species of concern. Sensitive species are those that are not listed by the federal or State government as endangered. threatened. Protect watershed. and aid in groundwater recharge. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles.oceanconservancy. Forest Service.pdf County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. County of Los Angeles General Plan.

Methods The biological resources within the County were evaluated with regard to a query of the CNDDB for the USGS 7. through the Oxnard Plain of Ventura County. Chaparral has its center in California and occurs continuously over wide areas of mountainous to sloping topography. and D.F. threatened. Web site. Holland. and the northwestern corner of Mexico’s Baja California state. and Canyon live oak.5-minute series topographic quadrangles that include an approximately 2. A few vernal pools are scattered among the oak savannas and grasslands.html Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.D. Oak Woodlands once covered much of the foothills and plains of the region. but included here are the broadest category of the most common plant communities found in the County in order to limit space and to give a brief overview. Philip A.1986. World Wildlife Fund estimates that only 15 percent of the coastal sage scrublands remain undeveloped.30 Chaparral is composed of broad-leaved evergreen shrubs. Riparian woodlands once lined streams and 27 28 Munz. R. Terrestrial and marine communities will be addressed separately to describe the effects of litter on marine ecosystems found downstream of the County. endangered. Inc. 29 Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf. bushes. and published and unpublished literature to provide a baseline description of the existing biological resources including plant communities. Page 3. Sacramento. and wetland or stream course areas potentially subject to USACOE or CDFG jurisdiction. A number of rare and endangered species occur in coastal scrub habitats.435-square-mile area encompassing the incorporated cities of the County. Coastal Sage Scrub is the most endangered plant community in California and is found along the coast in Central and Southern California. Resources Agency. valley oak. easily eroded slopes. parts of Riverside County. California walnut woodlands once occurred in foothills around inland valleys in the northern portion of the region. Sacramento. A Manual of California Vegetation. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. There are numerous other plant communities based on vegetation type. rare. Available at: http://www. Second Edition.27 The plant communities described in this section are described in accordance with the definitions provided in Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California28 and cross-referenced to the vegetation series described in A Manual of California Vegetation.worldwildlife.29 Below are some of the important plant communities found in the County. World Wildlife Fund.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Chaparral vegetation is valuable for watershed protection in areas with steep. and small trees.2-8 30 .” In El Aliso. the Los Angeles Basin. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.649-square-mile area encompassing the unincorporated territory of the County and an approximately 1. The Los Angeles basin and San Fernando Valley were noted for their extensive savannas of coast live oak. 2009. 2 (1): 87–105. Plant Communities A plant community is defined as a regional element of vegetation characterized by the presence of certain dominant species. including the region around Tijuana and Ensenada. most of Orange County. 1949. or sensitive plant and wildlife species. “California Plant Communities.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na1201_full. Keck. which is more common at higher elevations. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. from the San Francisco Bay Area in the north. often forming dense thickets. coastal San Diego County. CA: California Department of Fish and Game. CA: California Native Plant Society.2 Biological Resources.

This is the basic creosote shrub of the Colorado Desert and constitutes a very sensitive and important wildlife area. All riparian plant communities are protected.31 TABLE 3. and usually have bare ground between. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Creosote Bush Scrub consists of shrubs that are 2 to 10 feet tall. Riparian areas can be found in many types of habitats.supported several species of willow.5-minute series topographic quadrangles for the County. threatened. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. or endangered were identified as having the potential to occur in the County (Table 3. including grassland. Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse and may be home to a wide range of plants. and vines. coast live oak. cottonwoods. wetland and forest environments. Page 3.2 Biological Resources.Doc . sycamore. Threatened. lake or other body of water. 2009. and amphibians that make them ideal for different species of birds.2-1 LISTED SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE COUNTY Common Name Amphibians arroyo toad California red-legged frog Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog Birds American peregrine falcon bald eagle Belding's savannah sparrow California black rail California condor California least tern coastal California gnatcatcher least Bell's vireo San Clemente loggerhead shrike San Clemente sage sparrow southwestern willow flycatcher 31 Scientific Name Federal Status Endangered Threatened Endangered Delisted Delisted State Status Anaxyrus californicus Rana draytonii Rana muscosa Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus None None None Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered None Endangered None None Endangered Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi None Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus None Gymnogyps californianus Stern antillarum browni Polioptila californica californica Vireo bellii pusillus Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Amphispiza belli clementeae Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered California Department of Fish and Game. insects. 29 plant species and 33 wildlife species federally or State designated as rare. white alder. and consultation with experts on the areas biological resources. and a diverse flora of herbaceous plants.2-1.2-9 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.2. Listed Species with the Potential to Occur in the County). CA. and Endangered Species As a result of a query of the CNDDB for the USGS 7. widely spaced. Shrubs may be dormant for long periods. Inc. Rare. Sacramento. stream. shrubs. Many species of ephemeral herbs may flower in late February and March if the winter rains are sufficient. ash. Rarefind 3: California Natural Diversity Database. Growth occurs form winter to early spring (or rarely at other seasons) if rainfall is sufficient.2. Riparian plant communities are found along the banks of a river.

2-10 . titi Nasturtium gambelii Helianthemum greenei Pentachaeta lyonii Dudleya cymosa ssp. Inc. Page 3. Gleason paintbrush Nevin's barberry Dudleya cymosa ssp. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. agourensis Dithyrea maritima Phacelia stellaris Astragalus brauntonii Orcuttia californica Cercocarpus traskiae Astragalus tener var.2.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. marcescens Arenaria paludicola Castilleja gleasonii Berberis nevinii Threatened None Candidate Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered None Endangered None Threatened None None Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened None Endangered Rare Endangered Rare Endangered Xerospermophilus mohavensis Ammospermophilus nelsoni Urocyon littoralis clementae Urocyon littoralis catalinae None None None Endangered Threatened Threatened None Threatened Threatened Euphilotes battoides allyni Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Endangered Endangered None None Gila bicolor mohavensis Catostomus santaanae Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangered None None None Endangered Scientific Name Buteo swainsoni Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Synthliboramphus hypoleucus Federal Status None Threatened Candidate Candidate State Status Threatened None Endangered Threatened Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Endangered Perognathus longimembris pacificus Endangered Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.2 Biological Resources.Southern California ESU tidewater goby unarmored threespine stickleback Invertebrates El Segundo blue butterfly Palos Verdes blue butterfly Mammals Mohave ground squirrel Nelson's antelope squirrel Pacific pocket mouse San Clemente Island fox Santa Catalina Island fox Plants Agoura Hills dudleya beach spectaclepod Brand's star phacelia Braunton's milk-vetch California orcutt grass Catalina Island mountain-mahogany coastal dunes milk-vetch Gambel's water cress island rush-rose Lyon's pentachaeta marcescent dudleya marsh sandwort Mt.2-1 LISTED SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE COUNTY. Continued Common Name Swainson's hawk western snowy plover western yellow-billed cuckoo Xantus's murrelet Fish Mohave tui chub Santa Ana sucker southern steelhead .TABLE 3.

Inc. Marine mammals (cetaceans.2.C. Accessed on: 5 March 2010.2-2. lanosissimus Federal Status Endangered None None Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Candidate Endangered Threatened None Endangered Threatened Threatened Endangered State Status Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered None None Rare Endangered None Endangered Endangered San Clemente Island bird's-foot trefoil Lotus argophyllus var. conservation.2-11 . kinkiense Lotus dendroideus var. Page 3. 34 (2). fernandina Sibara filifolia Dudleya cymosa ssp. acrispum Malacothamnus clementinus Delphinium variegatum ssp. and recovery of the approximately 160 marine mammal stocks listed under the MMPA.S. Endangered Species Bulletin.noaa. Web site.2-1 LISTED SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE COUNTY. ovatifolia Deinandra minthornii Dodecahema leptoceras Navarretia fossalis Brodiaea filifolia Astragalus pycnostachyus var.32. D. Washington.33 32 33 U. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. Summer 2009.TABLE 3. Available at: http://www. science centers. adsurgens Marine Species Fifteen marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of Los Angeles County are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA under the jurisdiction of the NMFS (Table 3. Fish and Wildlife Service. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources works in collaboration with NMFS regional offices. Office of Protected Species.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.nmfs. pinnipeds) are also protected under the MMPA. maritimus Galium catalinense ssp. traskiae Castilleja grisea Lithophragma maximum Chorizanthe parryi var. and partners to develop and implement a variety of programs for the protection. Continued Common Name salt marsh bird's-beak San Clemente Island bedstraw San Clemente Island bush-mallow San Clemente Island larkspur San Clemente Island lotus San Clemente Island paintbrush San Clemente Island woodland star San Fernando Valley spineflower Santa Cruz Island rock cress Santa Monica dudleya Santa Susana tarplant slender-horned spineflower spreading navarretia thread-leaved brodiaea Ventura Marsh milk-vetch Reptiles desert tortoise island night lizard Gopherus agassizii Xantusia riversiana Threatened Threatened Threatened None Scientific Name Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County).2.gov/pr/species/esa Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The entire list of marine species that are listed as endangered and threatened under the ESA under the jurisdiction of the NMFS is available in a recent issue of the USFWS Endangered Species Bulletin and at the Office of Protected Resources of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.2 Biological Resources.

2-3. 3. includes animals in California Northern Pacific.2. California to Punta Abreojos. Manatees and sea otters are listed under the ESA.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. relisted as the North Pacific Right Whale in 2008. 4. Species of concern are those species about which the NMFS has some concerns regarding status and threats.2-12 . California/Mexico population Northern Pacific. and porpoises) blue whale 1970 (Balaenoptera musculus) fin whale 1970 (Balaenoptera physalus) humpback whale 1970 (Megaptera novaeangliae) killer whale 2005 (Orcinus orca) North Pacific right whale 19704 (2008) (Eubalaena japonica) Sei whale 1970 (Balaenoptera borealis) sperm whale 1970 (Physeter macrocephalus) Pinnipeds (seals. dolphins. includes animals in California Northern Pacific. 5 species are proposed species. California population Northern Pacific. Baja California T T E T T E E E KEY: E = Endangered. includes animals in California Northern Pacific. Marine Species of Concern under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County). Originally listed as the “Northern Right Whale” in 1970. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Six marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of Los Angeles County are listed as species of concern under the jurisdiction of the NMFS (Table 3. includes San Miguel Island. but fall under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Southern California population Northern Pacific. 2. The Southern Resident component of this population is the only listed Distinct Population Segment. California/Oregon/Washington population3 Northern Pacific. Eighty-two of 89 (92 percent) candidate species are various species of corals. Candidate and proposed species under the ESA are not listed. includes animals in California Northern Pacific. T = Threatened.2 Biological Resources. California/Oregon/Washington population Northern Pacific. includes animals in California Northern Pacific. California/Oregon/Washington population Northern Pacific. Inc.TABLE 3. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. California/Oregon/Washington population Northern Pacific. sea lions. DPS = Distinct Population Segment NOTES: 1. Page 3.2-2 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NMFS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR OFF THE COAST OF THE COUNTY Species Name Year Listed Cetaceans (whales. includes animals in California Entire Range: Point Conception. and walruses) Guadalupe fur seal 1985 (Arctocephalus townsendi) Marine Turtles green turtle 1978 (Chelonia mydas) leatherback turtle 1970 (Dermochelys coriacea) loggerhead turtle (Caretta 1978 caretta) olive ridley turtle 1978 (Lepidochelys olivacea) Marine and Anadromous Fish steelhead trout 1997 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Marine Invertebrates black abalone 2009 (Haliotis cracherodii) white abalone (Haliotis 2001 sorenseni) Status E E E E E E E Range in Northern Pacific Northern Pacific. includes animals in California Northern Pacific.2.

includes Southern California pink abalone (Haliotis corrugata) KEY: DPS = Distinct Population Segment Species of concern Seven marine species (6 avian species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Gulf of California.gov/pr/species/concern Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the USFWS and/or the CDFG).but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Gulf of California. Georgia Basin DPS.2 Biological Resources. Point Conception to Bahia de Tortuga. includes Southern California Northern Pacific. Proactive Conservation Program: Species of Concern.2-4.2-13 34 . Page 3. Inc. Mexico Northern Pacific.2.2-3 MARINE SPECIES OF CONCERN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NMFS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR OFF THE COAST OF THE COUNTY Species Name Fishes and Sharks bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) cowcod (Sebastes levis) dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) Marine Invertebrates green abalone (Haliotis fulgens) Species of concern Entire Range: Point Conception. Available at: http://www. The entire list of marine species that are listed as species of concern under the jurisdiction of the NMFS is available at the Office of Protected Resources of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.noaa.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Mexico Status Species of concern Species of concern Species of concern Species of concern Range in Northern Pacific Northern Pacific. Pacific-Southern DPS (Northern California to Mexico) Entire Range: Central Oregon to Central Baja California Northern Pacific. Accessed on: 5 March 2010. California to Bahia de Magdalena. 1 mammal) that occur in Southern California off the coast of Los Angeles County are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA under the jurisdiction of the USFWS or the CDFG (Table 3.34 TABLE 3.nmfs.2.

1971 (S) 1992 2004 FE SE FT FE. Western Field Ornithologists. CA. Inc.TABLE 3.2-14 35 . Candidate and Proposed Species under the ESA are not listed. California Bird Records Committee (Hamilton. M.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.2 Biological Resources. where it breeds in the Channel Islands California: San Mateo County in the north to Santa Barbara County in the south. R. SE FT. SE ST Formerly included Southern California (offshore) in the 19th Century. and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California.2. Page 3. where it does not breed. Shuford.. eds. Gardali. 2008. generally scarce in winter Includes Southern California. Eleven avian marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of the County are listed as species of special concern under the jurisdiction of the CDFG (Table 3. and T. and R. 1.2-4 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE USFWS AND/OR CDFG Species Name Birds short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) Mammals 2000 1971 1993 1970 (F). W.A. Eds.2-5. A small population of sea otters lives at San Nicolas Island as a result of translocation efforts initiated in 1987 Year Listed Status Range in California Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) 1977 FT KEY: FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened NOTE: 1. where it breeds Includes Southern California. CA: Western Field Ornithologists. CA. Species of Special Concern under the Jurisdiction of the CDFG).. 2007. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. where it breeds Includes Southern California.).” In Studies of Western Birds. Subspecies. Erickson.2. but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Rare Birds in California.A. few records since. Camarillo. SOURCE: 1. “California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species. where it breeds Includes Southern California.A.2 does not breed Includes Southern California. and California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. southern sea otters live in the nearshore waters along the mainland coastline of California.35 Species of special concern are those species about which the CDFG has some concerns regarding status and threats. Camarillo. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Patten.D.

along the coast. the Santa Clara River watershed. stream.2-5 SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CDFG Species Name American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) Status Special concern Priority Level 1 Range in California Includes Southern California. recently recolonized Prince Island (off San Miguel Island).2 Biological Resources. breeds at Sutil and Santa Barbara Islands Includes Southern California. breeds in the Channel Islands tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) Special concern 1 brant (Branta bernicla) ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) black tern (Chlidonias niger) fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) black storm-petrel (Oceanodroma melania) snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) (Interior Population) gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) black skimmer (Rynchops niger) Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern Special concern 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Wetlands and Watersheds As a result of the literature review. lake or groundwater. the Los Angeles River watershed.TABLE 3.5-minute series topographic quadrangle maps for the County. breeds in Los Angeles. Page 3. where it does not breed Southern California (offshore).2. the San Gabriel River 36 California Department of Fish and Game. along the coast. Sacramento. has bred in San Diego County since 1986 Includes Southern California. or subject to jurisdiction by the CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the Code.2-15 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. where it does not breed Includes Southern California (offshore). where it does not breed Includes Southern California. including the Antelope Watershed.Doc . Inc. The County is comprised of several major watersheds. formerly bred in the Channel Islands. occurs more widely offshore in winter Includes Southern California. does not breed Includes Southern California. river. Rarefind 3: California Natural Diversity Database. and a review of the National Wetland Inventory Map for the USGS 7. 2009. including the CNDDB previously prepared jurisdictional reports. multiple wetland or riparian areas were identified within the County as potentially subject to regulatory jurisdiction by the USACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA.36 A watershed is the area of land that catches rain and snow and drains or seeps into a marsh. where the interior population does not breed Southern California. Orange and San Diego Counties Includes Southern California. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. CA Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. breeds in the Channel Islands Includes Southern California.

the river flows down between a concrete or rock channel into the estuary in Long Beach.37 The San Gabriel River Watershed is located in the eastern portion of the County.org/lariver. the Ballona Creek watershed. the Malibu Creek watershed. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. Lynwood. Compton. Available at: http://www.org/lariver. the Dominguez Channel watershed. West Hollywood. Coyote Creek. “Know Your Watershed. and the Baldwin Hills on the south. The last several miles of the river are soft-bottom and lined with rock riprap. but have since been greatly reduced and degraded by urban development. Some of the major tributaries to the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed include Castaic Creek. and are a noted location for migratory birds and shorebirds. California. San Francisquito Canyon. and the Santa Monica Mountains and Los Angeles coastal plain to the south. connecting it to the San Gabriel River. The Los Angeles River is the heart of the 871-square-mile Los Angeles River watershed. South of Compton Creek. The watershed is composed of approximately 640 square miles of land. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.html 38 The River Project.org/lariver. bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The river supports a variety of flora and fauna. Available at: http://www. The San Gabriel River runs from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.html Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. “Know Your Watershed. South Gate. to the Pacific Ocean. right by the Queen Mary. San Jose Creek. Paramount. the river flows through the Cities of Vernon.40 The Dominguez Channel watershed comprises approximately 110 square miles of land in the southern portion of the County. The last tributary mingling with the Los Angeles River is Compton Creek. with 26 percent of its total area developed. Maywood. and the Pacific Ocean to the south.theriverproject. once encompassed over 2. The major tributaries to Ballona Creek include Centinela Creek. Sand Canyon. Mint Canyon. and the San Pedro Channel Islands. and numerous storm drains.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The watershed encompasses the Santa Susanna Mountains to the west. Bouquet Canyon. Inglewood. Available at: http://www. and Carson on its way to Long Beach. the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and east. Page 3.39 The Santa Clara River flows approximately 100 miles from near Acton. These wetlands. composed of all or parts of the Cities of Beverly Hills.” Web site. Bell. Cudahy. Accessed on: 19 March 2010.” Web site.” Web site. most of San Bernardino and Orange County to the east. The Rio Hondo joins the Los Angeles River at South Gate from the east. Ballona Creeek empties into the Santa Monica Bay at the Ballona Wetlands.watershed. Culver City. the division of the Los Angeles River from the San Gabriel River to the west. Sepulveda Canyon Channel. Bell Gardens.theriverproject.2-16 40 39 . and the Santa Clara River South Fork.38 Ballona Creek is approximately 9 miles long and drains the Los Angeles basin from the Santa Monica Mountains on the north. South of the City of Los Angeles. The Dominguez Channel extends from the Los Angeles 37 The River Project. the largest in the County. Inc. and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Available at: http://www.theriverproject.000 acres. The Dominguez Channel watershed is defined by a complex network of storm drains and smaller flood control channels. Los Angeles.” Web site. Santa Monica.org/lariver. the Harbor Freeway (State Route 110) on the east. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. and extensive patches of high-quality riparian habitat. The watershed comprises about 130 square miles.html The River Project. “Know Your Watershed. The major tributaries to the San Gabriel River include Walnut Creek.html The River Project. Benedict Canyon Channel.2 Biological Resources. and numerous storm drains.theriverproject. “Know Your Watershed.

org/lariver. but not limited to. to any species identified as a candidate. there are many key rest stops where birds of many species gather. Sacramento.” Web site. and east by the Santa Monica Mountains. portions of the Cities of Inglewood.html 43 California Department of Fish and Game. A project would normally be considered to have a significant impact to biological resources when the potential for any one of the following six thresholds is reached: x Have a substantial adverse effect.3 Significance Thresholds The potential for the proposed ordinances to result in impacts related to biological resources was analyzed in relation to the questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. west. The Pacific Flyway is a major north-south route of travel for migratory birds in the Americas. Calabasas. and Cold Creek.42 Corridors As a result of the literature review. and its major tributaries are Las Virgenes Creek. extending from Alaska to Patagonia. 41 The Malibu Creek watershed is located in the northwest corner of the County. CA Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. “Know Your Watershed. Hawthorne.org/lariver. or traveling to over wintering sites. and on the south by the Pacific Ocean. Available at: http://www. Malibu. or by the CDFG or USFWS Have a substantial adverse effect on more than 0. The remaining land areas within the watershed drain to several debris basins and lakes or directly to the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. sometimes in the millions.Doc .2.2 Biological Resources. Lawndale. The watershed comprises all or parts of the Cities of Agoura Hills. through either direct or indirect modification of more than 10 percent of potentially suitable or occupied habitat. Gardena. and Los Angeles.html 42 The River Project.theriverproject. and unincorporated Los Angeles County and Ventura County. following food sources. Redondo Beach. Inc. Carson. migratory birds travel some or all of this distance both in spring and in fall. etc. Available at: http://www. Along the Pacific Flyway. or other means x x 41 The River Project. to feed and regain their strength before continuing. multiple migratory wildlife corridors were determined to be present within the County. if not all. Torrance. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3. The Malibu Creek watershed is composed of approximately 109 square miles. vernal pool. and drains large. Some species may remain in these rest stops for the entire season. sensitive.43 and a review of the USGS 7. hydrological interruption.5-minute series topographic quadrangles for the County.International Airport to the Los Angeles Harbor. Westlake Village. Triunfo Creek. or by the CDFG or USFWS Have an adverse effect on 10 percent of existing riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. bounded on the north. 2009. or direct take. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. or special status species in local or regional plans. but most stay a few days before moving on. regulations. Every year. Rarefind 3: California Natural Diversity Database. coastal.” Web site. heading to breeding grounds. policies. including the CNDDB. filling.3 acre of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including. Thousand Oaks. policies. 3. El Segundo. “Know Your Watershed. Page 3. marsh.theriverproject. or regulations.2-17 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.) through direct removal.

x x x

Interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species such that migratory patterns are eliminated from within the proposed project area or reduce the use of native wildlife nursery sites by 10 percent of more Conflict with the policies established by the County of Los Angeles General Plan to provide protection for threatened and endangered species Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan

3.2.4

Impact Analysis

Due to the prevalence of plastic bag litter44,45,46 and associated microplastics47 in the marine environment and the success of plastic bag fees in the District of Columbia and other countries to reduce plastic carryout bag use and disposal,48,49 it can be concluded that a ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags in the County would result in a reduction in plastic bag litter in the marine environment and corresponding potentially beneficial impacts upon biological resources. The proposed ordinances would also be expected to increase consumer use of reusable bags and paper carryout bags. Reusable bags have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. Although reusable bags do eventually get discarded and become part of the waste stream, the fact that they can be reused multiple times means that the number of reusable bags in the waste stream is much lower than the number of paper or plastic carryout bags, which are generally only used once or twice. The smaller number of reusable bags in the waste stream means that reusable bags are less likely to be littered and less likely to end up in wildlife habitats. Paper bags have also not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. A study performed in Washington, DC, showed that paper bags were not found in streams except in localized areas, and were not present downstream.50 Unlike plastic, paper is compostable;51 the paper used to make standard paper carryout bags is originally derived from wood pulp, which is naturally a biodegradable material. Due to paper’s biodegradable properties, paper bags do not persist in the marine environment for as long as plastic bags.52

Ocean Conservancy. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. Available at: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.pdf
45

44

Sheavly, S.B. 2007. National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant Number X83053401-02. p. 76.

46 Anacostia Watershed Society. December 2008. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment: Bladensburg, MD. 47

Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, S.B. Weisberg, G.L. Lattin, A.F. Zellers. October 2002. “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton Abundance in Southern California's Coastal Waters.” In Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44 (10): 1035–1038.

Convery, F., S. McDonnell and S. Ferreira. 2007. “The Most Popular Tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish Plastic Bags Levy.” In Environmental and Resource Economics, 38: 1–11.
49

48

Craig, Tim. 29 March 2010. “Bag tax raises $150,000, but far fewer bags used.” The Washington Post. Available at: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/03/bag_tax_raises_150000_but_far.html?wprss=dc

50 Anacostia Watershed Society. December 2008. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Bladensburg, MD. 51

County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Accessed on: 28 April 2010. Backyard Composting. Web site. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/sg/bc.cfm

Andrady, Anthony L. and Mike A. Neal. 2009. “Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 1977–1984. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-18

52

Impacts to State-designated Sensitive Habitats The proposed ordinances would not expected to result in adverse impacts to State-designated sensitive habitats. There are many State-designated sensitive habitats in the County, but the proposed ordinances would not have any direct adverse impacts upon these habitats. Floatable trash has been noted to inhibit the growth of aquatic vegetation, decreasing spawning areas and habitats for fish and other living organisms.53 The proposed ordinances intend to reduce the amount of litter attributed to plastic bag waste, which would be expected to result in only potentially beneficial indirect impacts upon State-designated sensitive habitats by reducing the amount of litter in these areas. Therefore, there are no expected adverse impacts to State-designated sensitive habitats. Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to biological resources in relation to species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered pursuant to the federal and State ESAs. Twenty-two marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of Los Angeles County are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA (Tables 3.2.2-2 and 3.2.2-4). According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the Los Angeles Region, trash has potentially harmful impacts to species, and plastic bags are one of the most common items of trash observed by RWQCB staff.54 Seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals that feed on or near the ocean surface are especially prone to ingesting plastic debris that floats.55,56,57 The impacts include fatalities as a result of ingestion, starvation, suffocation, infection, drowning, and entanglement.58,59 The recovery plan for the endangered leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) lists ingestion of marine debris, including plastic bags, as one of the factors threatening this species. The recovery plan says that leatherback turtles consume floating plastic, including plastic bags, because they appear to mistake the floating plastic for jellyfish.60 The recovery plans for the threatened green turtle (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), and olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) also note plastic bag ingestion as a threat to those species.61, 62,63 Ingestion of plastics is also noted as a threat in the recovery plan for the
53

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA.

54

55

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf National Research Council. 2008. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts.
57 58 56

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2002. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. Washington, DC.

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf
59 Gregory, Murray R. 2009. “Environmental Implications of Plastic debris in Marine Settings --Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-on, Hitch-hiking and Alien Invasions.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 2013–2025. 60

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_leatherback_pacific.pdf
61

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_green_eastpacific.pdf
62

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_loggerhead_pacific.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-19

federally endangered short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus).64 Preventing trash from entering water bodies, such as the Los Angeles River, has the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life.65 The proposed ordinances would be anticipated to reduce the amount of trash entering water bodies in the County.66 Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts to species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered pursuant to the federal and State ESAs; however, the proposed ordinances are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Impacts to Sensitive Species The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to biological resources in relation to sensitive species designated as species of special concern by the CDFG or the NMFS: 6 marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of the County are listed as species of concern under NMFS (Table 3.2.2-3), and 11 avian marine species that occur in Southern California off the coast of the County are listed as species of special concern under CDFG jurisdiction (Table 3.2.25). The presence of plastic film is known to be a persistent problem in the marine environment that has potentially adverse impacts upon marine and avian species.67,68,69,70,71,72 Therefore, preventing trash from entering water bodies, such as the Los Angeles River, has the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life.73 The proposed ordinances would be anticipated to reduce the amount of trash entering water bodies in the County.74 Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts to sensitive species designated as species of special concern by the CDFG or the NMFS, but the proposed ordinances would be anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to species of special concern.
63

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_oliveridley.pdf
64

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 2008. Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Plan. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/stal_recovery_plan.pdf
65 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA. 66

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf Moore, Charles James. October 2008. “Synthetic Polymers in the Marine Environment: A Rapidly Increasing, Long-term Threat.” In Environmental Research, 108 (2): 131–139. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA.
69 National Research Council. 2008. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. Washington, D.C. 70 68 67

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf
71 Arthur, C., J. Baker and H. Bamford (eds). 2009. “Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Sept 9–11, 2008.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NOSOR&R-30. 72 David, K., A. Barnes, Francois Galgani, Richard C. Thompson and Morton Barlaz. 2009. “Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 1985–1998. 73 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA. 74

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-20

Impacts to Locally Important Species The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to biological resources in relation to locally important species. The presence of plastic film is known to be a persistent problem in the marine environment that has potentially adverse impacts upon species.75,76,77,78,79,80 Therefore, preventing trash from entering water bodies, such as the Los Angeles River, has the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life.81 The proposed ordinances would be anticipated to reduce the amount of trash entering water bodies in the County.82 Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts to locally important species, but the proposed ordinances would be anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to locally important species. Impacts to Federally Protected Wetlands The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to federally protected wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The proposed ordinances would be anticipated to improve surface water quality by reducing the potential for plastic carryout bags to end up in surface waters.83 Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts to federally protected wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; however, the proposed ordinances would be anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to federally protected wetlands. Impacts to Migratory Corridors and/or Nursery Sites The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to known migratory routes or nursery sites. Plastic litter has been known to block sea turtle hatchling migration.84 The
Moore, Charles James. October 2008. “Synthetic Polymers in the Marine Environment: A Rapidly Increasing, Long-term Threat.” In Environmental Research, 108 (2): 131–139.
76 75

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA.
77 National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. 2008. Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 78

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf
79 Arthur, C., J. Baker and H. Bamford (eds). 2009. “Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Sept 9–11, 2008.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30.

David, K., A. Barnes, Francois Galgani, Richard C. Thompson and Morton Barlaz. 2009. “Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 1985–1998. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA.
82 81

80

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf
83

Anacostia Watershed Society. December 2008. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Bladensburg, MD.
84

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-21

proposed ordinances would be anticipated to reduce the amount of plastic carryout bag litter in the County.85 Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts from the proposed ordinances to migratory routes or nursery sites; however, the proposed ordinances would be anticipated to result in potential beneficial impacts to migratory routes or nursery sites. Conflict with the Policies Established by the County of Los Angeles General Plan to Provide Protection for Threatened and Endangered Species The proposed ordinances would not be expected to conflict with policies established by the County General Plan. The proposed ordinances would be consistent with the goals of the County General Plan to preserve and protect ecological areas and biotic resources. Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts with local policies related to threatened or endangered species. Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan The proposed ordinances would not be expected to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved state, local, or regional plan. There are several plans throughout the County with the aim to protect habitats and species including the Newhall Farm Seasonal Crossings Habitat Conservation Plan and the Linden H. Chandler Preserve PV Blue Reintroduction Habitat Conservation Plan. As the proposed ordinances would be anticipated to reduce the amount of plastic carryout bag litter in the County,86 the proposed ordinances would not be anticipated to conflict with the provisions of an adopted conservation plan in the County. The reduction of plastic bag litter in the various habitats throughout the County would be expected to result only in potentially beneficial impacts to species and habitats, thereby conforming to the requirements of adopted conservation plans. Therefore, there would be no expected adverse impacts to locally important species. Cumulative Impacts The incremental impact of the proposed ordinances, when evaluated in relation to the closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects, would not be expected to cause significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed ordinances would not cause an incremental impact when considered with the related past, present, reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. 3.2.5 Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

85

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf
86

California Ocean Protection Council. 20 November 2008. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Available at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-22

3.2.6

Level of Significance after Mitigation

Implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact related to biological resources that would need to be reduced to below the level of significance.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\3.2 Biological Resources.Doc

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.2-23

3.3

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As a result of the Initial Study,1 it was identified that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to result in significant impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have claimed that banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags could result in the increased manufacture of paper carryout bags, which may lead to increased emissions of GHGs; therefore, the County has decided to present the analysis of GHG emissions in this EIR. Between 1980 and 2007, the number of plastic bags manufactured in the United States has more than doubled (Table 3.3-1, Plastic and Paper Bag Production from 1980 to 2007). During the same period, the number of paper bags manufactured in the United States decreased nearly three fold (Table 3.3-1).

TABLE 3.3-1 PLASTIC AND PAPER BAG PRODUCTION FROM 1980 TO 2007
Year 1980 1990 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 Plastic Bags and Sacks Produced (thousands of tons) 390 940 1,650 1,810 1,640 1,830 1,010 Paper Bags and Sacks Produced (thousands of tons) 3,380 2,440 1,490 1,270 1,120 1,080 1,140

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2008. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf

The analysis of GHG emissions consists of a summary of the regulatory framework to be considered in the decision-making process, a description of the existing conditions within the County, thresholds for determining if the proposed ordinances would result in significant impacts, anticipated impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative), mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. The potential for impacts to GHG emissions has been analyzed in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.2 As discussed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, the unincorporated territory and the 88 incorporated cities of the County are within the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the Mojave MDAB. Significance thresholds for GHG emissions have not yet been adopted by SCAQMD or AVAQMD. Methodologies and modeling tools used to assess impacts to GHG emissions from the proposed ordinances have been undertaken in accordance with guidance provided by regulatory publications from the CAPCOA,3 the State of California Attorney General,4 CARB,5 and the California
1

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 1 December 2009. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. Pasadena, CA.
2 3

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. 21 May 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Sacramento, CA.
5

4

California Air Resources Board. 24 October 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. Available at: Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.3 GHG Emissions.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.3-1

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR); 6 direct coordination with SCAQMD, 7 AVAQMD,8 and CARB;9 and a review of public comments received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. 3.3.1 Greenhouse Gases and Effects

The six GHGs regulated by the Kyoto Protocol and AB 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These gases trap the energy from the sun and help maintain the temperature of the Earth’s surface, creating a process known as the greenhouse effect. The sun emits solar radiation and provides energy to the Earth. Six percent of the solar radiation emitted by the sun is reflected back by the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, 20 percent of the solar radiation is scattered and reflected by clouds, 19 percent of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, 4 percent of the solar radiation is reflected back to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface, and 51 percent of the solar energy is absorbed by the Earth. GHGs such as CO2 and CH4 are naturally present in the atmosphere. The presence of these gases prevents outgoing infrared radiation from escaping the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere, allowing incoming solar radiation to be absorbed by living organisms on Earth. Without these GHGs, the earth would be too cold to be habitable; however, an excess of GHGs in the atmosphere can cause global climate change by raising the Earth’s temperature, resulting in environmental consequences related to snowpack losses, flood hazards, sea-level rises, and fire hazards. Global climate change results from a combination of three factors: 1) natural factors such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun; 2) natural processes within the Earth’s climate system, such as changes in ocean circulation; and 3) anthropogenic activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification, that change the composition of atmospheric gases. In its 2007 climate change synthesis report to policymakers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004.”10 Therefore, significant attention is being given to the anthropogenic causes of the increased GHG emissions level. In the review of regulatory publications from CAPCOA, 11 CARB,12 the California Attorney General,13 and OPR,14 there is a consensus on the closely associated

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Prelim_Draft_Staff_Proposal_10-24-08.pdf
6

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 19 June 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Technical Advisory. Sacramento, CA.
7

Garcia, Daniel, Air Quality Specialist, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA. 21 January 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
8

Banks, Bret, Operations Manager, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Lancaster, CA. 8 March 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
9

Jeannie Blakeslee, Office of Climate Change, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. 16 March 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
10

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Approved 12–17 November 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5. Valencia, Spain. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
11

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, CA.
12

California Air Resources Board. 24 October 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. Available at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Prelim_Draft_Staff_Proposal_10-24-08.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.3 GHG Emissions.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.3-2

relationship between fossil fuel combustion, in conjunction with other human activities, and GHG emissions. In California, GHG emissions are largely contributed by the transportation sector, which was responsible for 35 percent and 38 percent of statewide 1990 and 2004 GHG emissions, respectively; followed by the electricity generation sector, which was responsible for 25 percent of statewide emissions in 1990 and 2004; the industrial sector, which was responsible for 24 percent and 20 percent of statewide 1990 and 2004 GHG emissions; and the commercial sector, which was responsible for 3 percent of statewide emissions in 1990 and 2004 (Figure 3.3.1-1, California 1990 GHG Emissions, and Figure 3.3.1-2, California 2004 GHG Emissions).15 The characteristics and effects of three GHGs and a group of fluorinated GHGs, including SF6, HFCs, and PFCs, are described to set the context for the analysis. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless, and nonflammable gas that is the most abundant GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere after water vapor. CO2 enters the atmosphere through natural process such as respiration and forest fires, and through human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (oils, natural gas, and coal) and solid waste, deforestation, and industrial processes. CO2 absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space, and therefore plays an important role in warming the atmosphere. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime of up to 200 years, and is therefore a more important GHG than water vapor, which has a residence time in the atmosphere of only a few days. CO2 provides the reference point for the global warming potential (GWP) of other gases; thus, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. Methane (CH4) CH4 is a principal component of natural gas and consists of a single carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. It is formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in anaerobic environments such as municipal solid waste landfills. CH4 is also emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than CO2 (a GWP of 21). Its chemical lifetime in the atmosphere is approximately 12 years. The relatively short atmospheric lifetime of CH4, coupled with its potency as a GHG, makes it a candidate for mitigating global warming over the near-term. CH4 can be removed from the atmosphere by a variety of processes such as the oxidation reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH), microbial uptake in soils, and reaction with chlorine (Cl) atoms in the marine boundary layer. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is a clear and colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O has a long atmospheric lifetime (approximately 120 years) and heat trapping effects about 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis (a GWP of 310). N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. The primary anthropogenic sources of N2O are agricultural soil management such as soil
13

California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. Updated 9 December 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Sacramento, CA.
14

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 19 June 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Technical Advisory. Sacramento, CA.
15

California Air Resources Board. 16 November 2007. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit. Sacramento, CA. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.3-3

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.3 GHG Emissions.Doc

Commercial 3 Residential 7 Electricity Generation (In-state) 11 Transportation 35

Electricity Generation (Imports) 14

Agriculture 5

Industrial 24

1990 Emissions 427 MMT CO2e
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board. 2007. “California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit.” Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm

FIGURE 3.3.1-1 California 1990 GHG Emissions

Agriculture

2004 Emissions 480 MMT CO2e

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board. 2007. “California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit.” Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm

FIGURE 3.3.1-2 California 2004 GHG Emissions

cultivation practices, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, and production of adipic and nitric acids. The natural process of producing N2O ranges from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. Fluorinated Gases HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are synthetic, powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes, including aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission, magnesium production and processing, and the production of HCFC-22. Fluorinated gases are being used as substitutes for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in small quantities; however, they have high global warming potentials of between 140 and 23,900.16 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework

This regulatory framework identifies the federal, State, regional, and local laws that govern the regulation of GHG emissions and must be considered by the County when rendering decisions on projects that would have the potential to result in GHG emissions. In October 2007, the CARB published a list of 44 early action measures to reduce GHG emissions in California.17 This regulatory framework identifies State guidance on early GHG emissions reduction measures that warrants consideration by the County. While the regulatory framework is discussed in detail below, it is important to note that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has been tasked with developing CEQA guidelines with regard to GHG emissions. OPR has indicated that many significant questions must be answered before a consistent, effective, and workable process for completing climate change analyses can be created for use in CEQA documents. No federal or State agency (e.g. USEPA, CARB, or SCAQMD) responsible for managing air quality emissions has promulgated a global warming significance threshold that may be used in reviewing newly proposed projects. On a local level, the County has not adopted a climate change significance threshold. Neither the CEQA Statutes nor the CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. The determination of significance is left to the judgment and discretion of the lead agency. Federal Federal Clean Air Act The federal CAA requires that federally supported activities must conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), whose purpose is that of attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. Section 176 (c) of the CAA as amended in 1990, established the criteria and procedures by which the Federal Highway Administration (United States Code, Title 23), the Federal Transit Administrations,18 and metropolitan
16

California Climate Action Registry. January 2009. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. Los Angeles, CA. California Air Resources Board. October 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf

17

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 26 September 1996. “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Redesignation of Puget Sound, Washington for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Ozone.” In Federal Register, 61 (188). Available at:

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.3 GHG Emissions.Doc

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.3-4

planning organizations (MPOs) determine the conformity of federally funded or approved highway and transit plans, programs, and projects to SIPs. The provisions of Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 51 and 93,19 apply in all non-attainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated non-attainment or has a maintenance plan. The USEPA sets NAAQS. Primary standards are designed to protect public health, including sensitive individuals such as the children and the elderly, whereas secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare, such as visibility and crop or material damage. The CAA requires the USEPA to routinely review and update the NAAQS in accordance with the latest available scientific evidence. For example, the USEPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to PM10 emissions. The 1-hour standard for O3 was revoked in 2005 in favor of a new 8-hour standard that is intended to be more protective of public health. Areas designated as severe-17 for non-attainment of the federal 8-hour O3 standard, such as the County, are required to reach attainment levels within 17 years after designation. Areas designated as Serious for non-attainment of the federal PM10 air quality standard have a maximum of 10 years to reduce PM10 emissions to attainment levels. All non-attainment areas for PM2.5 have 3 years after designation to meet the PM2.5 standards. The SCAB has until 2021 to achieve the 8-hour O3 standards and 2010 to achieve the PM2.5 air quality standards.20 Section 182(e)(5) of the federal CAA allows the USEPA administrator to approve provisions of an attainment strategy in an “extreme” area that anticipates development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies if the State has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions. Non-attainment areas that are classified as Serious or Worse are required to revise their air quality management plans to include specific emission reduction strategies in order to meet interim milestones in implementing emission controls and improving air quality. The USEPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the CAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of federal notification, the USEPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan for the identified non-attainment area or areas. State California Clean Air Act The California CAA of 1988 requires all air-pollution control districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain State ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date and to develop plans and regulations specifying how they will meet this goal. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (549 U.S. 1438; 127 S. Ct. 1438) that the CAA gives the USEPA the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs, including CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6,21 thereby legitimizing GHGs as air pollutants under the CAA.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/e1f3db8b006eff1a88256dcf007885c6/$ FILE/61%20FR%2050438%20Seattle%20Tacoma%20Ozone%20MP.pdf
19

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 August 1997. “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining.” In Federal Register, 62 (158). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1997/August/Day-15/a20968.htm South Coast Air Quality Management District. June 2007. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA.

20 21

U.S. Supreme Court. 2 April 2007. Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. 549 U.S. 1438; 127 S. Ct. 1438. Washington, DC. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.3 GHG Emissions.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 3.3-5

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. Available at: http://www. California Business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Targets).3-6 25 24 . and President of the Public Utilities Commission) to reduce GHG emissions to achieve the target levels. the economy will benefit.ca. 2) impacts of global warming on California’s resources. CA. Inc.e. Executive Order S-3-05. In addition. The CARB has not yet projected 2050 emissions under a business-as-usual scenario.arb. Assembly Bill 32. the Secretary of Cal/EPA created a Climate Action Team made up of representatives from agencies listed above to implement global warming emission reduction programs and report on the progress made toward meeting the statewide GHG targets established in this executive order. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Final Draft of Chapter 8 on Economic Assessment of the Draft Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Secretary of the Resources Agency.3 GHG Emissions.22. Page 3.23 The executive order directs the Cal/EPA Secretary to coordinate and oversee efforts from multiple agencies (i. Sacramento. December 2008. 3 April 2006.. Chairperson of the Air Resources Board.gov/cc/docs/ab32text. Secretary of the Business. the first report was released and identified that “the climate change emission reduction targets [could] be met without adversely affecting the California economy.3. Sacramento. those underway and those needed to meet the Governor’s targets. Available at: http://www.25 This intended reduction in GHG emissions 22 23 California Governor. CA. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the Global Warming Solutions Act. which requires a statewide commitment and effort to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (25 percent below business-as-usual). Transportation and Housing Agency. 2050 business-as-usual emissions were calculated assuming a linear increase of emissions from 1990 to 2050. 2005. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes statewide climate change emission reduction targets to reduce CO2equivalent (CO2e) to the 2000 level (473 million metric tons) by 2010. and 3) measures and adaptation plans to mitigate these impacts.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.2-1. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. To further ensure the accomplishment of the targets. CA. Sacramento. Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture. California Air Resources Board. and to 80 percent below the 1990 level (85 million metric tons of CO2e) by 2050 (Table 3. CA.2-1 CALIFORNIA BUSINESS-AS-USUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND TARGETS California Business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Targets (Million Metric Tons of CO2Equivalent) 1990 2000 2010 2020 427 — 473 — 532 473 596 427 Year Business-as-usual emissions Target emissions 2050 7621 85 SOURCE: California Air Resources Board.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.ca.htm NOTE: 1. California Climate Action Team. 2005. or AB 32.Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. In 2006. California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. 12 January 2006.3. the Cal/EPA Secretary is responsible for submitting biannual reports to the governor and State legislature that outline 1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets. Sacramento. Recognizing that California is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.arb.”24 TABLE 3. to the 1990 level (427 million metric tons of CO2e) by 2020. California Climate Action Team.” and “when all [the] strategies are implemented. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Chairperson of the Energy Commission. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006. therefore.

In passing AB 32. To effectively implement the cap. Inc. the State legislature acknowledged that global warming and related effects of climate change are a significant environmental issue. “SB 97 requires OPR. 2009. CA. 2006. The proposed ordinances would primarily impact the commercial sector. potential incremental contributions to GHG emissions are analyzed in this EIR. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). Any potential decrease or increase in GHG emissions that could be attributed to the proposed ordinances would have the potential to impact statewide GHG emissions. Pursuant to AB 32. Cal/EPA. This bill is the first statewide policy in the United States to mitigate GHG emissions and to include penalties for non-compliance.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered. Page 3. including.ca. Senate Bill No. but not limited to.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The amendments became effective on March 18. Executive Order S-20-06. Available at: http://www. 2010. as it intends to ban retail establishments from distributing plastic carryout bags. CA. Consistent with goals and targets set by other actions taking place at the regional and international levels. and transmit to the [CARB] guidelines for the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. the OPR is required to prepare for and develop proposed guidelines for implementation of CEQA by public agencies. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. On February 16. 2009.5) through the design and development of a market-based compliance program. which calls for continued efforts and coordination among State agencies on the implementation of GHG emission reduction policies and AB 32 and Health and Safety Code (Division 25. 97. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-20-06. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. 2007. develop. 2010. 2006. to prepare. Sacramento.”28 As directed by SB 97.will be accomplished with an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. SB 97 states. the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions on December 30.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. particularly the anthropogenic causes that are believed to be largely attributable to increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. California Governor. the CARB is required to monitor and regulate emission sources of GHGs that cause global warming in order to reduce GHG emissions. which will be phased in 2012. 26 27 28 California Governor. effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. as required by CEQA. 2006.opr. Sacramento.3-7 . Executive Order S-20-06 directs the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate with the Climate Action Team to develop a plan to create incentives for market-based mechanisms that have the potential of reducing GHG emissions.27 California Senate Bill 97 Approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on August 24. AB 32 sets precedence in inventorying and reducing GHG emissions. and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. Chapter 185. AB 32 requires CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels from stationary sources. by July 1. Executive Order S-20-06. therefore.3 GHG Emissions. Executive Order S-20-06 requires the development of GHG reporting and reduction protocols and a multi-state registry through joint efforts among CARB. Executive Order S-20-06 On October 17. 24 August 2007.26 In addition. Senate Bill (SB) 97 is designed to work in conjunction with the State CEQA Guidelines and AB 32. the Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments.

CA. State of California Office of the Attorney General Guidance Letter on California Environmental Quality Act. methodology. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 2008. dated January 2009. 30 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. In 2007. State of California Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory On June 19. or other documents required by CEQA that have not been certified or adopted by the CEQA lead agency by the date of the adoption of the regulations. report.29 In addition. Inc.30 California Climate Action Registry Established in 2001. and non-profit organizations. Sacramento. the California Office of the Attorney General provided guidance to public agencies on how to address global warming impacts in CEQA documents. the California OPR provided guidance on how to address climate change in CEQA documents. The CCAR serves as a voluntary GHG registry and has taken a leadership role on climate change by developing credible. CA. monitor. In the publication entitled The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. approach. OPR issues technical guidance on how to perform GHG analyses in the interim before further State guidelines become available. government agencies. Page 3.1.3-8 . 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. which monitors air quality within the County. Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level On May 21. the Office of Attorney General directs public agencies to take a leadership role in integrating sustainability into public projects by providing 52 project-level mitigation measures for consideration in the development of projects. including an EIR. and reduce GHG emissions. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD.743 square miles and a population of over 16 million. provides the principles. accurate. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. and consistent GHG reporting standards and tools for businesses. the County became a member of the CCAR and has committed its efforts to monitor. OPR and CARB are required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by CARB pursuant to AB 32. has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10. all of which require the project proponents to consider sustainable design for projects and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to substantially lessen global warming related effects.In addition. and non-profit organizations to measure. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. 21 May 2008. Technical Advisory. a Negative Declaration. and reduce GHG emissions pursuant to its participation in the CCAR. the Office of Attorney General has negotiated four settlement agreements under CEQA. The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management Act created SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout Southern 29 California Department of Justice. the CCAR is a private non-profit organization originally formed by the State of California. In the technical advisory. government agencies. a Mitigated Negative Declaration.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. For instance.3 GHG Emissions. SB 97 applies to any environmental documents. Sacramento. and procedures required for voluntary GHG emissions reporting by businesses. version 3. 19 June 2008. Office of the Attorney General. 2008.

Rule 1150. b. 2007.5 attainments. and air quality modeling. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. which directs SCAQMD to assist the State. SCAQMD Climate Change Policy. as well as planning. SCAQMD Rule 1150. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 3. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills.3-9 . On a regional level. c. This update was adopted by CARB for inclusion in the SIP on September 27. SCAQMD is responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring that new. Inc. The AQMP sets forth strategies for attaining the federal PM10 and PM2. which contains measures to meet State and federal requirements. as well as meeting State standards at the earliest practicable date. SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality.aqmd. On September 5. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.California.5 air quality standards and the federal 8-hour O3 air quality standard. 2008. and residents in areas related to reducing emissions that contribute to global warming. local governments.htm 32 South Coast Air Quality Management District. f. SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have responsibility under State law to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). CA. With the incorporation of new scientific data. Establish climate change programs Implement SCAQMD command-and-control and market-based rules Review and comment on future legislation related to climate change and GHGs Prioritize projects that reduce both criteria and toxic pollutants and GHG emissions Provide guidance on analyzing GHG emissions and identify mitigation measures to CEQA projects Provide revisions to SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning32 consistent with the State guidance to include information on GHG strategies as a resource for local governments Update the SCAQMD’s GHG inventory in conjunction with each AQMP and assist local governments in developing GHG inventories Reduce SCAQMD climate change impacts g. businesses. d.1 applies to all active landfills in the SCAB and requires the installation of a control system that is designed to reduce total organic carbon emissions including CH4. control strategies. e. the SCAQMD will accomplish the following: a. the AQMP becomes part of the SIP. h. This act merged four county air pollution agencies into one regional district to improve air quality in Southern California.31 Pursuant to the policy. CA. the 2007 AQMP focuses on O3 and PM2. or related stationary sources do not create net emission increases. was adopted by SCAQMD in 1985 to limit landfill emissions to prevent public nuisance and protect public health. and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards in the district. Diamond Bar. 5 September 2008. cities. Diamond Bar. ambient measurements.gov/hb/2008/September/080940a. implementing. 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District.3 GHG Emissions.1. In addition. The most recent update to the SCAQMD AQMP was prepared for air quality improvements to meet both State and federal CAA planning requirements for all areas under AQMP jurisdiction. modified. emission inventories. Available at: http://www. When approved by CARB and the USEPA. 6 May 2005. the SCAQMD Governing Board approved the SCAQMD Climate Change Policy.

by targeting reductions in the emissions of VOCs and NOx.33 As with SCAQMD Rule 1150. Los Angeles. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. located in the western MDAB portion of north Los Angeles County. 34 County of Los Angeles. The AVAQMD Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan provides planning strategies for attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for O3 by 2021. 33 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. County of Los Angeles General Plan. the Kern County border to the north. Lancaster.gov/docs/data/0700/791/HYPEROCR/hyperocr.Doc . The proposed ordinance would be expected to be consistent with the County General Plan governing air quality and would not be expected to result in a change to the population growth assumption used by the SCAG for attainment planning. The Antelope Valley. carpooling. Promote vanpooling. Inform the public on various aspects of climate change.i. CA. development in the area is governed by the policies. and provide information regarding climate change to the public. Available at: http://ceres.1. Local County of Los Angeles General Plan The jurisdiction of the proposed County ordinance is within the County.3 GHG Emissions. and the San Bernardino County border to the east. assist businesses and local governments with implementation of climate change measures. AVAQMD Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. and standards set forth in the County General Plan. AVAQMD Rule 1150. Department of Regional Planning. SCAQMD Climate Change Policy aims to decrease SCAQMD’s carbon footprint. CA. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District The Antelope Valley portion of the County was detached from the SCAQMD when AB 2666 (Knight) established the AVAQMD in 1997 due to the fact that the Antelope Valley portion of the County is located in a different air basin than the rest of the SCAQMD.html Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. public education. Page 3. including understanding impacts. November 1980. Many policies are transportation-based because of the direct link between air quality and the circulation element. 20 May 2008. and improved public transportation.1 requires the installation of a control system that is designed to reduce total organic carbon emissions from active landfills including CH4. technology advancement. Policy: Actively support strict air quality regulations for mobile and stationary sources. the CARB approved an SIP revision for attainment of the 8-hour O3 NAAQS in the Antelope Valley. At a public hearing held on June 26. is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west. and continued research to improve air quality. The County General Plan has developed goals and policies for improving air quality in the County. There is one objective and related policy relevant to the County's proposed ordinance that is capable of contributing toward avoiding and reducing the generation of GHG emissions:34 x x Objective: To support local efforts to improve air quality. therefore.ca. Antelope Valley exceeds the federal O3 standards.3-10 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. procedures. Inc. and other emerging aspects of climate change science Therefore. 2008.

Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.3-11 35 .045). the policy included four program areas to promote green design and operation of County facilities and reduce the County’s environmental footprint. which became effective on December 19. 3. Goals and initiatives for each program area are included as follows: Energy and Water Efficiency x x x Implementing and monitoring energy and water conservation practices Implementing energy and water efficiency projects Enhancing employee energy and water conservation awareness through education and promotions Environmental Stewardship x x x x Investigating requirements and preferences for environmentally friendly packaging. rotating power outage information. if any. Inc. established a program to integrate sustainable technologies into its Capital Project Program. Board of Supervisors. established an energy consumption reduction goal of 20 percent by the year 2015 in County facilities.35 The goal of this policy is to provide guidelines for development.City General Plans Any incorporated city within the County that adopts individual ordinances based on the proposed County ordinance will need to determine if they must comply with the adopted GHG emission policies set forth in the respective city general plans.co. and enhancement of energy conservation and environmental programs within the County. Page 3. implementation.ca. public agencies. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.045. and became a member of the CCAR to assist the County in establishing goals for reducing GHG emissions. emergency power outage information. and energy efficiency incentives Seeking collaboration with local governments.” Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy Manual. 19 December 2006.3 GHG Emissions. and minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances Placing an emphasis on recycling and landfill volume reduction within County buildings Investigating the use of environmentally friendly products Supporting environmental initiatives through the investigation of existing resource utilization Public Outreach and Education x Implementing a program that provides County residents with energy-related information. “Policy No. centralized energy and environmental x County of Los Angeles. The policy established an Energy and Environmental Team to coordinate the efforts of various County departments. Energy and Environmental Policy. In addition. including energy and water conservation practices.us/ Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. utility rates and rate changes. and County affiliates to strengthen regional. Available at: http://countypolicy. County of Los Angeles Energy and Environmental Policy The County Board of Supervisors adopted a Countywide energy and environmental policy (Policy No. 3. greater emphasis on recycled products.la. 2006.

which complement the functional objectives of the project. Riverside. and moderate humidity. infrequent rainfalls. contributing to the variation of rainfall.3 GHG Emissions. sustainable principles into the planning. resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speed. design. topography.3. engineers. the Eastern Pacific High-Pressure Area (a semi-permanent feature of the general hemispheric circulation pattern) dominates the weather over much of Southern California. Inc. and the San Diego County line to the south.3-12 . and the eastern portion of the SCAQMD. or Santa Ana winds. San Bernardino County. temperature. The analysis of existing conditions related to GHG emissions includes a summary of GHG emission levels prior to implementation of the proposed ordinances.1-1). and the easternmost portion of Riverside County (Figure 3. and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east.3 Existing Conditions South Coast Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin The southern portion of the County falls within the SCAQMD and is located within the SCAB. During the dry season.1. improve indoor environmental quality and provide healthy work environments. mild winters. and urbanization. winter storms. and construction of County capital projects. The northern portion of the County falls within the AVAQMD and is located within the MDAB. moderate to high wind episodes. The large majority of the MDAB is relatively rural and sparsely populated. The County portion of the MDAB is located within the AVAQMD. the San Gabriel. The MDAB contains a number of mountain ranges interspersed with long. and project managers Establishing practical performance measures to determine the level of sustainability achieved relative to the objectives targeted for the individual project and overall capital program x x 3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. which is composed of a 6.1-1). and its climate is characterized by hot. of the SCAB is a subregion of SCAQMD and is in an area of high air pollution potential due to its climate. and winds in the SCAB.management resources and identify and develop opportunities for information and cost sharing in energy management and environmental activities Sustainable Design x Enhancing building sustainability through the integration of green. infrequent rainfalls. The County portion. and San Bernardino Counties (Figure 3. The SCAB is a coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west. optimize energy and water use efficiency. the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. The climate of the SCAB is characterized by warm summers. High mountains surround the rest of the SCAB’s perimeter. architects. including the incorporated cities. Page 3. mild winters. This mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by extremely hot summers. broad valleys Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the AVAQMD. and low humidity. extend the life cycle / useful life of buildings and sites. light winds.1. The MDAB is composed of four air districts: the Kern County Air Pollution Control District. and encourage use and reuse of environmentally friendly materials and resources Establishing a management approach that instills and reinforces the integration of sustainable design principles into the core competency skill set of the County’s planner. reduce ongoing building maintenance requirements. dry summers. which includes the eastern portion of Kern County. San Bernardino.745-square-mile area and encompasses all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles. the northeastern portion of Los Angeles County. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.

May 2005.3. more GHGs would be expected to be emitted by the County than the previous year due to the increase in population (Table 3. preventing cold air masses from Canada and Alaska from moving down into the MDAB.0 million in 2030. Period of Record General Climate Summary—Precipitation. The CARB has stated that California contributed 427 million metric tons of GHG emissions in CO2e in 1990. inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating.arb.that often contain dry lakes. December 2008. 5 April 2006.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc. To characterize the GHG emissions business-as-usual conditions for the County.3-1 was used for the GHG analysis for the proposed ordinances. averages fewer than 8 inches of precipitation per year36 and is classified as a dry-hot desert climate.40 the County would be responsible for approximately 141 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2010 and 70 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2030 (Table 3.3-1). Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. CO2e emissions are projected based on an unregulated business-as-usual GHG emissions scenario that does not take into account the reductions in GHG emissions required by Executive Order S-3-05 or AB 32.ca. 118 Available at: http://www. Available at: http://www.6 million in 2010 to approximately 12.3.3-1. Using the target emissions necessary for compliance with AB 32 reduction goals.37 Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions within the non-desert portion of the County are generated daily from vehicle exhaust emissions. Available at: http://www. Inc. and other anthropogenic activities. It has been projected that the County would increase its population from approximately 10. California Business-as-usual Emissions and Targets). would contribute approximately 596 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2020.ca. and under a business-as-usual development scenario. Page 3. Pasadena.ca.3 GHG Emissions. During the summer months.3-1.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. The Sierra Nevada Mountains provide a natural barrier to the north. Characterization of Business-as-usual and Target GHG Emissions for the County). Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.3-13 40 39 .dri.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.pl?cateha 37 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.39 the County would be expected to be responsible for approximately 149 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2010 under a business-as-usual emissions scenario. caused by air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating and channeled inland through mountain passes.htm California Air Resources Board.mdaqmd. The County portion of the MDAB. December 2008. so the MDAB experiences infrequent rainfalls.arb. agriculture. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. In order to establish a reference point for future GHG emissions. information on County population was collected from SCAG. Available at: http://www.3. which will be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors for consideration in 2010. the MDAB is influenced by the Eastern Pacific High-Pressure Area. p.3. industry. 36 Western Regional Climate Center. Sapphos Environmental. E-mail to William Meade. 2 June 2008. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. The 2010 data presented in Table 3. presenting a linear upward trend in California’s total GHG emissions levels (Figure 3. Antelope Valley AQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. The San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges block the majority of cool. moist coastal air from the south. The Mojave Desert portion of the County is also affected by similar local and regional emission sources.htm Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.gov/Modules/ShowDocument. and each year.aspx?documentid=916 38 Southern California Association of Governments. as recorded at a monitoring site in the City of Lancaster.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.38 Using the current CO2e emissions factor of 14 metric tons per capita.wrcc. CA.. California Air Resources Board.

3.Million Metric Tons (CO2 Equivalent) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1990 Emission Baseline 1990 2000 2010 Year 2020 2050 Baseline Emissions Emission Targets FIGURE 3.3-1 California Business as Usual Emissions and Targets .

Summary of Population.678. policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases The State has not determined significance thresholds for evaluating potential impacts on GHG emissions under CEQA.TABLE 3. Inc.3 12.3.3-1 CHARACTERIZATION OF BUSINESS-AS-USUAL AND TARGET GHG EMISSIONS FOR THE COUNTY 2010 10. However. 2 June 2008. Employment.3 GHG Emissions.3-14 .233 Year 2015 2020 10. Inc. Pasadena. E-mail to William Meade. qualitative questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.3.802 2025 11.4 9.829.589 11.8 141 132 126 108 90 70 SOURCES: 1. 2.2 11. Page 3. Sapphos Environmental. The potential for the proposed ordinances to result in impacts related to GHG emissions was analyzed in relation to the questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. California Air Resources Board. the County has analyzed the potential of the proposed ordinances to result in significant impacts related to GHG emissions based on the review of regulatory and Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4 Significance Thresholds The GHG emission impacts of the proposed ordinances may occur on a regional and global scale.615. would the proposed ordinances have any of the following effects: x x Generate greenhouse gas emissions.6 7. CA. 2008. that may have a significant impact on the environment Conflict with an applicable plan. either directly or indirectly. Javier Minjares. 3. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Sacramento.700 2013 10. and GHG Emissions Projections Data.892 Population CARB business-as-usual emission factor (metric tons of CO2e/SP) Total business-as-usual County GHG emissions (million metric tons of CO2e) CARB target emission factors (metric tons of CO2e/SP) Total target County GHG emissions (million metric tons of CO2e) 14 14 14 14 14 14 149 152 154 159 163 168 13.7 5. namely.528 2030 12. CA.015.329. beyond the general.971.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Southern California Association of Governments.

The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.ca.42 and the CARB. and PFCs. The six GHGs regulated by AB 32 include CO2. plastic. and N2O are reported as CO2e. delivery and dirt hauling trucks.3 GHG Emissions. 43 California Air Resources Board. 41 California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General. The emissions of CO2. AVAQMD. or reusable bags.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Prelim_Draft_Staff_Proposal_10-24-08.opr. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 24 October 2008. and paints and coatings. This section analyzes the potential for significant impacts to GHG emissions that would be expected to occur from implementation of the proposed ordinances. emissions of SF6 would not be relevant to the proposed ordinances.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and disposal of paper. Page 3. or State or federal agencies.professional publications.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita) by 2020 as required by AB 32 3. and life cycle assessments (LCAs). No quantitative significance thresholds have been established to determine the proposed ordinances’ direct or indirect impacts on GHG emissions. Therefore. CA.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.3-15 . PFCs and HFCs are also not applicable because they are refrigerants that would not be used as a direct result of the proposed ordinances. modeling results. N2O. Technical Advisory. CH4. or reusable bags. Given the absence of methodology and quantitative thresholds to evaluate GHG emissions impacts of the proposed ordinances and the challenges associated with determining criteria for significance with regard to GHG emissions. Inc. SF6. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. CH4. distribution. Due to the fact that the proposed ordinances would not result in the construction of power transmission lines or the use of electrical power equipment. GHG emission impacts of projects are normally categorized into three major categories: (1) Construction Impacts: temporary impacts. Sacramento. plastic. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. 21 May 2008. and N2O emissions.43 Significance Criteria There are two significance criteria relevant to the consideration of the proposed ordinances: x x Inconsistency with laws and regulations in managing GHG emissions Inconsistency with the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels (approximately 427 million metric tons or 9.5 Impact Analysis Methodology to assess the impacts of the proposed ordinances on GHG emissions has not been developed by SCAQMD. SF6 is a gas that is used as insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment. the proposed ordinances’ GHG emission impacts were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively based on a review of available data. Sacramento. HFCs. employee vehicles. the analysis of GHG emissions in this EIR focuses on CO2.3. or in the manufacturing process of paper. which may occur as a result of the manufacture. 19 June 2008. the guidance on analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA provided by the California Office of the Attorney General41 and OPR. CA. 42 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CH4. including GHG emissions from heavy equipment. Available at: http://www.

recycling. For the purposes of this EIR. For the purposes of this EIR. transportation and distribution. however. and end-of-life fates can differ widely and are not always comparable. in a reasonable worst-case scenario. and the application of different methodologies. and the percentage of paper carryout bags used should decrease. and disposal of paper carryout bags. San Francisco.(2) (3) There are no construction impacts of the proposed ordinances because plastic carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Assessment Methods and Models Based on a survey of bag usage in the County conducted by Sapphos Environmental. An LCA assesses environmental impacts by analyzing the entire life cycle of a product. manufacturing technologies. Regional Operational Impacts: direct GHG emissions from natural gas and electricity usage and vehicles traveling to and from a project site. reusable bags made up approximately 18 percent of the total number of carryout bags used in stores that did not make plastic carryout bags readily available to customers. the percentage of reusable bags used should increase.. paper carryout bags.3-16 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. different functional units and input parameters. however.45 44 Green Cities California. energy mixes. and raw materials).Doc . the extensive data requirements of the method make it highly complicated. The comparison of two LCAs of the same product can be challenging due to differences in system boundaries. reusable bags made up only approximately 2 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that did make plastic carryout bags readily available (Appendix A). and (3) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from increased delivery truck trips. it can be assumed that. use/reuse/maintenance. (1) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from the life cycle of carryout bags. manufacturing. Although this method enables very specific and detailed analyses. distribution. and final disposal. Life Cycle Assessments During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the EIR for the proposed ordinances. March 2010. and reusable bags are all currently manufactured and generally available in the marketplace. (2) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from the disposal of carryout bags in landfills. water. Inc. manufacture. or activity. CA. it is reasonable to estimate that a ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags would increase the number of reusable bags used by customers by at least 15 percent. Prepared by Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. GHG emissions will be evaluated in three main areas.3 GHG Emissions. process. identifies relevant inputs (such as energy. 44 An LCA considers each individual process within specific geographical boundaries. and calculates outputs (such as GHG emissions) that are associated with each process. One way to analyze these indirect impacts is to review available LCAs that quantify GHG emissions of various types of bags. Accordingly. Cumulative Impacts: GHG emissions resulting from the incremental impact of the project when added to other projects in the vicinity. material selection. March 2010. the proposed ordinances would potentially prompt an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags by store customers. concerns were raised by certain members of the plastic bag industry that the proposed ordinances might be expected to have an indirect impact upon GHG emissions due to a potential increase in the production. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. Prepared by ICF International. Inc. Over time. Page 3. 45 Green Cities California. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. the analysis will analyze both an 85-percent conversion and a 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags in order to quantify the potential worst-case GHG emissions. Therefore. including extraction and processing of raw materials. differences in the definition of a particular product. When comparing LCAs for different types of carryout bags produced and disposed in different countries. as the proposed ordinances stay in effect and public education efforts are undertaken.

URBEMIS Model The methodology used in this EIR to analyze GHG emission impacts due to delivery truck trips is consistent with the methods described in the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.9 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Catalyst Percentage N/A 91. which is imbedded within the URBEMIS 2007 model. which result in a conservative.3.2. The URBEMIS 2007 model directly calculates CO2 emissions. version 9. San Francisco. vehicle speeds. 46 South Coast Air Quality Management District.3 GHG Emissions.750 pounds and up to 60. Inc.3. Page 3.3.9 10 1. The percentage of each type of truck was based on the ratios defined by EMFAC 2007 for the County (Table 3. However. was used to evaluate the proposed ordinances’ GHG emissions caused by delivery truck trips.3 1 0. wood stoves.2 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Light auto Light truck less than 3.4.1 2.001–33.000 lbs Light-heavy truck 8.001–60.3. version 2.2 3. and construction projects. shopping centers.500 lbs Light-heavy truck 8.6 57. and temperature conditions were based on the default values in the URBEMIS 2007 and EMFAC 2007 models. version 2.5 99. CO2 emissions reported from URBEMIS in this EIR are essentially the same as CO2e emissions because CH4 and N2O emissions from mobile sources are negligible in comparison to CO2 emissions. fireplaces.3-17 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.6 98. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. EMFAC 2007 Model The CARB Emissions Factors (EMFAC) 2007 model.750 lbs Light truck 3751–5.8 53. TABLE 3. Diamond Bar.000 pounds).1 1.Doc . and office buildings. Vehicle Fleet Mix). The simulations assume summer conditions.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diesel Percentage N/A 6. higher-emission scenario. based on the expected vehicle fleet mix.4 42. area sources such as gas appliances. 1993.5-1. was used to estimate operational emissions from truck delivery trips to and from the stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances.000 lbs Other bus Urban bus Motorcycle School bus Motor home Non-catalyst Percentage N/A 2. trip distances.1 0.750 lbs Medium truck 5.000 lbs Heavy-heavy truck 33. In this analysis.5-1 VEHICLE FLEET MIX Fleet Percentage 0 15.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTE: lbs = pounds ICF International.751–8.5 0 28.1 71.1 23.000 lbs Medium-heavy truck 14.5 1.46 The URBEMIS 2007. includes emission factors for CO2. vehicle speeds. and landscape maintenance equipment. and temperature conditions for the estimated effective date of the proposed ordinances. URBEMIS does not currently estimate CH4 and N2O emissions from combustion sources. URBEMIS is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The vehicle fleet mix was defined as a mixture of light to heavy trucks (less than 3.1 90 98. CA. CA. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.501–10. trip distances. The EMFAC 2007.501–10.

there would be no regional or localized construction impacts.S. paper. April 2009. which accounted for 86.9 percent of United States GHG emissions in 2007. and disposal of plastic carryout bags. Washington.3 percent of total United States GHG emissions in 2007 due to stationary and mobile fuel combustion. consumer products. From 1990 to the present day. These potential indirect impacts are evaluated in more detail below. which account for more than 90 percent of the total GHG emissions from the industrial sector.S. In addition. beneficial impacts to GHG emissions may occur as a result of a reduction in the manufacture. transport. and would be expected to result in several beneficial indirect impacts related to GHG emissions. Inventory of U. U. lime production. 48 47 U. iron and steel production and metallurgical coke production. and limestone and dolomite use.3-1).3 GHG Emissions. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for this EIR for the proposed ordinances. Environmental Protection Agency. HCFC production. As will be discussed in more detail in this section.47 The industrial sector accounted for only 4. however. paper carryout bags. and the proposed ordinances would not directly cause an increase in vehicle trips in the County. Operational Impacts The proposed ordinances would not be expected to have significant impacts on GHG emissions. the production of paper carryout bags in the United States has decreased approximately three fold (Table 3.48 In the industrial sector. Environmental Protection Agency. commenters raised concerns that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to cause indirect impacts upon GHG emissions. evidence indicates that the manufacture of paper carryout bags is not one of the major contributors to total GHG emissions..3.Construction Impacts The proposed ordinances do not involve any construction activities. Page 3.S. HCFC-22. cement production.S. members of the public raised concerns that the proposed ordinances might have an indirect adverse impact upon GHG emissions due to a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags. GHG emissions have been increasing (Table 3. However. Washington. Long-term GHG emissions within the unincorporated territory and incorporated cities of the County can result from both stationary sources (i. once implemented. architectural coatings. and landscape fuel) and mobile sources. DC. Inventory of U. electrical transmission and distribution.e.2-1). 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.Doc . Inc. include substitution of ozone-depleting substances. Therefore. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for this EIR for the proposed ordinances. DC. The USEPA reported that the majority of GHG emissions in the United States can be attributed to the energy sector. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. aluminum production. there were concerns about GHG emissions that may occur due to the release of CH4 into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills. and reusable carryout bags can be categorized as part of the industrial sector. nitric acid production. specifically.3-18 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. The proposed ordinances do not include any elements that would directly increase emissions from stationary sources. the top 10 contributors to GHG emissions. The proposed ordinances would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags. The consideration of construction impacts is not relevant to the proposed ordinances because plastic carryout bags. from 1990 to 2007. therefore. April 2009. direct daily emissions of GHGs due to direct area and mobile sources would be expected to be below the level of significance. it is not included in the top 10 contributors. and reusable bags are all currently manufactured and generally available in the marketplace. However. Therefore. area sources from natural gas combustion. ammonia production and urea consumption. Although the production of plastic.

Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 57 58 59 55 Marlet. Belgium. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. manufacture. considers paper. which would further reduce GHG emission impacts.59 The Ecobilan Study presents GHGs emissions in terms of grams per 9. plastic. and Reusable Grocery Bags. EuroCommerce. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. paper. Page 3. Australia. Prepared for the Progressive Bag Affiliates. and Recycled. February 2004. the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. 53 54 Marlet. these emissions are significantly reduced when calculated on a per-use basis. Water. Available at: https://www. C. January 2008. Centre for Design at RMIT. MI. 50 49 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. February 2004. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.55.60 The results of the Ecobilan Study were used to analyze the potential emissions of GHGs due to a conservative worst-case scenario of an 85-percent conversion and a 100-percent conversion of plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use..57 Although the production. as is the case with any manufactured product.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context.com/uk_who.52. Inc. Compostable.3 GHG Emissions. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.php Ecobilan. considers a wide range of environmental indicators. contains relatively sophisticated modeling and data processing techniques. distribution. Paper. Paper. Company Web site.. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.54. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.ecobilan. Paper.53. 2004. 56 Herrera et al. the County is considering expanding the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. and plastic carryout bags made of high-density polyethylene upon the emission of GHGs. Brussels. Ltd. Ecobilan. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.Indirect Emissions Based on Life Cycle Assessments Comparisons of product LCAs for plastic versus paper provide varying results on the environmental impacts. and Heritage: Canberra. Biodegradable Plastic.49. Belgium. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Ecobilan Study Ecobilan prepared a comprehensive LCA58 in 2004 that shows the impacts of paper carryout bags. The Ecobilan LCA was chosen above the other studies reviewed during preparation of this EIR because it is relatively recent. AU. France. which is assumed to be the typical volume of groceries purchased annually in France per customer. Moorabbin VIC. February 2004. reusable low-density polyethylene plastic bags. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does generate GHG emissions. 51 Nolan-Itu Pty. Hyder Consulting.51. AU. Rochester. Recyclable Paper. France. Brussels. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Prepared for: Department of the Environment.56. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. and reusable bags concur that a switch to reusable bags would result in the most beneficial impacts to GHG emissions. 2002. was Ecobilan. Neuilly-sur-Seine.. France. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items Volume I and II. September 2004. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities.3-19 60 . Also. and NOLAN-ITU. C. The ULS Report. EuroCommerce. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. and Biodegradable Material. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. and Biodegradable Material. September 2004. although several studies show that production of plastic carryout bags generally produces less GHG emissions than the production of paper carryout bags. 2007. and reusable bags.50 The majority of LCAs and other studies that compare plastic. As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.000 liters of groceries packed. Ecobilan. 1 June 2007. Victoria. 18 April 2007. 52 ExcelPlas Australia.

for the purposes of this EIR. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. as it is more than twice the bag average reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in 2008 for AB 2449 affected stores. County of Los Angeles. This method was used to estimate the current GHG emissions per day resulting from plastic carryout bags and the GHG emissions that could be anticipated given an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Appendix C.002 metric tons per capita per year (Table 3. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential. 29 April 2010. it was determined that approximately 10. In order to better apply the Ecobilan data to bag usage to the County.700 metric tons per year.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10.695 bags used per store per day.63 It is important to note that this number is likely very high. Department of Public Works. These calculations were performed assuming that there are 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County and 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County that would be affected by the proposed ordinances. Inc.000 bags per day.3 GHG Emissions. and then multiplied by the estimated number of plastic carryout bags currently used per day in the unincorporated territories of the County and in the 88 incorporated cities of the County.64 While 10. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.3-20 64 . E-mail to Luke Mitchell. Alhambra. 61 As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. which is approximately 19.62 It was assumed that each store currently uses approximately 10.000 plastic carryout bags per day.000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day. Dona Sturgess. CA.61. 62 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.critically reviewed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. A daily average per store was then calculated at 10. Page 3. the emissions were calculated in terms of tons of CO2e per liter of groceries packed. 4. or 0. A comparison of the emissions of the life cycle of plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags indicates that 85 percent conversion to paper carryout bags within the entire County (both the unincorporated territories and the 88 incorporated cities) would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 54 metric tons per day. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data. 63 Based on coordination between the County Department of Public Works and several large supermarket chains in the County. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may not accurately reflect the actual number of bags consumed per day on average per store in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.700 stores statewide affected by AB 2449 reported an average of 4. and Appendix C). GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags. CA. and contains detailed emission data for individual pollutants. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Sacramento.5-2.000 square feet or higher. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario.984 bags per day. multiplied by the number of liters of groceries per bag. In 2008. Calculation Data). the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated territories would be affected by the proposed County ordinance.3.

190 0.48) = 5. Page 3.3.3. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. NOTES: 1. Neuilly-sur-Seine.811 paper carryout bags per day [0.003 metric tons per capita per year (Table 3.6 78. France. so an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using approximately 5.30 47. or approximately 0.700). which is approximately 28. Further.TABLE 3.48 liters for paper carryout bags.3 GHG Emissions.811].002 SOURCE: Ecobilan.3-21 .000 x (14/20. Paper.85 x 10.35 6. if one were to apply the Ecobilan data in the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100 percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use.493 0. 2. The Ecobilan Study assumed a volume of 14 liters for plastic carryout bags and 20. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.683 0.5-2 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA USING 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Tons Metric Tons Metric Tons Per Per Day Per Year Year Per Capita2 Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Emissions in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita2 11. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.000 plastic carryout bags per day.900 metric tons per year. a comparison of the emissions of plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags indicates that 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags within the entire County would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 79 metric tons per day. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.000 9.83 2. GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags.002 89.10 17. February 2004.5-3.65 53.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.93 19. Inc.615. and Appendix C).

35 10.002 89. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Inc. Neuilly-sur-Seine.48 liters for paper carryout bags. Therefore.3 GHG Emissions. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.48) = 6.836].000 9.04 3. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.8 mils thick. and holds 37 liters of groceries.664 0. Also. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. February 2004.267 0. Neuilly-sur-Seine. a conversion from plastic carryout bag use to reusable bag use would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon GHG emissions.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.700).3.65 79. February 2004.003 SOURCE: Ecobilan.000 x (14/20.26 28. France.931 0. it illustrates the general concept of how GHG emission impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.65 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times.3-22 65 . The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on GHG emissions than a plastic carryout bag. and Appendix C).5-4. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Three Times Based on Ecobilan Data. The Ecobilan Study also presented an LCA analysis of a reusable bag that is approximately 2.5-3 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA USING 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Increase Resulting from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Metric Tons Per Year Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita2 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita2 Emission Areas Emissions in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 11. As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Paper.TABLE 3. and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Ecobilan. The Ecobilan Study assumed a volume of 14 liters for plastic carryout bags and 20. weighs 44 grams. the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. Page 3.3. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. 2. France.6 78.22 25. Paper. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.000 plastic carryout bags per day.615. NOTES: 1.30 69. which may further reduce GHG emission impacts. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Biodegradable Material.

3 GHG Emissions. 10 percent polylactic acid. 66 The Progressive Bag Alliance was founded in 2005 and is a group of American plastic bag manufacturers who advocate recycling plastic shopping bags as an alternative to banning the bags. and a paper carryout bag made using at least 30 percent recycled fibers. Boustead Study Boustead Consulting & Associates (Boustead) prepared an LCA on behalf of the Progressive Bag Affiliates in 2007. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 2. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10. emissions were converted based on the number of stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances and the average number of bags used per day per store (Table 3. 2007. or 0. and 25 percent calcium carbonate).000 9.94 -11.67 The Boustead Study presents GHG emissions in terms of tons of CO2e per thousand bags. Available at: http://www. Recyclable Paper.3.6 78.700). GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags.154 0.000 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 Emission Areas Emissions in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emissions in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions in the County SOURCE: Ecobilan.americanchemistry.30 89.44 -526 0.38 -3.615. 3.627 -4.3-23 67 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. In order to make the data more applicable to the County. NOTES: 1.com/s_plastics/doc. A comparison between the emissions of the life cycle of plastic carryout bags and the life cycle of paper carryout bags indicates that 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags within the entire County (both the unincorporated territories and the 88 incorporated cities) would increase GHG emissions by approximately 105 metric tons per day. In 2007.65 -9. February 2004. and Recycled. Compostable.66 This LCA analyzes three types of grocery bags: a traditional plastic carryout bag.2 Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric Tons Tons Per Tons Per Per Year Per Per Day Day Year Capita3 11.asp?CID=1106&DID=6983 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.3. and Biodegradable Material. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.5-5.TABLE 3. Based on each reusable bag being used three times. Neuilly-sur-Seine. which is approximately 38.5-5 and Appendix C).000 0.300 metric tons per year. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.Doc . and Appendix C). they became the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Counsel. Paper. Page 3. France. emissions are reduced further when the bags are used additional times.35 -1. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Biodegradable Plastic.3. a compostable plastic carryout bag (a blend of 65 percent EcoFlex.004 metric ton per capita per year (Table 3. Inc.5-4 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS USED THREE TIMES BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA CO2e Emission Sources Reduction Resulting from 100-percent Plastic Carryout Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags Bags to Reusable Bags Used Three Times1. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.

811 paper carryout bags per day [0.003 141.3-24 .615. 2007.28 4.48) = 5.811]. and Appendix C).85 x 10.6 123.419 0.000 9. GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags.004 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.100 metric tons per year. These results are fairly different than those obtained from the Ecobilan data. Inc.265 0.5-6. if one were to apply the Boustead data in the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the entire County. Page 3.5-5 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA USING 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Metric Tons Per Year Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 Emission Areas Emissions in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 17. so an 85-percent conversion from plastic use to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. 2.846 0.000 x (14/20. and Recycled. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. a comparison between emissions of plastic carryout bags and emissions of paper carryout bags indicates that 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 148 metric tons per day.3.700). Recyclable Paper.84 38. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.3 GHG Emissions. which is approximately 54.87 13. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.005 metric tons per capita per year (Table 3. Biodegradable Plastic. Compostable.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.20 91.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Further. NOTES: 1. or approximately 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.07 104.3. emphasizing the uncertainly in utilizing LCA data. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.TABLE 3.56 33.

Centre for Design at RMIT. as with the previous LCAs discussed in this EIR.07 129.77 6.3.852 0. or approximately 0. which is approximately 90. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. this LCA data cover all stages of production. which is approximately 73.104 0. reusable plastic bags. distribution. the results from the ExcelPlas Study are speculative given that the numbers conflict with those from the other LCAs and the fact that the ExcelPlas study was prepared for Australia rather than the County.48) = 6.5-6 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA USING 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Increase Resulting from 100-percent Plastic Carryout Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags Bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric Tons Per Tons Per Tons Per Per Year Per Day Day Year Capita3 17. Recyclable Paper. Under the worst-case scenario of a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags. Further. 2007. 2004. Compostable. and reusable calico bags. and Appendix C).009 metric tons per capita per year (Table 3.000 plastic carryout bags per day. ExcelPlas Report The Department of the Environment and Heritage in Australia commissioned a study by ExcelPlas to investigate the environmental impacts of degradable plastic carryout bags in comparison to standard plastic carryout bags.004 0.700 metric tons per year. reusable paper bags.700).3. and Appendix C).615. AU.3-25 .TABLE 3. the ExcelPlas data indicates that an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 202 metric tons per day. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia.3 GHG Emissions. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Moorabbin VIC.836].700 metric tons per year. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.5-7.46 148. NOTES: 1.001 9. Page 3.252 54. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.836 paper carryout bags per day [10.6 123. and Recycled.23 47. or approximately 0.20 141.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. It is also important to note that the ExcelPlas Study assumes that paper carryout bags and the plastic carryout bags have the same carrying capacity. so a 100 percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6. GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPas Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags. and NOLAN-ITU. which contradicts the carrying capacity assumptions in the other LCAs reviewed in this EIR. Biodegradable Plastic.005 Emission Areas Emissions in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. Under the scenario of an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags. 2.000 x (14/20. Inc.68 The results of the ExcelPlas report are particular to Australia and contain different assumptions and inputs than the other LCAs previously analyzed.3.007 metric tons per capita per year (Table 3.5-8. and end-of-life procedures related to a particular product. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPas Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags. However. 68 ExcelPlas Australia. the ExcelPlas data indicates that 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags under the proposed ordinances would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 248 metric tons per day.87 18.

Centre for Design at RMIT. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. Page 3.007 Emission Areas Emissions in the 67 stores in the Unincorporated Territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the Incorporated Cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day 7.009 Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Emissions in the 67 stores in the Unincorporated Territory of the County1 Emissions in the 462 stores in the Incorporated Cities of the County1 Total Emissions in the County1 7.3 GHG Emissions. Inc. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. and NOLAN-ITU.TABLE 3.333 64.85 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 9. Moorabbin VIC.500 paper carryout bags per day.001 0. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.46 216.006 0.700). Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.676 0.3-26 .88 9. and NOLAN-ITU.83 54. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.000 plastic carryout bags per day.83 54. NOTES: 1. 2. 2004. Moorabbin VIC. so an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 8.001 0.57 176. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 10.355 73. TABLE 3.000 paper carryout bags per day.615. Centre for Design at RMIT. 2004.02 61.02 61.700).85 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 9. AU. AU. NOTES: 1.007 0.5-7 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON EXCELPLAS DATA USING 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Metric Metric Tons Tons Per Tons Per Per Year Per Day Year Capita3 25.191 90.688 0.000 plastic carryout bags per day.6 SOURCE: ExcelPlas Australia.615.484 79.6 SOURCE: ExcelPlas Australia.5-8 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON EXCELPLAS DATA USING 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Increase Resulting from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Metric Metric Tons Tons Per Tons Per Per Year Per Day Year Capita3 31. 2.32 201. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.3.96 248.43 11.3.

thus the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Moorabbin VIC. Centre for Design at RMIT. March 2010. Any indirect increase in GHG emissions from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that would be affected by the proposed ordinances would be controlled by the owners of the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities in compliance with applicable local. The LCAs reviewed in this analysis do agree that an 85-percent and 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would result in some increase in GHG emissions. 18 April 2007.. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the quantitative number for the emissions varies widely. 2004.3. Air Quality Specialist. CA. due to the different parameters. depending on which LCA is used (Table 3.900 and 90. 70 Banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. increases in GHG emissions range between 28.3. 21 January 2010. such as product manufacturing. 8 March 2010. 72 Garcia.700 to 73.5-9 and Appendix C). The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. depending on which LCA is used (Table 3. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon GHG emissions. Prepared by ICF International. and NOLAN-ITU. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.73 69 ExcelPlas Australia. CA. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. In addition. CA.69 A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in annual GHG emission savings of approximately 6 kilograms per household. the County is considering expanding the scope of its proposed ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags that would further reduce GHG emission impacts.The ExcelPlas Study concluded that. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives. Bret. Lancaster.700 metric tons per year. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. These seemingly conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study and the importance of understanding study boundaries.700 metric tons per year. Pasadena. and Appendix C). For example. Conclusions from LCAs Application of the LCA data in the manner presented above must be interpreted carefully. 71 Green Cities California. and national air quality standards. reusable bags had the lowest GHG emission impacts over the total life cycle. regional. South Coast Air Quality Management District. San Francisco.and 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Various Studies. Sapphos Environmental.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. inputs. Pasadena. Inc. Page 3.71 It is also incorrect to assume that any increases to GHG emissions would not be regulated.. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. The Ecobilan LCA states that the majority of GHG emissions originate from processes that occur early on in the life cycle of paper and plastic carryout bags. For a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the entire County. However. CA. the 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the entire County would yield increases in GHG emissions ranging from 19.72 AVAQMD similarly suggested that using the results from LCAs would be “very difficult” and “nebulous” due to the large number of assumptions and details contained within the calculations. Therefore. Inc. Inc.5-9. Sapphos Environmental. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. 70 Hyder Consulting.3-27 73 . Daniel. CA. AU. models. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. The different LCAs analyzed present very different results about GHG emissions from paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags. of all bags studied. and assumptions used. Diamond Bar. Coordination with SCAQMD further indicates that evaluation of indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances due to increases in the manufacturing of paper carryout bags would be speculative. Banks.3 GHG Emissions. Operations Manager. GHG Emissions Due to 85. and methodologies.

concluding that the proposed ordinances would result in GHG emissions in excess of 19. and ExcelPas Studies are far from perfect and make a number of assumptions that may not be accurate for the County. does appear significant when considered out of context.004 73. thousand metric tons of CO2 (collected by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center).2-1 and Table 3.000 metric tons per year for 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags.900 0.000 to 90.and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to be below the level of significance when considering that California's GHG emissions target for 2020 is 427 million metric tons per year (Table 3.000 metric tons per year for 100-percent conversion.002 38.700 0.3-1 and Table 3. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to between 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. As the proposed ordinances could affect the entire County.6 108 million 9. Available at: http://mdgs. Page 3.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.084 percent of the target 2020 emissions for the County.5-9) and the County’s GHG emissions target for 2020 is 108 million metric tons per year (Table 3. If looking at GHG emissions of CO2e in terms of metric tons per year.6 427 million 9.100 0.TABLE 3.3-28 .un.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.009 LCA Ecobilan Boustead ExcelPlas Emission Targets California's GHG Target Emissions for 2020 County's GHG Target Emissions for 2020 427 million 9.700 0.3 GHG Emissions.005 90. GHG emissions on a project level are not generally found to be significant.6 108 million 9. it is reasonable to also consider the indirect GHG 74 United Nations Statistics Division.6 Now that the analysis has been performed for each of the various studies.74 In addition. and 28.5-9 GHG EMISSIONS DUE TO 85.3.700 0.017 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0.027 and 0.021 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0. Boustead.AND 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON VARIOUS STUDIES Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion Metric Tons Metric Tons Per Per Year Year Per Capita 19. For a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags. For an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags.3.3. the GHG emission impacts from an 85. However.5-9). it is important to look at the quantitative results (1) in context with the GHG emission reduction goals of both California and the County and (2) in a cumulative context.aspx?srid=749&crid= Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. GHG emissions from individual projects like the proposed ordinances must be considered on a global scale.3. Inc.3.300 0. Due to the fact that more than 28 billion tons of CO2 were emitted to the Earth's atmosphere due to human activities in 2006 alone. because every nation is an emitter of GHGs and GHGs contribute to global climate change. while the Ecobilan.003 54. Millennium Development Goals indicators: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). and the resultant indirect GHG emissions would not occur at any one particular facility.000 to 73.007 and 0.068 percent of the target 2020 emissions for the County.018 and 0. and it is more useful to consider GHG emissions in a cumulative context.005 and 0. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to between 0.007 Increase Resulting from 100-percent Conversion Metric Tons Metric Tons Per Per Year Year Per Capita 28.

03 and 0. Page 3. or per capita. CA.09 percent of the target 2020 carbon footprint per capita of 9.un. Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data.025 metric tons per year.003 and 0. A 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the County would be expected to generate approximately 22.07 percent of the target 2020 carbon footprint per capita of 9. the assumption that every store above 10. the LCA data assumes that a large percentage of solid waste is incinerated. The GHG emissions impacts for 85-percent and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to be below the level of significance in comparison with the global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. an assumption that is not accurate for the County. and Appendix C). These results are likely to be 75 United Nations Statistics Division.007 metric tons of CO2e per capita. Department of Public Works. The end of life data includes emissions due to transport of waste from households to landfills. If analyzing GHG emissions in terms of per capita per year.aspx?srid=749&crid= Dona Sturgess. However.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail. For a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags.3.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita suggested by CARB in order to achieve the goals of AB 32. the LCA results presented above indicate that the proposed ordinances would indirectly generate between 0. thousand metric tons of CO2 (collected by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center). the mass of GHG emissions generated by individual projects such as the proposed ordinances would be so minute that the concentration of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere would essentially remain the same. Using the Ecobilan data for the end of life for plastic and paper carryout bags and adjusting for the alternative scenario where all bags go to landfills at the end of life and are not incinerated. Therefore. which is between 0.000 square feet currently uses 10.002 and 0. an 85 and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to be below the level of significance. the LCA results presented above indicate that the proposed ordinances would indirectly generate between 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. the GHG emissions from landfills due to an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags throughout the County would be approximately 19. For an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags. which was over 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2006 alone. which is between 0.3-36). as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to approximately 5.75 If viewed apart from the GHG emissions produced by activities elsewhere in the world. it would not be reasonable to assume that the proposed ordinances would result in GHG emissions that would conflict with the goals of AB 32.emissions on a per-person. basis.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.009 metric tons of CO2e per capita. Millennium Development Goals indicators: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2).6 metric tons of CO2e suggested by CARB. the project's individual GHG emission impact is considered to be below the level of significance. Inc. Sacramento.76 GHG Emissions Resulting from Disposal of Paper Carryout Bags in Landfills Ecobilan data indicates that approximately 18 percent of the GHG emissions generated during the life cycle of paper carryout bags can be attributed to end of life. As carryout bags form such a small percentage of the daily carbon footprint per person.0018 metric ton per capita (Table 3. In addition. Alhambra.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate.000 plastic carryout bags per day. which is equivalent to approximately 0.02 and 0.3-29 76 . CA.0021 metric ton per capita. 29 April 2010. Available at: http://mdgs. It is important to note that the individual impacts may be even lower. which is equivalent to approximately 0. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. E-mail to Luke Mitchell.3 GHG Emissions. and further adjusting for USEPA 2007 recycling rates.427 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. County of Los Angeles. and further analysis should be discussed in a cumulative context (see Cumulative Impacts subsection.5-10. page 3. given that calculations done with the various studies are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not take into account the potential for an increased number of customers using reusable bags. which takes into account the population of the entire County.

the increases resulting from 85 and 100-percent conversion would be expected to be below the level of significance when considered in context with California's 2020 GHG emissions target of 427 million metric tons per year (Table 3. and further analysis should be discussed in a cumulative context (see Cumulative Impacts subsection on page 3. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.427 SOURCES: 1.9 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills. as emissions from active landfills in the County are strictly controlled by SCAQMD Rule 1150.epa. The Boustead Study indicates that the majority of GHG emissions (approximately 60 percent) associated with the life cycle of paper carryout bags occur during decomposition in landfills. and Biodegradable Material. France. November 2008.410 2.021 percent of the target 2020 emissions for the County.8 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 11. the resulting CO2e emissions are more than 20 percent greater for the plastic carryout bag compared to the paper carryout bag. the project's individual GHG emission impact is considered to be below the level of significance. TABLE 3. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to 0.586 22.77 Using the Boustead data. Available at: http://www.pdf NOTE: 1.018 percent of the County’s target 2020 emissions. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to 0. Therefore. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Recycled. U.3 GHG Emissions.Doc . In fact. DC.1.3-36). Inc. Assuming 36.0053 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. if it is assumed that paper carryout bags hold 1.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.3-30 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.615 19. Recyclable Paper. from all operations just prior to disposal. For a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags.5-10 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e Per Year) Increase Resulting from Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags1 Carryout Bags1 2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.5 times the amount of groceries than plastic carryout bags hold.840 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions 16.3.overestimates for the County. Washington. 2.025 19. 2007.0045 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0. February 2004. However. Environmental Protection Agency.S. Compostable.2-1) and the County’s 2020 GHG emissions target of 108 million metric tons per year (Table 3. Table 26B. based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rates.3. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.3. even under the worst-case scenario as presented here. For an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags on a metric tons per year basis. Biodegradable Plastic. Paper. the Boustead Study states that. Ecobilan. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. it can be extrapolated that under a scenario where 85 percent of customers would switch to using paper carryout bags as an indirect result of the proposed 77 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. Page 3.3-1).1 and AVAQMD Rule 1150. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.

Biodegradable Plastic.2 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills.79 The non-standard method of calculating CO2e for end of life in the Boustead Study causes the results to be elevated and not directly comparable to CO2e for end of life calculated in other LCAs. Table 26B.3. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. the disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills would have the potential to result in the emissions of 62.ordinances.3 GHG Emissions.05 percent to 0. While these results are significantly higher than those calculated using Ecobilan data. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.619 52.5-11. Page 3.5-11 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e Per Year) Increase Resulting from Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags1 Carryout Bags1 6. Biodegradable Plastic. and Recycled.78 which means that CH4 is considered to have 62 times the global warming potential of CO2. Recyclable Paper. Version 3. Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Boustead Data.616 7. January 2009. and Appendix C). Assuming 21 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 5. These results are between approximately 0. 79 California Climate Action Registry. Inc.Doc . which means that CH4 emissions are considered to have 23 times the global warming potential compared to CO2. based on a scenario where 100 percent of customers would switch to using paper carryout bags as an indirect result of the proposed ordinances. which emphasizes the uncertainty in using LCA data to estimate GHG emissions.3. Compostable. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.3. the disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills would have the potential to result in the emissions of 52. the Boustead Study calculates GHG emissions for end-of-life using 20 year CO2 equivalents. In addition.200 metric tons of CO2e per year for the entire County (Table 3. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. 78 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.3-31 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. It is standard practice to use 100 year CO2 equivalents when calculating CO2e. Compostable. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.100 metric tons of CO2e per year for the entire County (Table 3.235 54.134 SOURCES: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. TABLE 3. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.265 62.870 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions 45. CA. Los Angeles. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. NOTE: 1.1.06 percent of the 2020 target emissions for the County (108 million metric tons) and approximately 0. Recyclable Paper.01 percent of the 2020 target emissions for California (427 million metric tons).5-11 and Appendix C ). 2007. Alternatively. 2007. the impacts are still below the level of significance. and Recycled.

To quantify the number of delivery trucks. The SCAQMD was consulted regarding this methodology and concurred that the only GHG emissions that would be expected to result from implementation of the proposed ordinances that could be quantified and presented in this EIR would be emissions due to potential increases in delivery truck trips. Sapphos Environmental.to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags.3-32 82 . a worst-case scenario was assumed where the proposed ordinances would result in an 85.80 GHG Emissions Resulting from Increased Delivery Trips During the scoping period for the Initial Study for this EIR.0045 percent to 0.3 GHG Emissions. Inc. was used to assess the GHG emission impacts of additional truck trips that would be required to deliver paper carryout bags to the affected stores.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.and 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to be below the level of significance.Conclusions from LCAs GHG emission impacts resulting from landfills for an 85. 8 March 2010. Unlike emissions generated by manufacturing facilities. CA. Lancaster.81 AVAQMD agreed with the SCAQMD’s suggestion that quantifying vehicle trips would be the most defensible way of quantifying the GHG emission impacts of the proposed ordinances. Inc. It is important to note that the impacts may be even lower. Pasadena. CA. An URBEMIS 2007 simulation was performed to assess the air quality impacts of additional truck trips that would be required to deliver paper carryout bags. Pasadena. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Banks. commenters raised concerns that the proposed ordinances might indirectly impact GHG emissions due to a potential increase in the distribution of paper carryout bags. a simulation using URBEMIS 2007. given that calculations done with the Ecobilan and Boustead Studies are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not take into account the potential for an increased number of customers using reusable bags as a result of the proposed ordinances. Sapphos Environmental. the assumption that every store above 10. Operations Manager.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 square feet currently uses 10. Bret. In addition. CA.. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Specialist. 81 Garcia. Inc.01 percent of the 2020 target emissions for California (427 million metric tons). CA. 21 January 2010.and 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be between approximately 0. as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to approximately 5. Department of Public Works.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate.018 percent of the 2020 target emissions for the County (108 million metric tons) and between approximately 0. Alhambra.0053 to 0. Daniel. According to the Ecobilan Study. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. CA. 29 April 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson.06 percent of the 2020 target emissions for the County (108 million metric tons) and approximately 0. GHG emissions generated by the delivery of paper carryout bags to affected stores would occur within the County. and therefore these emissions would be considered regional impacts.2. the increase in GHG emissions due to the disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills would be between approximately 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.4.021 percent of the 2020 target emissions for California (427 million metric tons). which appear not be located within the County. GHG emission impacts resulting from landfills for an 85.9. Under the Boustead Study. Sacramento. Diamond Bar.. CA. 80 Dona Sturgess. Page 3. 82 Assuming a scenario where the proposed ordinances would result in 85-percent conversion of plastic carryout bag use to paper carryout bag use. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.05 percent to 0. v. County of Los Angeles.

90 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.000 plastic carryout bags per truck For paper carryout bags. Therefore. 1990.000 plastic carryout bags. and each case would contain 500 paper carryout bags. CA. and Recycled.90 which is consistent with the one-time trial performed by Sapphos Environmental. Compostable.000 plastic bags per truck / 216. 25–26 January 2010..304. Albertsons. respectively. February 2004.000 plastic carryout bags per truck / 216.304. Albertsons. Director of Environmental Stewardship.87 However. Therefore. CA. Los Angeles. Rick.. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Rick. CA. an 85.91. a typical delivery truck could be expected to carry 216. Director of Environmental Stewardship. Sapphos Environmental. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.000 plastic bags per truck) / 216. Inc.304. Inc. an 85-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would require approximately 9 times the number of trucks currently required to deliver carryout bags to supermarkets.000 plastic bags per truck / 216. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. France. Biodegradable Plastic. 85 Crandall.5 plastic carryout bags) §6 times the number of truck trips required (2. 25–26 January 2010.304. Recyclable Paper. and Biodegradable Material. 0. Los Angeles. CA.3 GHG Emissions. Inc.304.000 paper carryout bags. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson.85 Number of paper carryout bags per delivery truck: 24 pallets x 18 cases x 500 paper carryout bags per case = 216. 89 Ecobilan.000 paper carryout bags per truck) x (1 paper carryout bag / 1.5 plastic carryout bags) §7 times the number of truck trips required Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Inc.Based on data provided by a supermarket in the County. Based on that assumption. CA.000 paper carryout per truck §9 2.000 paper carryout bags per truck) x (1 paper carryout bag / 1.85 x 2.000 plastic carryout bags.5 times the amount of groceries than plastic carryout bags can hold. Page 3. and each case would contain 2.000 paper carryout bags per truck §11 Franklin Associates. 86 87 88 83 (0. Pasadena. Inc. Pasadena.3-33 92 91 . CA.. and Boustead studies.84 Number of plastic carryout bags per delivery truck: 24 pallets x 48 cases x 2. Director of Environmental Stewardship. Neuilly-sur-Seine. a typical delivery truck could be expected to transport 2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.000 plastic carryout bags per case = 2. Sapphos Environmental. Albertsons. (Appendix A). 84 Crandall. Sapphos Environmental.. Ecobilan.000 paper carryout bags per truck According to the above calculations. several studies.83 an average delivery truck could hold 24 pallets each carrying 48 cases. Prairie Village. have stated that it can be reasonably assumed that paper carryout bags can hold approximately 1.89.86 and a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would require approximately 11 times the number of delivery trucks. 25–26 January 2010. it was assumed that each of the 24 pallets would contain 18 cases.304. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson. Rick. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson. Paper. Ltd. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.92 Crandall. Los Angeles. 2007.to 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in approximately 6 to 7 times the number of delivery trucks currently required to deliver carryout bags to supermarkets. including the Franklin.85 x (2. KS. Pasadena. 88.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.

Therefore.13 = 12.96 14.184 cubic inches For packaging 1. Inc. 10. Sapphos Environmental. Inc. In order to model a conservative worst-case scenario.. 1.184 cubic inches x 2 = 10. Inc.368 cubic inches / 720 cubic inches = 14.5 mil are packaged into a flat box measuring 12 inches by 12 inches by 5 inches. when considering delivery truck trips.4 / 1. Sapphos Environmental. it can be assumed that an 85.95. a bag distribution company with a location in Los Angeles.4 / 1.4 Based solely on these volumes and usable volume ratio for these particular bags. Telephone correspondence with Leanna Guillermo. CA. Page 3. it was assumed that a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would require 13 times the number of delivery trips currently required to transport carryout bags to stores.4 times more volume than plastic carryout bags occupy.000 paper carryout bags: 5.93 According to the same source. 26 January 2010. However. it can be reasonably expected that a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would require fewer delivery trips than would be required as a result of a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags. Telephone correspondence with Leanna Guillermo.Sapphos Environmental.94 Therefore.to 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would require approximately 11 to 13 times the number of delivery truck trips that plastic carryout bags currently require.000 plastic carryout bags each measuring 12 inches by 7 inches by 15 inches (not including the handles) and with a thickness of 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Pasadena. paper carryout bags occupy approximately 14. also compared the volume of standard plastic and the volume of paper carryout bags available from Uline.368 cubic inches: For packaging 500 paper carryout bags: 24 inches x 18 inches x 12 inches = 5.7 x 100 percent = 12.368 cubic inches According to this calculation.368 square inches / 720 square inches) x (12-inch x 7-inch x 15-inch plastic carryout bag / 12-inch x 7-inch x 17-inch paper carryout bag) §11 times the number of truck trips required (10. Therefore. due to the fact that reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times.000 of these particular paper carryout bags is equal to approximately 10. 500 paper grocery bags (without handles) measuring 12 inches by 17 inches by 7 inches are packaged into a box measuring 24 inches by 18 inches by 12 inches.85 x 10..7 ~ 13 An increase in demand for reusable bags would also result in additional transport of reusable bags to stores. 26 January 2010. the number of reusable bags required would be expected to be far less than the number of carryout bags currently used. which is the largest increase in delivery trips calculated above. the combined volume of 1. Uline. According to Uline. Assuming that in the unincorporated territories of the County there are 67 stores that would 93 Amanda (last name not provided).3 GHG Emissions. 94 (0. Pasadena.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.3-34 96 95 .7 x 85 percent = 10. CA. Inc. Amanda (last name not provided).000 of these particular plastic carryout bags is equal to approximately 720 cubic inches: 12 inches x 12 inches x 5 inches = 720 cubic inches Whereas the combined volume of 1.368 square inches / 720 square inches) x (12-inch x 7-inch x 15-inch plastic carryout bag / 12-inch x 7-inch x 17-inch paper carryout bag) §13 times the number of truck trips required Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.13 = 12. Uline. a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would be the worst-case scenario.8 ~ 11 14.

be affected by the proposed County ordinance. The unmitigated emissions due to delivery truck trips would be approximately 11 metric tons per year of CO2 for the 67 stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances in the unincorporated territory of the County.620. with each store using 10. each using 10. Page 3.5-12). Inc. approximately 0.3.5-12 POTENTIAL INCREASES IN DELIVERY TRUCK TRIPS AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES Factor for Increased Trips Due to Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags 13 13 County Area Unincorporated areas Incorporated cities Total Stores 67 462 Plastic Carryout Bags/ Store/Day 10. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.htm Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.98 TABLE 3.3.000 Plastic Carryout Bags/ Truck(a) 2. and Appendix C).000 plastic carryout bags per truck x 13 § 3.3 GHG Emissions.01 Additional Trips Required to Deliver Paper Carryout Bags 4 26 NOTE: Data provided by Albertsons The GHG emissions that would be anticipated to result from 4 additional truck trips per day to and from the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County that would be affected by the proposed ordinances. Available at: http://www.00008 percent of the County’s target emissions for 2020 (108 million metric tons). which would not conflict with the emission reduction goals established to reduce emissions of GHGs in California down to 1990 levels by 2020.6 metric tons per capita by 2020). Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion Scenario.000 10.3. a 100-percent conversion scenario would result in fewer than 4 additional truck trips required per day (Table 3.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.ca.000 Truck Trips Needed to Deliver Plastic Carryout Bags 0.8 daily truck trips 462 stores x 10. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.97 Assuming that in the 88 incorporated cities of the County there are 462 stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances in the 88 incorporated cities of the County.304.000 4.29 2.arb. a 100-percent conversion scenario would result in approximately 26 additional truck trips required per day (Table 3.5-12.3.99 97 98 99 67 stores x 10. December 2008. Potential Increases in Delivery Truck Trips as a Result of the Proposed Ordinances).3-35 .000 plastic carryout bags per day.304.5-13. The total indirect GHG emissions due to mobile sources as a result of a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags throughout the County represents an increase of approximately 0.000 plastic bags per day / 2.5-13 and Appendix C).Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 plastic carryout bags per day.00002 percent of the State’s target emissions for 2020 (427 million metric tons) or 0. and approximately 26 additional truck trips per day to and from the 462 stores that may be affected by the proposed ordinances in the 88 incorporated cities of the County were calculated using URBEMIS 2007 (Table 3. and up to an additional 71 metric tons per year if similar ordinances were adopted in the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3.304.000 2.3.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. as required by AB 32 (approximately 9.000 Total Plastic Carryout Bags/Day 670.000 plastic bags per truck x 13 §26 daily truck trips California Air Resources Board.304.000008 metric ton per capita per year.

000008 Target GHG Emissions per Capita in the County (Metric Tons of CO2e) Emission Sources 4 delivery truck trips in the unincorporated territory of the County 26 delivery truck trips in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions Cumulative Impacts The cumulative GHG emission impacts to be assessed in a cumulative. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.000 square feet currently uses 10.51 CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) 10. the proposed ordinances would be expected to comply with the strategies established by the County for GHG emissions reduction established pursuant to their participation in the CCAR. (1) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from the life cycle of carryout bags. Further.000007 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and (3) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from increased delivery truck trips. Millennium Development Goals indicators: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2).84 491. Alhambra.000001 9.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc.000 plastic carryout bags per day. as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to approximately 5.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail. 29 April 2010.35 0. County of Los Angeles.6 425.3. although the California Global Warming 100 United Nations. Statistics Division. In addition. Email to Luke Mitchell.35 70.85 CO2 Emissions per Capita (Metric Tons/Year) 0. the proposed ordinances' global GHG emission impact due to delivery truck trips would be expected to be below the level of significance.101 No significance thresholds have been adopted by any agency or jurisdiction that would assist the County in conclusively determining whether the incremental effect of the proposed ordinances may be cumulatively considerable.5-13 ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS DUE TO INCREASED VEHICLE TRIPS FROM 100-PERCENT CONVERSION SCENARIO CO2 Emissions (Pounds/Day) 65. TABLE 3.100 The proposed ordinances would be expected to be consistent with the County Energy and Environmental Policy. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. CA.to 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags. The impacts may be lower than calculated in this EIR. LCA data analysis from the various studies indicates that GHG emissions due to bag manufacturing and disposal in landfills would increase upon conservative worst case scenarios of 85. As of the date of release of this EIR. global context can be categorized into three main areas. In addition. Available at: http://mdgs. Page 3. if one considers that more than 28 billion tons of CO2 were added to the Earth's atmosphere in 2006 alone.un. the assumption that every store above 10.3 GHG Emissions. CA. indirect GHG emissions associated with the proposed ordinances would be expected to be below the level of significance. (2) potential indirect GHG emissions resulting from the disposal of carryout bags in landfills. particularly with the Environmental Stewardship Program set forth in the policy.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate.50 81. thousand metric tons of CO2 (collected by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center). Sacramento. Therefore. Department of Public Works.aspx?srid=749&crid= 101 Dona Sturgess. given that calculations done with the various studies are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not consider the potential for an increased number of customers using reusable bags.Finally.3-36 . there are no adopted Federal regulations or laws addressing GHG emissions.

no air districts in the County. It is also unknown as to which manufacturing facilities. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. State. The majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. Santa Monica. Florence. KY. and regulations for GHG emissions set forth by the County and incorporated cities.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have claimed that paper carryout bags are significantly worst for the environment from a GHG emissions perspective. state or federal regulations to establish a criterion for significance to determine the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions on global climate change. Therefore. With respect to paper carryout bag manufacturing.and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags may be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with all other related past. Inc.Solutions Act of 2006 provides new regulatory direction towards limiting GHG emissions. Inc. the proposed ordinances would be expected to cause a less-than-significant cumulative GHG emission impact. Similarly. Implementation of the proposed ordinances would be consistent with the policies. regional. Sapphos Environmental. Page 3. cumulative GHG emissions resulting from increased vehicle trips due to implementation of the proposed ordinances would be considered to be below the level of significance.3. plans. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. present. and there are no local. Customer Service Department.3. Further. and the County does not have the ability to control or regulate GHG emissions from bag manufacturing facilities outside of its jurisdiction. when considered on a local. 15 July 2009. if any.5-12) and would not promote employment or population growth.6 Mitigation Measures The indirect cumulative impacts to GHG emissions from the proposed ordinances that may result from a potential increase in paper carryout bag manufacturing is subject to the regulatory oversight authority in the location where manufacturing occurs. but would be subject to regulations. or global scale. On this basis. CA. Carol Trout. while the quantitative GHG emission impacts of the proposed ordinances would be expected to be below the level of significance compared to the County’s target 2020 GHG emissions. To date. since the proposed ordinances would not generate a significant number of vehicle trips (Table 3. In addition. it can be conservatively determined that the life cycle impacts resulting from an 85. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada.. there is little guidance regarding thresholds for GHG impacts from proposed projects. have a recommended emission threshold for determining significance associated with GHG emissions from development projects. or reasonably foreseeable. 3. regional. Telephone communication with Ms. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. and federal regulations pertaining to GHG emissions. such as Canada. would increase production of paper carryout bags as a result of the proposed ordinances.103 GHG emissions from any paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities affected by the proposed ordinances will be controlled by the owners of the facilities in accordance with any applicable regional.3 GHG Emissions. 5 February 2010. including SCAQMD and AVAQMD. it appears that there are no paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities located within the County unincorporated and incorporated areas. Stephanie. and there are no defined regulations establishing significance on a cumulative level. Any related projects in the unincorporated territory of the County must also comply with the County’s GHG emission regulations. indirect cumulative impacts to GHG emissions from the proposed ordinances may result from carryout bag degradation in Los Angeles area landfills. and specific to this project only.3-37 . the location of paper bag manufacturers that might increase 102 Watt. 103 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. probable future projects or activities.102 or from countries outside of the United States. and because the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinances from a conservative worst-case scenario. As for GHG emissions resulting from increased vehicle trips.

Therefore. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the impacts to GHG emissions resulting from decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills could not be feasibly mitigated and may have the potential to remain cumulatively considerable. and cannot be reasonably foreseen.3.production of paper carryout bag is not known to the County. The County has consulted with the responsible agencies for air quality.3 GHG Emissions. and has been established as a reasonable worst-case scenario for the purposes of this analysis.1 or SCAQMD Rule 1150. 3. Any potential increases in GHG emissions due to decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills in the County will be controlled by AVAQMD Rule 1150.7 Level of Significance after Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures can be provided to reduce impacts to GHG emissions. Page 3. including SCAQMD.1. the impacts to GHG emissions may remain a cumulatively considerable impact. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and federal regulations pertaining to GHG emissions.3-38 . AVAQMD. The County does not have the ability to control or regulate GHG emissions from landfills that are outside of the County’s jurisdiction. and has not yet received any recommendations to mitigate the cumulative impacts to GHG emissions from manufacturing or disposal of paper carryout bags. State. and the CARB. Inc. Therefore. Therefore. GHG emissions from landfills located in the County are already controlled in accordance with applicable regional. the cumulative contribution resulting from conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags cannot be feasibly quantified. Therefore. the County has determined that the impacts to GHG emissions resulting from paper carryout bag manufacturing could not be feasibly mitigated and may have the potential to remain cumulatively considerable.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. 01-182 NPDES Permit No. November 1980.org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan. May 2009.ca.4. Available at: http://www. 7 Wu. the RWQCB Plan for the Lahontan Region. This analysis was undertaken to identify opportunities to avoid. Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Monterey Park. Effective 31 March 1995. Web site. Lahontan Region. and level of significance after mitigation.3.4-1 .gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references. anticipated impacts (direct.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY As a result of the Initial Study.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Page 3. Los Angeles Region. CA. 3. Department of Regional Planning. Regional Water Quality Control Board.ca. Los Angeles Region. Watershed Protection Division. Department of Public Works. Inc. Inc. Therefore.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.waterboards. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan).gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation. CA. Bureau of Sanitation. CAS004001. reduce. this issue has been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR. thresholds for determining if the proposed ordinances would result in significant impacts. The potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality has been analyzed in accordance with the methodologies and information provided by the County General Plan. 11 March 2010.6. CA. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger. 1 December 2009. 3 2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Inc. Judith. Pasadena. County of Los Angeles. The analysis of hydrology and water quality consists of a summary of the regulatory framework to be considered in the decision-making process. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger. County of Los Angeles General Plan. Available at: http://www. Adopted 13 June 1994.5 direct coordination with the RWQCBs. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. State. CA. 1 Sapphos Environmental. and local statutes and policies that relate to hydrology and water quality and that must be considered when rendering decisions on projects that would have the potential to result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. a description of the existing conditions within the County. 9 March 2010. CA. as amended through December 2005. Sapphos Environmental.shtml 5 4 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.lacitysan. Los Angeles. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Pasadena. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Inc.. or otherwise mitigate potential significant impacts from hydrology and water quality and to identify potential alternatives. Available at: http://www. South Lake Tahoe. it was determined that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. Pasadena.7 and a review of public comments received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. Los Angeles.1 Regulatory Framework This regulatory framework identifies the relevant federal. and cumulative). Sapphos Environmental.3 including Order No. mitigation measures. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles. Eric.waterboards. indirect.htm 6 Unsicker.2 the State of California RWQCB Plan for the Los Angeles Region.4 the City of Los Department of Public Works Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (WQCMPUR). Water Quality Control Plan..4 Hydrology. CA. CA. Stormwater Program.1 Certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have argued that similar proposed ordinances have the potential to result in environmental impacts that could result in violations of water quality standards due to an increased reliance on paper carryout bags.

In 1990. The 1987 amendment was developed from the awareness that storm water runoff. The State issues NPDES permits through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs. 01-182 (permit) covers 84 incorporated cities and the unincorporated territories of the County. municipal. even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.Doc . The Principal Permittee coordinates and facilitates activities necessary to comply with the requirements of the permit but is not responsible for ensuring compliance of any of the Permittees. Inc. On December 13. Under the permit. and wildlife while providing for recreation in and on the water whenever possible. 8 United States Code. and the Cities of Long Beach and Avalon. shellfish. Point-source discharges to receiving waters are regulated by the NPDES program that sets technology-based permit limits for particular pollutants in specific water bodies.4-2 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and authorized tribes to develop lists of impaired water that do not meet water quality standards that have been set for them. including the NPDES program. is a significant source of water pollution. The County is regulated by the Lahontan Region and Los Angeles Region RWQCBs. territories. The State of California (State) has been authorized by the USEPA to administer and enforce portions of the CWA. 01-182. unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The second approach is water quality based and seeks to meet the desired uses of the water body through the CWA’s Section 303(d) program that links water quality goals with the NPDES permit limits. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish a priority ranking for these waters on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters and to develop and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. with the exception of the Antelope Valley portion of the County.8 The CWA includes two basic approaches for protecting and restoring the nation’s waters. Page 3. and construction activities require an NPDES permit. which is the NPDES permit (NPDES CAS004001) for municipal storm water and urban runoff discharges within the County. As adopted in December 2001. Title 33. the requirements of Order No.4 Hydrology. The requirements of a TMDL are described in 40 CFR 130. the County of Los Angeles Flood Control District is designated as the Principal Permittee. territories. 2001. Section 1251 et seq. The first is a technology-based approach that promulgates effluent guidelines that rely on the technologies that remove pollutants from wastewaters. including the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale. the USEPA published final regulations that established application requirements to determine when industrial. the CWA was amended to state that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from storm water is effectively prohibited. municipal.2 and 130. along with the 84 incorporated cities. The CWA provides for delegating certain responsibilities for water quality control and planning to the states. is designated as a Permittee. Section 303(d) of the federal CWA of 1972 requires states. the County. a nonpoint-source discharge.7. The 1987 amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p) and established a framework for regulating industrial. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and construction storm water discharges under the NPDES program. Federal regulations also require states. the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted Order No.Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 The federal CWA of 1972 sets national goals and policies to eliminate discharge of water pollutants into navigable waters and to achieve a water-quality level that will protect fish. In 1987. 1972. including TMDLs. and authorized tribes to develop water quality management plans to implement water quality control measures.

2002. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. with the ultimate goal of accomplishing the requirements of the permit and reducing the amount of pollutants in storm water and urban runoff. CA. the conformance to the Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan as part of compliance with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit would not be required. General Construction Activity Storm Water Discharges Storm water discharges that are composed entirely of runoff from qualifying construction activities may be eligible to be regulated under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit issued by the SWRCB rather than an individual NPDES permit issued by the appropriate RWQCB. It sets forth water quality standards and numerical and narrative objectives for the surface 9 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.4-3 .and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the base floodplain (100-year floodplain) and the avoidance of direct and indirect support of development in the base floodplain wherever there is a practicable alternative. as outlined in the permit: Public Information and Participation. Because the proposed ordinances do not require construction or construction-related activities. reconstruction. Construction activities that qualify include clearing. health. the USACOE must provide leadership and take action to accomplish the following: x x x x Avoid development in the base floodplain. is the avoidance of. as amended through December 2005. Executive Order 11988 The objective of Executive Order 11988.In compliance with the permit. Each Permittee is required by the permit to have implemented these programs by February 1. Development Construction. Available at: http://www. 1977. The SQMP is divided into six separate programs. The Lahontan Basin Plan was adopted by the Lahontan RWQCB to guide the RWQCB’s regulatory program. Under the Executive Order. Public Agency Activities.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Industrial/Commercial Facilities.waterboards. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. Inc.4 Hydrology. grading. of the California Water Code] and was adopted in 1975 and revised in 1995. to the extent possible.ca. Development Planning. excavation. South Lake Tahoe. Lahontan Region. Page 3. and Illicit Connection/Illicit Discharge.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references. the proposed ordinances would not be subject to Executive Order 11988. Effective 31 March 1995. and welfare Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of the base floodplain Because the proposed ordinances do not require construction or construction-related activities within the base floodplain. and dredge-and-fill activities that result in the disturbance of at least 5 acres of total land area. Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region9 The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Lahontan Basin Plan) was established under the requirements of California’s 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act [Section 13000 (Water Quality) et seq. long. dated May 24. unless it is the only practicable alternative Reduce the hazard and risk associated with floods Minimize the impact of floods to human safety.shtml Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the Permittees have implemented a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SQMP).

hazardous spills.11. Available at: http://www. water quality objectives are the “allowable limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area. “Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in deposition of material that causes nuisance or that adversely affects the water for beneficial uses. Page 3.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation. Water quality objectives in the Lahontan Basin Plan that apply to all surface waters include narratives for ”floating materials” and “settleable solids. Available at: http://www.shtml 11 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Available at: http://www.ca. including water discharge prohibitions. storm water runoff.” The water quality objective for settleable materials states. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger. it outlines required or recommended control actions for effective water quality protection and management. CA.” Thus. was adopted in 1975 and revised in 1984.shtml 12 Unsicker.ca.ca. in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references.and ground waters of the Lahontan Region.4-4 . None of the water bodies located within the Los Angeles County portion of the Lahontan Basin Plan is listed as “impaired waters” in the Lahontan Basin Plan. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Inc. Pasadena. as amended through December 2005. Water Quality.waterboards. Los Angeles Region.” These water quality objectives apply to trash that may contain plastic carryout bags that can enter water bodies through storm drains or other careless disposal. Sapphos Environmental. erosion. Lahontan Region.13 The first essentially complete Los Angeles Basin Plan. Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region. 10 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.12 Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region The Los Angeles RWQCB has prepared a Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Basin Plan). Judith.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references.4 Hydrology. CA. The most recent version of the Los Angeles Basin Plan was adopted in 1994. of the California Water Code).waterboards. Effective 31 March 1995. Narrative and numerical water quality objectives specifically define the upper concentration or other limits that the Regional Board considers protective of beneficial uses. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that the Lahontan RWQCB identify impaired waters and to establish TMDLs to ensure the attainment of the water quality objectives of these water bodies. which includes the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. as amended through December 2005.shtml Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. As defined by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Region IX. South Lake Tahoe.waterboards. foam. South Lake Tahoe. 11 March 2010. and waste disposal. Effective 31 March 1995. wastewater treatment.. CA. et seq. Lahontan Region. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. The Lahontan Basin Plan also identifies general types of water quality issues that can threaten beneficial uses in the Region. Direction for implementation of the CWA is provided by the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) and by a variety of USEPA guidance documents on specific subjects. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. and scum. Adopted 13 June 1994. liquids.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. water quality objectives are intended to protect the public health and welfare and to maintain or enhance water quality in relation to the existing and/or potential beneficial uses of the water.”10 The water quality objective for floating materials indicates “waters shall not contain floating material including solids. Monterey Park. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. 13 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. CA. Inc. The Lahontan RWQCB also implements the CWA in California under the delegation and oversight of the USEPA. and sedimentation. Water Quality Control Plan. which was established under the requirements of California’s 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000. In addition.

13 December 2001.” Order No. Except the City of Long Beach. 10 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/tmdl/tmdl_list.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Resolution No. and cold freshwater habitat. Clean Water Act Section 305(b): “Report”. including Malibu Creek.216.shtml 18 16 15 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Munz Lake. wetland habitat. Numeric objectives specify concentrations of pollutants that are not to be exceeded in ambient waters of the basin. CA.17 Specifically for the Los Angeles River. 01-182 NPDES Permit No. Monterey Park.4 Hydrology. commercial and sport fishing. CAS004001. Lake Elizabeth. Lake Hughes.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board. and Section 303(d) “List of Impaired Waters–2008 Update. 17 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Los Angeles River. Web site. Inc. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. CAS004001. Monterey Park. intended to protect designated beneficial uses. CA. Adopted 13 June 1994. wildlife habitat. rare and endangered species. Los Angeles Region.” California Environmental Protection Agency. Machado Lake. CA. non-contact water recreation. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region. Essentially. marine habitat.4-5 . It also sets water-quality objectives. Los Angeles Region.16 Trash TMDLs are specifically tied to water quality objectives for ”floating materials” and “solid. 9 August 2007. Available at: http://www. TMDLs are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.” such that the capacity of the water body to assimilate pollutant loadings is not exceeded. suspended and settleable materials” in Chapter 3 of the amended Los Angeles Basin Plan.18 Plastic carryout bags are considered a possible component of trash because discarded plastic carryout bags can be found in storm water runoff and discharges.The Los Angeles Basin Plan assigns beneficial uses to surface and groundwater such as municipal water supply and water-contact recreation to all waters in the basin. Available at: http://63. Legg Lake. Attachment A to Resolution No.waterboards. The Los Angeles RWQCB has adopted TMDLs for trash as an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for eight water bodies in the County.waterboards. spawning. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that the Los Angeles RWQCB identify impaired waters and to establish TMDLs to ensure the attainment of the water quality objectives of these water bodies that are listed.14 A TMDL is defined as “the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Los Angeles. “Basin Plan Amendment–TMDLs. migration of aquatic organisms. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan. These objectives apply to specific parameters (numeric objectives) and general characteristics of the water body (narrative objectives). “Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated cities therein.199. warm freshwater habitat.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.ca. shellfish harvesting. Los Angeles Region. and as amended. An example of a narrative objective is the requirement that all waters must remain free of toxic substances in concentrations producing detrimental effects on aquatic organisms. Available at: http://www.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. July 2009. as amended. Trash detracts from the following designated beneficial uses of water bodies in Los Angeles County: water contact recreation. reproduction and early development of fish. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Page 3.ca. and Ballona Creek and wetlands. estuarine habitat. 07-012. subject to approval by the USEPA.15 These are established in Order No. 01-182 NPDES Permit No.” Water Issues. 07-012 states. 2007.6/larwqcb_new/bpa/docs/2007-012/2007-012_RB_BPA. Los Angeles Region Integrated Report.

” County of Los Angeles. food waste. accumulated. conserve storm and reclaimed water. alley. sidewalk. There are two policies relevant to the proposed ordinances that support this goal:20 1.Local County of Los Angeles General Plan The County Board of Supervisors adopted the Conservation. Page 3. or other lawfully established waste disposal facilities protected from stormwater or runoff. deposited. or upon any public or private property except when such materials are placed in containers. The proposed ordinances aim to reduce the amount of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags in storm water runoff.22 LID standards include BMPs that promote pollutant removal from storm water runoff. the County Stormwater Ordinance prohibits people from causing any “refuse. 2. Department of Public Works. and promote water conservation programs Encourage the maintenance. and improvement of the quality of imported domestic water. management. ground water supplies. County of Los Angeles General Plan. CA. County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards The County low impact development (LID) standards are designed to enhance water quality. 19 County of Los Angeles. Department of Regional Planning. 20 County of Los Angeles. County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Inc. Open Space and Recreation element as a component of the County General Plan. drainage structure.4-6 . left. conduit. CA.19 The Conservation. Protect groundwater recharge and watershed areas. placed. Chapter 12. Los Angeles.80. natural runoff. place of business. Los Angeles. or any other discarded or abandoned objected to be littered. increase groundwater recharge. County of Los Angeles General Plan. In addition. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Department of Regional Planning.4 Hydrology. maintained. January 2009. thrown. thereby complying with the requirements of the County Stormwater Ordinance. November 1980. inlet. recycling bins. storm drain.”21 The proposed ordinances aim to reduce the amount of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Los Angeles. “Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control. garbage. catch basin. rubbish. or kept in or upon any street. CA. November 1980. 21 22 Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances. bags. The County Stormwater Ordinance prohibits non–storm water discharges not associated with emergency fire fighting activities from entering the storm drain system without an authorized NPDES permit. thereby supporting compliance with the LID standards. Open Space and Recreation element includes goals to conserve water and protect water quality. and ocean water County of Los Angeles Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance The County Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Stormwater Ordinance) is intended to protect public health and safety by enhancing and protecting the water quality of receiving waters within the County. All new development and redevelopment under the jurisdiction of the County is required to meet LID standards. and prevent degradation of natural downstream drainage courses.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.

Effective 31 March 1995.htm 24 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.shtml Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the Los Angeles River watershed. if any. the Malibu Creek watershed. as amended through December 2005. Los Angeles.City General Plans Any incorporated cities in the County that adopt individual ordinances will need to determine if they must comply with the adopted water quality policies set forth in the respective city general plans.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references. the existing conditions within the proposed ordinance area were determined based on review of the State RWQCB Basin Plans for the Lahontan and Los Angeles Regions.4.24 Los Angeles Region The RWQCB Basin Plan for the Los Angeles Region covers the areas of the County that are not within the Lahontan Region. South Lake Tahoe.2 Existing Conditions The proposed ordinances would affect an area of approximately 2. Web site.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). the San Gabriel River watershed. 2007.4 Hydrology. The incorporated areas of the City of Lancaster and City of Palmdale lie within the Lahontan Basin Plan.lacitysan.waterboards. desert washes—and higher elevation terrain. and the Dominguez Channel. 3. CA. Watershed Protection Division.649 square miles encompassing the unincorporated territory of the County and 1. developed areas used for 23 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. developed the Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff in response to City Council Motion CF 070663. dated March 2.ca. The southern and western areas within the County are located within the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Basins and are characterized by flat. Lahontan Region. May 2009. Therefore. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.4-7 .org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. Inc. Stormwater Program.435 square miles encompassing the incorporated cities of the County. which covers the Antelope watershed. Watershed Protection Division. which cover the majority of the County. The areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinances are located within the jurisdiction of the Lahontan and Los Angeles RWQCBs. to provide strategic planning to reduce urban runoff pollution. Bureau of Sanitation. urbanized. CA.23 One of the goals of the Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff is to improve water quality in the four watershed areas of the City of Los Angeles and to meet existing water quality regulations that apply to surface waters in the County. Available at: http://www. The northern part of the County is characterized by broad expanses of flat terrain—specifically. Available at: http://www. General Area Description Lahontan Region The RWQCB Basin Plan for the Lahontan Region includes the northeastern portion of the County. the Ballona Creek watershed. Page 3. There are six major watersheds within the Los Angeles Region: the Santa Clara River watershed. including desert valleys and the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains. This area is otherwise mostly characterized by streams and groundwater basins.

and Verdugo Wash in the San Fernando Valley. The Malibu Creek Watershed has been observed to have increased flows (from imported waters needed to support the growing population base) and channelization of several tributaries to Malibu Creek. and Ballona Creek are the main rivers present in the southeast area of the County. Zuma Canyon Creek.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation. The Los Angeles–San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit covers most of Los Angeles County and small areas of Ventura County. and industrial activity throughout the inland and along the coastal area.4 Hydrology. Dume Creek (Zuma Canyon Creek). The particular hydrologic units contained within the areas associated with the proposed ordinances are the Malibu Hydrologic Unit and the Los Angeles–San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit. Malibu Creek.26 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. and the remaining flow coming from storm drain runoff and groundwater reaching the surface.lacounty. Inc. The Los Angeles River. Tujunga Wash. dominated with approximately 80 percent of its flow originating at dischargers. drain the coastal watersheds of the Transverse Mountain Ranges. Adopted 13 June 1994.waterboards. much of the areas are covered with semipermeable or nonpermeable material. and Ballona Creek. The major tributaries of the Los Angeles River include Burbank Western Channel. The Los Angeles River is highly modified. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. as well as the drainages of five coastal islands. The main surface water features located within this region include small streams and rivers. and the Arroyo Seco. Dume Creek. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. CA. including the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys in the northwest and east. Department of Public Works. There are eight major tributaries to the Los Angeles River as it flows from its headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Monterey Park. Available at: http://www. and is lined with concrete along most of its length. and except for the coastal area where land use is residential and commercial. including Topanga Canyon Creek. The Los Angeles River. Page 3. Los Angeles Region. and the Transverse Mountain Ranges that include the southern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in the east and Santa Monica Mountains along the coast. The Malibu Hydrologic Unit drains the southern slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains in western Los Angeles County and a small area of southeastern Ventura County.gov/wmd/watershed/LA Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.shtml County of Los Angeles.ca. “Los Angeles River Watershed. most of the area is open space. of which.4-8 26 25 .” Web site.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Water Quality Control Plan. which flow southward into the Pacific Ocean. Los Angeles Region The Los Angeles Region encompasses all coastal drainages flowing to the Pacific Ocean between Rincon Point and the eastern County line.25 Drainage The Lahontan Region The areas of the County within the Lahontan Region encompass waters primarily located within the South Lahontan Basin. Malibu Creek. including Topanga Canyon Creek. and Big Sycamore Canyon Creek. and Big Sycamore Canyon Creek. open space. commercial.residential. respectively. The drainage area totals 242 square miles. and mountainous terrain. San Gabriel River. Compton Creek. This drainage area is composed of several small streams. Water drainages within the South Lahontan Basin drain into closed basin remnants of prehistoric lakes. Available at: http://dpw. The current flow in the Los Angeles River is effluent. which are the major drainage systems in this area. and Rio Hondo south of the Glendale Narrows. Accessed on: 18 March 2010. San Gabriel River. Pacoima Wash.

csus.4-9 32 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020. Gary Lippner. The average annual runoff associated with storm water in billions of gallons per year for the Los Angeles River Watershed and Ballona Creek Watershed combined is 250 billion. 2007–2009 Biennial Report. Los Angeles. due to high concentrations of salts and minerals. The Los Angeles storm drainage system is a 1. Storm water runoff drains from the street. 27 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Sacramento. many desert waters have naturally poor quality. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). Page 3.owp. and enters the system through an opening in the curb called a catch basin. Los Angeles. storm water runoff is significantly greater. Northern Portion of the County Storm Drain System. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 28 29 City of Los Angeles. 27 July 2007. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. 2001.4.000 catch basins that collect runoff throughout the six major watersheds within the RWQCB Los Angeles Region of the County: Dominguez Channel watershed. it was observed that 25 percent by weight and 19 percent by volume of the trash collected was plastic bags. Stormwater Program.27 There are more than 80. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Each catch basin is cleaned once a year before the rainy season. into the gutter. Characterization of Urban Litter. except for 1.Doc . Catch basins serve as the neighborhood entry point to the journey into the ocean and can be found throughout the County. Santa Clara Watershed. in compliance with adopted trash TMDLs. Los Angeles. Inc. Combs. Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles Region. and Figure 3.28 During the Great Los Angeles River Clean Up. John Johnston. Los Angeles. Southern Portion of the County Storm Drain System ). storm water. stretching from along the coast to inland. such as arsenic and selenium. which collected trash from 30 catch basins in the Los Angeles River. and Kimberly Walter. 18 June 2004.lacitysan. Watershed Protection Division.4 Hydrology. Ballona Creek watershed.2-1. CA: California Department of Transportation. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division.4. San Gabriel River watershed. timber harvesting.Storm Drain System The manmade drainage system existing within the County is characterized by the Los Angeles storm drainage system present throughout urbanized areas. Department of Public Works. Available at: http://www. and livestock grazing).org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. CA.29 Results of a Caltrans study of catch basins alongside freeways in Los Angeles indicated that plastic film was 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the total trash collected. are assumed to be high. Water quality problems in the Lahontan Region are largely related to nonpoint sources (including erosion from construction. Suzanne. although localized problems related to heavy metals and radioactive elements occur. Bureau of Sanitation. CA. David Marx. Web site. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.500-mile network of underground pipes and channels that discharge directly into coastal waters and are designed to prevent flooding. CA. is about $800 per insert. However.32 Surface Water Quality The natural quality of most high-elevation waters. Although the background (dry weather) runoff is more or less constant all year.htm County of Los Angeles.2-2. 27 July 2007. as well as water supplies available near streams in desert areas in the Lahontan Region.pdf 31 30 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.30 The LACDPW contracts out the cleaning of all the catch basins in the County for a total cost of slightly over $1 million per year. CA. which are derived from snowmelt. and Malibu Creek watershed (Figure 3.31 Installation of catch basin inserts to improve the catch basins’ ability to prevent trash from entering the waterways. May 2009.700 priority catch basins that fill faster and have to be cleaned out more frequently. Available at: http://www. billed to 42 municipalities. Los Angeles River watershed.

5 Miles SOURCE: Los Angeles County of Public Works. Maps FIGURE 3.N 0 1.75 3.2-1 Northern Portion of the County Storm Drain System .5 Scale 7 10. Thomas Bros.4.

5 Miles SOURCE: Los Angeles County of Public Works.75 3.5 Scale 7 10.4.N ORANGE COUNTY 0 1. Maps FIGURE 3.2-2 Southern Portion of the County Storm Drain System . Thomas Bros.

Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). Eric. such as pesticides and herbicides. industrial. 9 March 2010. landfill leachate. salts.lacitysan.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation. May 2009. and Section 303(d): “List of Impaired Waters–2008 Update. Page 3. the Basin Plan clearly places responsibility on all cities and counties in the Los Angeles Region to reduce pollution from urban runoff. sediment. Department of Public Works. Effective 31 March 1995. the RWQCB requires all cities and counties to develop and implement comprehensive urban runoff control programs that both prevent future water quality problems and remediate existing problems. Groundwater The Lahontan Region includes more than 1. Machado Lake. and aquaculture supply waters. agricultural and industrial chemical spills. the Los Angeles Region has impaired water quality in the middle and lower portions of the basin due to runoff from dense clusters of commercial. as amended through December 2005.38 As part of a comprehensive control program to address urban runoff.shtml Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.34 The Los Angeles Region RWQCB has adopted TMDLs for trash for eight waterways and wetlands: Malibu Creek. Lahontan Region. as well as industrial service supply. CA. “Control of Nonpoint Source Pollutants. and toxic organic compounds. Bureau of Sanitation. metals.shtml Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sapphos Environmental. Ground waters in the Lahontan Region also provide a source of freshwater for the replenishment of inland lakes and streams of varying salinity. wildlife habitat supply. and Ballona Creek and wetlands. include underground and aboveground tank and sump leaks.35 Many of the surface water bodies in the densely populated areas of the Los Angeles Region RWQCB do not meet water quality goals for algae.ca. trash.33 Some surface waters of the Lahontan Region are currently listed as impaired waters due to these water quality problems.37 The Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan specifically addresses the impact of urban runoff on water quality of the region’s water bodies in Chapter 4.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references.waterboards. and include excess nutrients. Pasadena. resulting from these activities.htm 37 35 34 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Appendices D and E of the Los Angeles Region Integrated Report provide the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters of the Los Angeles Region.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r6_06_303d_reqtmdls.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. nutrients. such as trash. Stormwater Program. residential. urban. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Los Angeles River. and toxic organic compounds. Available at: http://www.36 As such. metals. Web site. and industrial activities can degrade the quality of ground water. Los Angeles. nutrients.waterboards. Inc. Munz Lake.org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan. Available at: http://www. South Lake Tahoe. 36 City of Los Angeles. however. Water Quality Control Plan. Inc. July 2009. Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region. and individual wastewater disposal systems.4-10 . oil and grease.ca. Los Angeles Region Integrated Report. none of these occurs in the Los Angeles portion of the Lahontan Region. Adopted 13 June 1994. CA. Lake Elizabeth.waterboards. The surface water quality of the Malibu Creek Watershed historically exhibits several pollutants of concerns.4 Hydrology. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger. septic 33 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.. Watersheds closer to highly urban areas—such as Ballona Creek. oil and greases.pdf Wu. Namely. Legg Lake. CA.acid drainage from inactive mines. Los Angeles Region. coliform bacteria. Monterey Park. Watershed Protection Division. Ground waters in the Lahontan Region supply high-quality drinking water and irrigation water. chloride. Available at: http://www. and other urban activities.ca. Available at: http://www. and bacteria. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. Discharges to ground water. Approved 28 June 2007 by USEPA. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. bacteria. Lake Hughes. debris.” of the Basin Pan. CA. Los Angeles Region. and the San Gabriel River—contain pollutants typical of urban runoff. many of which are discharged from nonpoint sources. the Los Angeles River. Historical and ongoing agricultural.” 38 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Clean Water Act Section 305(b): “Report”.581 square miles of ground water basins.

Tsunamis. creating hazards to people or structures from loss.435 square miles encompassing the incorporated cities of the County. in the coastal areas. namely the Lahontan Region.e. of which. it has the potential to be affected by tsunamis. Most of the hazards created by a tsunami come when a trough follows the peak. approximately 6 percent is within the 100-year Flood Zone.. whereas the surface waters of the Los Angeles River.Doc . or death. A tsunami is a long-period. A mudflow is a moving mass of soil made fluid by a loss of shear strength. injury. Ground water is present in limited amounts in alluvium along the bottom of canyons and valleys and in fractured volcanic rocks. San Gabriel River. Page 3. and Mudflows Seiches and tsunamis are the result of tectonic activity such as an earthquake.3 Significance Thresholds The potential for the proposed ordinances to result in impacts to public services was analyzed in relation to the questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a landlocked body of water that can create a hazard to persons and structures on and in the vicinity of the water. The 100-year Flood Zone areas identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate maps are located primarily in the northeast region of the County. As the County does include coastal areas. high-velocity tidal surge that can result in a series of very low (trough) and high (peak) sea levels.system failures.649 square miles of unincorporated area in the County and 1. in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation either on site or off site Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The proposed ordinances would normally be considered to have a significant impact to hydrology and water quality if the proposed ordinances would x x Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge leading to a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i. Inc.4-11 x Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. generally as a result of saturation from rain or melting snow. 3.4. including flood control channels and the Los Angeles River. ground water can reduce natural flows into these areas and lead to the concentration of trace chemicals. with the potential to inundate areas up to several miles from the coast. including naturally occurring salts and contaminants resulting from human activities. Seiche. and Ballona Creek recharge large reserves of ground water that exist in alluvial aquifers underlying the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys and the Los Angeles Coastal Plain. resulting in a rush of sea water back into the ocean. and chemical seepage via shallow drainage wells and abandoned wells. Although there are many landlocked bodies of water located within the County. Severe ground water overdraft has occurred in portions of the Lahontan Region. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. these manmade structures have been designed in accordance with applicable State and local statutes and regulations. including the alteration of the course of a stream or river. Floodways and 100-year Flood Zone The proposed ordinances are intended to apply to approximately 2.4 Hydrology.

4 Hydrology. Several studies have shown that plastic film. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam Result in inundation by seiche. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. by decreasing litter attributed to plastic carryout bag disposal in these areas. effectively reducing the capacity of the system to channel storm water runoff and may result in flooding of adjacent areas. The drainages within the Lahontan Region and Los Angeles Region consist of numerous streams and storm drains that drain into the Pacific Ocean. District of Columbia. Heavy rain events following the dry summer months in the Los Angeles watersheds have been shown to flush 150 tons of trash to the coastal Pacific Ocean.org/prg/StormWater/TrashBoomMediaEventReleaseFINAL. of the total trash collected. a study assessing the litter content of storm drain catch basins during the Great Los Angeles River Clean Up estimated the weight and volume of plastic bag litter to be 25 percent and 19 percent. storm drain inlet racks and other devices.4-12 . respectively.x x x x x x x 3. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 18 June 2004.39 The implementation of the proposed ordinances would reduce a measurable source of polluted runoff from these streams and other water resources to coastal waters. Inc. or death involving flooding. Available at: http://www. 2001. or mudflow Impact Analysis Drainage The proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality in relation to drainage.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Gary Lippner. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.40 A Caltrans study of catch basins alongside freeways in Los Angeles indicated that plastic film composed 7 percent and 12 percent by mass and volume.csus. particularly that of plastic carryout bags.pdf City of Los Angeles. including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding either on-site or off-site Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff Otherwise substantially degrade water quality 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 Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss.owp. Available at: http://ladpw.42 The proposed ordinances would significantly reduce the amount of plastic carryout bag trash that may originate from sources in the County and be transported from rivers to oceans. and Kimberly Walter. CA. tsunami. 29 January 2010. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Waste Management Analysis Report. Inc. Page 3. A study performed for Washington.pdf 42 40 Sapphos Environmental.4. composes a significant portion of the trash collected in storm drains. John Johnston. Department of Public Works. Sacramento. 11 December 2006. 41 Combs. Characterization of Urban Litter. injury. respectively. Press Release for Project Pollution Prevention.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020. CA: California Department of Transportation. CA. Suzanne. Pasadena. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. For example. Los Angeles. showed that plastic bag trash accounted for 45 percent of the amount of trash collected in tributary streams and 20 percent of the amount of trash 39 County of Los Angeles.41 Plastic carryout bags that end up in storm drains can clog catch basins. David Marx.

which is a typical volume of groceries purchased annually in Anacostia Watershed Society. February 2004.44 Due to the fact that paper carryout bags degrade when in contact with water. Lake Elizabeth. Characterization of Urban Litter. Inc. Eutrophication occurs when high levels of nutrients. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. The weight and volume of plastic bag litter in storm drain catch basins during the Los Angeles River Clean up Event were estimated to be 25 percent and 19 percent. Los Angeles. Similarly. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. December 2008. Ltd. Anacostia Watershed Society. 1990. March 2010. Bladensburg. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Because the proposed ordinances would not require construction of new structures or additional storm water infrastructure.47. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Prepared by: ICF International. the proposed ban on plastic carryout bags would improve the existing drainage capacity by removing a significant source of trash that can clog features of the system and reduce its capacity. reusable bags pose less of an issue for the storm drain system because they are not disposed of as frequently as are plastic carryout bags because they are designed to be used multiple times. KS. Munz Lake. and Ballona Creek and wetlands. 44 43 Franklin Associates. resulting in a reduction in water quality. 45 City of Los Angeles. the capacity of existing storm water drainage would remain unchanged. paper carryout bags are less likely to accumulate in the storm drain system. 18 June 2004. Prairie Village. and redirecting storm water flows would be unnecessary. 0. Page 3.45 The proposed ordinances would be expected to reduce these values and have a positive impact on the surface water drainage and storm drain systems in the County. The proposed ordinances would be consistent with TMDLs established by the Los Angeles Region RWQCB to reduce trash contribution to surface waters in eight water bodies and wetlands: Malibu Creek. Paper. Surface Water Quality The proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality in relation to surface water quality. Legg Lake. Los Angeles River.43 However. MD.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. However. which can potentially cause increased water eutrophication during the manufacturing process. CA.000 liters of groceries. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Bladensburg. Neuilly-sur-Seine. MD. As noted above.4-13 . San Francisco. respectively. Several LCAs have analyzed the impacts of bag manufacturing upon eutrophication and concluded that paper carryout bag manufacturing releases more pollutants. December 2008. France. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. CA.46 Therefore.4 Hydrology. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have argued that similar proposed ordinances have the potential to result in environmental impacts that could result in violations of water quality standards due to the increased reliance on paper carryout bags.48 For example. such as algae. Machado Lake. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan.collected in rivers. and are not littered the way plastic carryout bags are.2 gram of phosphate equivalent are generated in the production of enough plastic carryout bags to hold 9. into water than does plastic carryout bag manufacturing. according to an LCA performed by Ecobilan. enter a water body and cause excessive growth of plants. such as fertilizers. 48 47 Ecobilan. such as nitrates and phosphates. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality related to drainage. Lake Hughes. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. the same study found that paper products were not found in the streams except in localized areas and were not present downstream. 46 Green Cities California.

000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day. and up to an additional 15 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day if similar ordinances were adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. France.49. considers a wide range of environmental indicators. 54 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.4-14 . was critically reviewed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. Inc. and in the 88 incorporated cities. and Biodegradable Material. contains relatively sophisticated modeling and data processing techniques. and then multiplied by the estimated number of plastic carryout bags currently used in the unincorporated territory of the County . the County of Los Angeles has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed County ordinance.50 In contrast. The Ecobilan LCA was chosen above the other studies reviewed during preparation of this EIR because it is relatively recent.France per customer (the Ecobilan Study was conducted for stores in France). 49 Ecobilan. Calculation Data).Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. In order to better apply the Ecobilan data to bag usage in the County.52. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. this would result in an increase in eutrophication of approximately 2 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.4. it was determined that the potential for an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in eutrophication of approximately 2 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Biodegradable Material. chemically polluted water. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns.4-1.000 liters of groceries. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122.and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Table 3. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.4 Hydrology. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. Eutrophication Due to Use of Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and thermally polluted water. 50 Total wastewater generated was assumed to be the sum of unspecified water. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. A daily average per store was then calculated at 10.53 54 This method was used to estimate the current eutrophication due to plastic carryout bags and the projected water eutrophication that would be anticipated given an 85.000 bags per day.984 bags per day. Using the Ecobilan results.000 square feet or higher.51 The results of the Ecobilan Study were used as one of the methods to analyze the potential effects of eutrophication due to a conservative worst-case scenario of an 85.4-1 and Appendix C).to 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use. 53 As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and Appendix C. 2. 52 Coordination between the LACDPW and several large supermarket chains in the County of Los Angeles determined that approximately 10. and up to an additional 13 kilograms of phosphate per day if similar ordinances were adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County. February 2004.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10. Paper. February 2004. and contains detailed data for individual potential environmental impacts. Paper.4.3 grams of phosphate equivalent are generated in the production of enough paper carryout bags to hold 9. Page 3. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. France. eutrophication per bag was calculated in grams of phosphate equivalent per liter of groceries packed. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 51 Ecobilan.

2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.56 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3. weighs 44 grams. Paper. The County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon eutrophication are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to plastic and paper carryout bag manufacturing. February 2004.45 17. February 2004.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. France. Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data). Neuilly-sur-Seine. Ecobilan. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.79 15. Inc.TABLE 3.64 12. which could further reduce eutrophication impacts.4-2. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20. Therefore.4. and Biodegradable Material.87 2. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Report prepared for: Carrefour Group. Paper.24 Eutrophication Sources Eutrophication due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Eutrophication due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total eutrophication due to carryout bag use 1. February 2004.4-15 56 55 . the Ecobilan Study evaluated the eutrophication impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2. NOTES: 1. and Biodegradable Material.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Neuilly-sur-Seine. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. when considered on a per-use basis.8 mils). Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.43 1.4 Hydrology. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and holds 37 liters of groceries. For example. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon eutrophication. However.4-1 EUTROPHICATION DUE TO USE OF PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Eutrophication (kilograms phosphate equivalent) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Eutrophication Conversion from Conversion from from Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use1 Carryout Bag Use1 0.48) = 6. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.55 The analysis concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on eutrophication than a plastic carryout bag.48 liters.92 14.4-2). Neuilly-sur-Seine. France. France. Ecobilan. Increased demand for reusable bags may also have the potential to indirectly increase eutrophication impacts from facilities that manufacture reusable bags. An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. and Biodegradable Material.836]. it illustrates the general concept of how the eutrophication impacts of reusable bag manufacturing are reduced with each time a bag is used.4. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.811 paper carryout bags per day.4. Page 3. Paper.21 1.000 x (14/20.69 SOURCE: Ecobilan.

February 2004.59 so the inclusion of biodegradable bags in the proposed ordinances would result in potentially positive impacts upon surface water quality with regard to eutrophication. Victoria. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.TABLE 3. such as Canada. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives.31 1.03 Eutrophication Sources Eutrophication due to reusable bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Eutrophication due to reusable bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total eutrophication due to carryout bag use 1.4-2 EUTROPHICATION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Eutrophication (kilograms phosphate equivalent) Eutrophication Eutrophication Due to Eutrophication Due to from Plastic Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Carryout Bags Used 3 Times Used 20 Times 0. Moorabbin. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company.58. Sapphos Environmental. Watt. and Biodegradable Material. 61 60 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.4-16 . Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. The proposed ordinances would also ban the issuance of biodegradable and compostable plastic carryout bags. Biodegradable bags have been noted to have worse impacts upon eutrophication than standard plastic carryout bags have.60 or from countries outside of the United States.4 Hydrology. there would be no impacts to water quality resulting from eutrophication during the manufacturing process. Inc.43 1. Florence. VIC. Australia. 2004. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and NOLAN-ITU.57.51 0. as well as standard plastic carryout bags.19 0. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. Therefore. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. February 2004. Australia. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. determining the level of significance of eutrophication impacts from bag manufacturing would be speculative due to the lack of an established baseline or significance threshold and further inapplicable given the fact that the manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear not be located within the County. KY. Paper. Neuilly-sur-Seine. CA.61 there would no expected impacts related to eutrophication to surface water quality in the watersheds of the County as a result of the proposed ordinances. Ecobilan.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.64 1. Inc. Stephanie. 58 57 Hyder Consulting.. Carol Trout.21 0. Page 3. Santa Monica. 5 February 2010. While a quantitative analysis for eutrophication has been undertaken as discussed above.4. and Biodegradable Material.20 0. 15 July 2009. Customer Service Department. Paper. 18 April 2007. Centre for Design at RMIT. France. 59 ExcelPlas Australia. indirect impacts to water quality from eutrophication due to a potential increase in the demand for paper carryout bag manufacturing would be expected to be below the level of significance. Since there appears to be no manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas.23 SOURCE: Ecobilan. Telephone communication with Ms.

the proposed ordinances are not anticipated to adversely impact the surface water quality of those water resources. the proposed ordinances would be expected to improve surface water quality by reducing the potential for plastic carryout bags to end up in surface waters. Malibu Creek Watershed.org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan. Bladensburg. Inc. piers. In addition. Available at: http://www. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. produce marine litter in coastal waters. pollutant discharges from bag manufacturing facilities have to comply with NPDES requirements and permits. any adverse impacts to water bodies from paper carryout bags or reusable bags would likely be limited to localized areas near to the source of the litter. Los Angeles. Therefore. paper carryout bags and reusable bags are less likely to be transported throughout the water system. January 2002. such as supermarkets. and Los Angeles River Watershed. MD.65 Consumer behavior creates land-based sources of litter in coastal and inland areas including beaches.Further. and storm water drains. December 2008. and reusable bags are not disposed of as rapidly as plastic carryout bags. Therefore. Within the open-space portions of the unincorporated territories of the County. and would not be considered to cause significant impacts on a regional scale within the County. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. May 2009.62 However. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. 62 Anacostia Watershed Society. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. A study performed for Washington. CA. 65 64 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. streams. such as the Lahontan Region. It is incorrect to assume that eutrophication resulting from the production and manufacture of paper carryout bags would be left unchecked and unregulated.4-17 66 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Los Angeles. Bureau of Sanitation. In fact. any indirect increase in pollutant discharge from manufacturing plants due to increased demand for paper carryout bags would be regulated and controlled by the local. where waste is then transported to local water resources. Watershed Protection Division. CA. City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.4 Hydrology. urbanized areas where plastic carryout bags are used most. Web site.htm Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. any adverse indirect impact upon water quality due to eutrophication would likely be offset by the positive impacts that the proposed ordinances would be expected to have upon water quality due to a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags in water bodies. Bureau of Sanitation. Page 3. and federal laws applicable to each manufacturing plant. High Trash-generation Areas and Control Measures. Anacostia Watershed Society. municipal landfills.Doc . However. paper carryout bags degrade faster when in contact with water. December 2008. Stormwater Program.lacitysan. MD.66 The proposed ordinances would be expected to reduce the amount of plastic carryout bag trash within land-based. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). Bladensburg. Watershed Protection Division. Such water resources carry pollutants such as plastic carryout bag trash and. showed that plastic bag trash accounted for 45 percent of the amount of trash collected in tributary streams and 20 percent of the amount of trash collected in rivers. 63 Anacostia Watershed Society. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. water quality is degraded due to nonpoint-source pollution.64 The surface water quality of many water resources within the watersheds of the County is degraded due to the high volume of trash generated by the County’s urbanized areas. rivers. the same study found that paper products were not found in the streams except in localized areas and were not present downstream. as they drain to the Pacific Ocean. District of Columbia. MD. impacts of the proposed ordinances upon surface water quality within the watershed of the County due to eutrophication would also be expected to be below the level of significance.63 Due to the fact that paper carryout bags and reusable bags are heavier than plastic carryout bags. Within the United States. regional. December 2008. Bladensburg.

the proposed ordinances would be expected to indirectly reduce the potential of harmful compounds to be discharged into groundwater supplies in the Lahontan and Los Angeles Basin Regions. and any indirect impacts related to increased demand for paper carryout bag manufacturing—though it appears no paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities are located in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas—would be controlled by the USEPA and the RWQCBs under the federal CWA. Los Angeles. 68 City of Los Angeles. et al. Page 3. Inc. Telephone correspondence with Stephanie Watt. these potential beneficial impacts are likely to may be minimal. However. Sapphos Environmental. Therefore.Doc . Los Angeles Region. 2047–2062. 27 July 2007. dimethyl phthalate. CA. Implementation of the proposed ordinances would be expected to incrementally improve the use of the County’s watersheds for specified beneficial uses. Plastic carryout bags are nonbiodegradable materials in the marine environment and are a source of litter in water resources.70 Similarly. Because the Los Angeles Region RWQCB has set TMDLs for trash in Malibu Creek. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Plastics may also contain plasticizers. Los Angeles River. 69 Oehlmann. Pasadena. Los Angeles.. butyl benzyl phthalate and bisphenol A (BPA). diethylhexyl phthalate. “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. any potential adverse impacts due to the discharge of pollutants from paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities are anticipated to be below the level of significance. Dominguez Channel. a ban on plastic carryout bags would enhance efforts to meet these TMDLs by reducing or removing a significant source of trash from storm water drains. CA. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and other applicable federal. Santa Clara River (upstream). Legg lake.4 Hydrology. which are identified and known to be pollutants and hazardous to human and animal life. Groundwater The proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality in relation to groundwater. Characterization of Urban Litter. CA. in the marine environment and in inland water bodies impairs the use of such waters for the beneficial uses specified in the relevant watershed management plans. and other commercial sites. and Ballona Creek and wetlands (see Order No. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Since the majority of 67 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. if plastic carryout bag manufacturing occurs in these areas. depending on the number of manufacturing facilities that supply plastic carryout bags to the County that are actually located inside the County. the impacts of the proposed ordinances to hydrology and water quality related to surface water quality or waste discharge would be expected to be below the level of significance.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364. industrial sites. Inc. and/or local regulations.department stores. plastic bags accounted for 25 percent of the trash removed from storm drain catch basins during the Los Angeles River Clean up Event. including dibutyl phthalate. CAS004001 as amended).68 The current presence of litter. including plastic carryout bags. The proposed ordinances would not be expected to have any direct adverse impacts on water quality due to eutrophication. 2009. The proposed ordinances would assist in improving water quality to meet existing water quality regulations set for the surface waters beneficial uses of the Los Angeles Basin Plan and the Lahontan Basin Plan. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.69 Because industrial activities related to the manufacture of plastic carryout bags have the potential to cause significant impacts on the environment if unmitigated or if regulations are not followed (for example. 70 Uline. state.4-18 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 18 June 2004. and that are not located in other states or countries. 15 July 2009.67 As noted previously. 01-182 NPDES Permit No. Jörg. underground and aboveground storage tank leaks and industrial chemical spills can cause discharges to ground water and pollution of groundwater supplies).

Customer Service Department. Washington. As research indicates. the impact of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to increase the risk and hazard to individuals residing within areas that lie in the vicinity of coastal waters of being subject to a seiche or tsunami. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association. Inc.paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California.71 or from countries outside of the United States. 71 Watt. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality related to groundwater. and mudflows. Santa Monica. and other coastal areas. Sapphos Environmental. and Mudflows The proposed ordinances are anticipated to affect areas that are located near the Pacific Ocean and. Ontario.4 Hydrology. Tsunamis. Seiche. but any indirect impacts related to increased demand for manufacturing of paper carryout bags or reusable bags would be controlled by the USEPA and the RWQCBs under the federal CWA and other applicable federal. and settleable materials in surface water and watersheds of the County. KY. Inc. However. Although some areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinances are located within a 100-year Flood Zone area. As such. tsunamis. would not be expected to cause a significant adverse impact to hydrology and water quality. 72 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 15 July 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. such as Canada72 there would be no anticipated manufacturing-related impacts to groundwater within the County. drainage. and groundwater by reducing the amount of trash. Stephanie. Inc. Telephone communication with Ms. and drainage patterns would not be affected upon implementation of the proposed ordinances. present. Because the proposed ordinances do not require the construction of new structures. or reasonably foreseeable. and Forest Product Association of Canada.4-19 . when considered with the related past. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the proposed ordinances would be expected to improve the quality of surface water.. Carol Trout. 5 February 2010. implementation of the proposed ordinances would not have the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to hydrology and water quality in relation to seiche. Florence. Santa Monica. Therefore. San Pedro Harbor. and/or local regulations. floating materials. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality related to the 100-year Flood Zone. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. Therefore. CA. implementation of the proposed ordinances would not require the construction of new development and would not result in an increase in population. Page 3. Therefore. probable future projects. the proposed ordinances do not require the construction of new development. Canada. DC. state. The discharge of pollutants locally and nationally is also regulated by the USEPA and the RWQCBs under the federal CWA. specifically the Malibu. they would not result in the creation of impervious surfaces that would potentially reduce ground water levels. The proposed ordinances would not have any direct adverse impacts due to eutrophication or contamination of groundwater. thus complying with existing plans that have set goals for improving the quality of surface water and watersheds. the existing areas that would be affected by the proposed ordinances are already at risk of seiche or tsunamis. would be subject to a seiche or tsunami. 100-year Flood Zone The proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality in relation to the 100-year Flood Zone.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. thus. Cumulative Impacts The incremental impact of the proposed ordinances.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.5 Mitigation Measures There would be no anticipated adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality as a result of implementation of the proposed ordinances. implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to cause an incremental adverse impact when considered with related past. 3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Page 3. or reasonably foreseeable. no mitigation is required. present. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.4 Hydrology. 3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact related to hydrology and water quality that would need to be reduced to below the level of significance.4. Inc. Therefore.4-20 .Therefore.4. probable future projects.

which became effective on July 1. John Johnston.5-1 . 3. and solid waste disposal. The potential for impacts to utilities and service systems has been analyzed in accordance with the methodologies and information provided by the County of Los Angeles General Plan. Los Angeles. Web site. MD. Available at: http://www. the County has decided to present the analysis of these issues in this EIR. CA: California Department of Transportation. Los Angeles.2 the California RWQCB Basin Plan for the Los Angeles Region. and local statutes and policies that relate to utilities and service systems and that must be considered by the decision makers when rendering decisions on projects that would have the potential to result in impacts to utilities and service systems. CA. and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. November 1980.3. which may lead to increased water consumption.3 as well as data studies including the Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. 2001. Characterization of Urban Litter. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. Suzanne. and cumulative).lacsd. indirect.1 Regulatory Framework This regulatory framework identifies the relevant federal. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division.asp Combs. energy consumption. David Marx. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study.000 square feet that include a licensed pharmacy and to supermarkets (grocery stores with gross annual sales of $2 Sapphos Environmental. Pasadena.csus. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Inc. 18 June 2004. State.1 Certain plastic bag industry representatives have claimed that banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags could potentially result in the increased manufacture of paper carryout bags. Inc.4 2004 Los Angeles Waste Characterization Study. The statute states that affected stores must supply at least one plastic bag collection bin in a publicly accessible spot to collect used bags for recycling. 2007. CA. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020. AB 2449 applies to retail stores of over 10. mitigation measures. The store operator must also make reusable bags available to shoppers for purchase. 3 4 1 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.5 Utilities.org/default. The analysis of utilities and service systems consists of a summary of the regulatory framework to be considered in the decision-making process and a description of the existing conditions for relevant utilities and service systems in the County. Sacramento.owp. Statutes of 2006). California enacted AB 2449 (Chapter 845.5 the Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan.6 and a review of public comments received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. it was identified that the proposed ordinances may have the potential to result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems.5. County of Los Angeles General Plan. thresholds for determining if the proposed ordinances would result in significant impacts. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and level of significance after mitigation.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Department of Regional Planning. Department of Public Works. anticipated impacts (direct. Available at: http://www. 1 December 2009. 2 County of Los Angeles. State Assembly Bill 2449 In 2006. December 2008. 5 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Bladensburg. and Kimberly Walter. Therefore. 6 Anacostia Watershed Society. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. CA. Gary Lippner.pdf City of Los Angeles.5 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS As a result of the Initial Study. Page 3.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 also declares that the lack of adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials that are compatible with surrounding land uses is a significant impediment to diverting solid waste and constitutes an urgent need for State and local agencies to address access to solid waste for source reduction. Page 3. through source reduction.7 This document sets forth County policy on these systems by identifying a series of four broad objectives and 25 supporting policies. CA. water conservation. or recycle plastic carryout bags. County of Los Angeles General Plan.Doc . (2) Impose a plastic carryout bag fee upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. or perishable goods). The Water and Waste Management element of the County General Plan includes four goals relevant to the evaluation of the proposed ordinances: 7 County of Los Angeles. recycling. regulation. commercial. California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each local city and county governing body to divert 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1. 2000. and solid waste disposal. or enforce an ordinance. AB 2449 also restricts the ability of cities (including charter cities) and counties to regulate single-use plastic grocery bags through imposition of a fee on an entity that is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of AB 2449. implement. unless extended. Los Angeles. Inc. sewage. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. There are no other California statutes that directly focus on grocery bags. Stores are required to maintain records of their AB 2449 compliance and make them available to the CIWMB or local jurisdiction.5 Utilities. recycling. upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. water reclamation. and composting activities. nonfood items.5-2 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Department of Regional Planning. or other public agency shall not adopt. AB 2449 expires under its own terms on January 1. resolution. or rule to do any of the following: (1) Require a store that is in compliance with this chapter to collect. transport. (3) Require auditing or reporting requirements that are in addition to what is required by subdivision (d) of Section 42252. and composting activities.million or more that sell dry groceries. Public Resources Code Section 42254(b) stipulates the following: (b) Unless expressly authorized by this chapter. Regional County of Los Angeles General Plan The Water and Waste Management element of the County General Plan describes existing systems in the County that provide water supply and distribution. November 1980. county. 2013. and required the participation of the residential. flood protection. a city. industrial. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and public sectors. canned goods.

waste reduction mandates. The Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan Executive Summary presents the Countywide goals and objectives for integrated solid waste management. promoting source reduction to reduce dependence on sanitary landfills. 2000 Annual Report on the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element. describes the County’s approach to dealing with a broad range of solid waste issues. and describes the County’s system of governmental solid waste management infrastructure and the current system of solid waste management in the incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of the County. including processing capacity. To develop improved systems of resource use. County of Los Angeles. markets for recovered materials. Department of Public Works. The recommendations of the Task Force focus on improving the quality of programs. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. 9 County of Los Angeles. and reuse. Alhambra.5 Utilities. recovery. CA. the accuracy of the State Disposal Reporting System. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan. This document also includes the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force recommendations that can be implemented at the State and local levels to improve the current waste management system. 8 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 2001. Inc.5-3 . allocation of “orphan” waste (waste that comes from an unknown origin). Executive Summary. To maintain the high quality of our coastal. if any. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires that State and local governments share the responsibility for managing solid waste. City General Plans Any incorporated cities in the County that adopt individual ordinances will need to determine if they comply with the adopted utility and waste management policies set forth in the respective city general plans. CA. The State of California has directed the County to prepare and implement a local integrated waste management plan in accordance with AB 939. Department of Public Works. and avoiding or mitigating threats to pollution of the ocean. drainage ways.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. 2000 Annual Report on the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element. waste disposed at Class I and Class II disposal facilities. and the CIWMB enforcement policy.Goal 1: Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: To mitigate hazards and avoid adverse impacts in providing water and waste services and to protect the health and safety all residents. Policies in support of these goals include improving coordination among operating agencies of all water and waste management systems. This document also summarizes the types of programs planned for individual jurisdictions and describes Countywide programs that could be consolidated. Alhambra. 1997. rather than relying on quantity measurements in complying with the State’s waste reduction mandates. surface.8 The Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan. and ground waters. lakes. To provide efficient water and waste management services.9 The proposed ordinances would be subject to the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Page 3. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan. and groundwater reserves.

asp 12 11 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.7 million people in Los Angeles County. “Wastewater Facilities.5-4 . 200 million gallons per day (MGD) of which are available for reuse. as well as on-site and private wastewater treatment facilities.” Web site.asp 13 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. which treat approximately 510 million gallons per day. The County Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit requires permittees to develop and implement programs for storm water management within the County.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities.” Web site.5 Utilities.asp Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.lacsd.” Web site. Available at: http://www. the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant is the largest of the water reclamation plants.lacsd. and is completely separate from the sewer system. or disposal of any storm water and/or runoff to the storm drain system and/or receiving waters within any unincorporated area covered by the NPDES municipal storm water permit.lacsd. which serve as the neighborhood entry point to the passage into the ocean. the SWMPs would not apply to the proposed ordinances.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. with a capacity of 100 MGD.500 miles of underground pipes and open channels designed to prevent flooding.2 MGD (La Cañada Water Reclamation Plant) to 400 MGD (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant).12 The service area covers approximately 820 square miles and encompasses 78 cities and unincorporated territories within the County. deposit. Available at: http://www. into the gutter.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. Runoff drains from the street. 10 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Accessed on: 8 March 2010.2 Existing Conditions Wastewater Treatment The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate 10 water reclamation plants and one ocean discharge facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant). As the proposed ordinances would not be expected to directly or indirectly cause the construction of new development. called catch basins. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. “Wastewater Facilities. Available at: http://www. after the 5-millimeter screens on the catch basins. Available at: http://www. “Wastewater Facilities.asp Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Inc. The storm drain system receives no treatment or filtering process. The County has adopted SWMPs requiring new development to meet NPDES requirements through best management practices.lacsd. 3.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities.11 The Sanitation Districts function on a regional scale and consist of 23 independent special districts serving about 5.13 The remainder of the County is served by other wastewater treatment plants that are operated by individual cities. “Wastewater Facilities. and enters the system through openings in curbs.” Web site.Municipal Code The County Storm Water Ordinance addresses provisions that apply to the discharge.10 The capacities at these facilities range from 0. Page 3. Storm Drain System The storm drain system supporting the unincorporated territory of the County and the incorporated cities consists of a vast network of 1.5.

CA. Page 3. Los Angeles. If catch basins are clogged. City of Los Angeles. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. and other resource-management programs. 14 15 County of Los Angeles. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. 27 July 2007. California Regional Water Quality Control Board.700 priority catch basins that fill faster and have to be cleaned out more frequently. and helps its members develop increased water conservation. John Johnston. CA. 20 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. and Malibu Creek watershed (Figure 3. organic matter can begin to rot and serve as a breeding ground for bacteria. 2007. 19 18 California Regional Water Quality Control Board.html Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.5 Utilities.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020. CA. Gary Lippner. Los Angeles Region. CA: California Department of Transportation. Los Angeles.5-5 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. CA.2-1 and Figure 3. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. which collected trash from 30 catch basins in the Los Angeles River. Ballona Creek watershed.16 The LACDPW contracts out the cleaning of all the catch basins in the County for a total cost of slightly over $1 million per year. Department of Public Works. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1. Inc.17. Available at: http://www. 2008. Sacramento. As such.mwdh2o.000 catch basins that collect runoff throughout the six major watersheds within the RWQCB Los Angeles Region of the County: Dominguez Channel watershed. and the Central Basin Municipal Water District currently provides over 50 million gallons of water per day to its service area. Los Angeles. Los Angeles Region. During the Great Los Angeles River Clean Up. 16 Combs. and the Central Basin Municipal Water District.20 This is equivalent to approximately 1.4. 27 July 2007. recycling. storage.There are more than 80.csus. Los Angeles Region.pdf 17 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division.Doc .19 Water Supply The proposed ordinances are intended for implementation in the unincorporated territories of the County and adoption by the 88 incorporated cities within the County.7 billion gallons of water per day to its service area. Los Angeles.751. Characterization of Urban Litter. In addition. to June 30.4. 27 July 2007. 2008.owp. Los Angeles. Available at: http://www. which supplies water to a region extending across 24 cities and unincorporated parts of the County. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study.2-2).com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08. Los Angeles River watershed. 18 June 2004.118 acre-feet of water in the 2007/2008 fiscal year. billed to 42 municipalities. except for 1. Each catch basin is cleaned once a year before the rainy season. David Marx. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies.563 MGD. it can cause infestations of bugs and rodents and can harbor parasites. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California currently provides an average of 1. 2007–2009 Biennial Report. San Gabriel River watershed.18 The cost of installing catch basin inserts to improve the ability of the catch basins to prevent trash from entering the waterways in order to comply with adopted trash TMDLs is about $800 per insert. plastic bags constituted 25 percent by weight and 19 percent by volume of the trash collected. Suzanne. CA. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. 2001. and Kimberly Walter. According to the Annual Report for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.14 Catch basins and storm drains offer a safe and efficient means of transporting runoff water to the ocean. the member agencies of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California located within the County used 1. the subject areas are served by water supply districts such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. a cooperative of 26 cities and water agencies serving 19 million people in six counties including the County of Los Angeles.15 Results of a Caltrans study of catch basins alongside freeways in Los Angeles indicated that plastic film constituted 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the total trash collected. Santa Clara watershed.

100 945 112 827 3.Solid Waste The County disposed of a total of 8.91 million tons of waste to out-of-County landfills. 2010.386 Not available County of Los Angeles.153 768 8 7. Class III Landfill Capacity). 2010. Department of Public Works. Department of Public Works.660 82. 2008) (Million Tons) 7.4 million tons (Table 3.980 Landfill Location (City or Unincorporated Area) Estimated Remaining Lifespan (Years) 2 (Facility I) 29 (Facility II) Not available Not available 5 37 18 6 Not available Not available 22 Antelope Valley Palmdale Burbank Calabasas Chiquita Canyon Lancaster Pebbly Beach Puente Hills San Clemente Scholl Canyon Sunshine Canyon City / County Whittier (Savage Canyon) Burbank Unincorporated area Unincorporated area Unincorporated area Unincorporated area Unincorporated area Unincorporated area Glendale Los Angeles / unincorporated area Whittier Total NOTE: SWFP = Solid Waste Facility Permit 350 43.700 49 13.085 Estimated Remaining Permitted Capacity (as of December 31.2-1 CLASS III LANDFILL CAPACITY 1st Quarter 12/31/2007 2009 Daily SWFP Average Maximum In-County Daily Capacity Disposal (Tons (Tons) Per Day) 3.200 tons per day.5. Department of Public Works. which is equivalent to approximately 24.746 3.200 240 3.000 tons per day.22 The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate solid waste collection facilities that serve the areas intended to adopt the proposed ordinances.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Report 13. Monthly Solid Waste Disposal Quantity Summary by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. the County also disposed an additional 1. 2008.749 309 21. with the Bradley Landfill already having exhausted its capacity and reached its closure date. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. TABLE 3. Inc. October 2009. the remaining permitted capacity of landfills in the County is 154.76 million tons of waste in County landfills in 2008.400 12. Page 3.011 13.151 154. March 30.5.23 The projected remaining life of the Class III landfills within Los Angeles County is between 2 years and 37 years. As of December 31.000 1.5 Utilities.051 4. 2008 Annual Report for the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element of the County of Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.500 6.5-6 .620 0.058 21.324 0.996 1 847 6.000 7. Report 34.200 10 3.21 In 2008. 23 County of Los Angeles.040 5. Waste Disposal Summary Reports by Quarter by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. March 30. which is equivalent to approximately 5. 21 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 22 County of Los Angeles.796 8.2-1.

would the proposed ordinances have the potential for one or more of seven potential effects: x x x x x 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. Page 3. according to a life cycle assessment (LCA) performed by Ecobilan.5.5-7 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. but to different extents. and would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.php Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 liters of groceries. Available at: https://www. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. The manufacturing processes of both plastic carryout bags and carryout paper carryout bags generate wastewater. For example.5. 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.4 Impact Analysis Wastewater Treatment The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems in relation to wastewater treatment. Company Web site.3. State.3 Significance Thresholds The potential for the proposed ordinances to result in impacts related to utilities and service systems was analyzed in relation to the questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Lack sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or will require new or expanded entitlements Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the proposed ordinances that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the proposed ordinances’ projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments Is not served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed ordinances’ solid waste disposal needs Does not comply with federal.5 Utilities.ecobilan.com/uk_who.Doc . During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the EIR for the proposed ordinances. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry expressed concerns that the proposed ordinances might have an indirect impact upon wastewater due to a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags. The proposed ordinances would not be expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Region RWQCB. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Inc. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste x x 3.24 50 liters of wastewater are generated to produce enough plastic carryout bags to hold 9. which is a typical 24 Ecobilan. would not be expected to result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. a department of PricewaterhouseCoopers that provides analysis of the environmental performance of products and services. namely.

Sacramento. it was determined that approximately 10.5-8 . Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. CA. and Biodegradable Material. and thermally polluted water. 25 Ecobilan. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. 29 April 2010.000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day. In order to better apply the Ecobilan data to bag usage in the County. Department of Public Works. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential. Paper. plastic. February 2004. and Biodegradable Material. was critically reviewed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). A daily average per store was then calculated at 10. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 130. France.25. 30 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and reusable bags. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.000 liters of groceries.000 bags per day. February 2004.26 In contrast.700 stores statewide affected by AB 2449 reported an average of 4. 26 Total wastewater generated was assumed to be the sum of unspecified water. the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed County ordinance. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns. 28 Based on coordination between the County Department of Public Works and several large supermarket chains in the County. 29 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.5 Utilities.31 While 10. In 2008. 4.volume of groceries purchased annually in France per customer. The results of the Ecobilan Study were used as one of the methods to analyze the potential generation of wastewater due to a conservative worst-case scenario of an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion of plastic to paper carryout bag use. 27 Ecobilan. analyzes the impacts of paper.30 to estimate the current water consumption due to plastic carryout bags and the projected water consumption that would be anticipated given an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Appendix C). contains relatively sophisticated modeling and data processing techniques. only 2 percent of customers used reusable bags in stores that did make plastic carryout bags readily available (Appendix A). As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program.984 bags per day. considers a wide range of environmental indicators. for the purposes of this EIR. 31 Dona Sturgess.28.000 square feet or higher. County of Los Angeles.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may not accurately reflect the actual number of bags consumed per day on average per store in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas. and contains detailed data for individual potential environmental impacts. 18 percent of customers used reusable bags in stores that did not make plastic carryout bags readily available. it is reasonable to estimate that a ban on plastic carryout bags would increase the amount of reusable bags used by customers by at least 15 percent. water consumption per bag was calculated in gallons of water per liter of groceries and then multiplied by the estimated number of plastic carryout bags currently used in the unincorporated territory of the County. as it is more than twice the bag average reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in 2008 for AB 2449 affected stores.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Therefore. CA.29. however. Page 3. as well as in the 88 incorporated cities. The Ecobilan LCA was considered above the other studies reviewed during preparation of this EIR because it is relatively recent. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Inc. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Paper.7 liters of wastewater are generated to produce enough paper carryout bags to hold 9. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122.695 bags used per store per day. France. It is important to note that this number is likely very high. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.27 Based on a survey of bag usage in the County. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data. Alhambra.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. chemically polluted water.

An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5.” Web site. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.5. and Appendix C).5.000 plastic carryout bags per day.asp Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.Using the Ecobilan results.15 0.01 0. Page 3.5 Utilities. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20.13 0. February 2004.5. and up to an additional 0.13 MGD due to paper carryout bag use throughout the entire County. This is less than 0. would not be considered a significant increase in wastewater.811 paper carryout bags per day. Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. it was determined that the potential for an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in wastewater of approximately 0.lacsd. France.12 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3.836].02 0.12 0.48) = 6. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County treat approximately 510 MGD. Paper. Accessed on: 8 March 2010.15 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3.03 percent of the current amount of wastewater treated per day. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities.5-9 . or less than 0.4-1 WASTEWATER GENERATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Wastewater Generation (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Conversion from Conversion from Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. Inc.4-1.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.18 SOURCE: Ecobilan.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Neuilly-sur-Seine. this would result in an increase in wastewater of 0. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.02 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. NOTES: 1.32 Therefore.48 liters.000 x (14/20. and up to an additional 0. and Biodegradable Material. It is also important to note that the manufacturing facilities that produce paper carryout for stores in the County appear not to be located within the County. Even assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic to paper carryout bags.09 0. The majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of 32 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Available at: http://www.02 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.4-1 and Appendix C). “Wastewater Facilities.11 0.02 Wastewater Sources Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Wastewater Generation Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic Carryout Bag Use 0. TABLE 3.04 percent of the total wastewater treated per day in the County. an additional 0.

Neuilly-sur-Seine.5. and Appendix C). Although the manufacture of reusable bags also will also produce wastewater. 35 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. weighs 44 grams. Wastewater Generation Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the wastewater impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.8 mils). as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. it is expected that the amount of wastewater generated will be lower than the amount of wastewater generated by the manufacture of plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis.34 Therefore. France. 33 Watt. Paper. the amount of wastewater generated would not be significant when compared to the total wastewater treated daily in the County. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon wastewater generation. Paper.5-10 . CA.36 Therefore. As banning the issuance of plastic bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. Stephanie. and Biodegradable Material. the wastewater generated by paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities may be treated in other jurisdictions outside of the County or outside of California. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Appendix C). even the worst-case assumptions as presented here would yield an increase in wastewater of only 0. For example. Santa Monica.California. Telephone communication with Ms.. 15 July 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. there would be no expected significant impacts related to wastewater generation as a result of converting from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags in the County. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. and would not place demands on the water reclamation plants in the County. February 2004.5 Utilities. Page 3.18 MGD at 100-percent conversion as an indirect result of implementation of the proposed ordinances throughout the entire County caused by paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities.33 or from countries outside of the United States. which would not be anticipated to necessitate construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. and Biodegradable Material. Ecobilan. which would further reduce wastewater impacts. KY. The impacts of reusable bags are reduced further when the bags are used additional times (Table 3. Therefore. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. such as Canada. the wastewater impacts are anticipated to be reduced. February 2004. Inc. France. Neuilly-sur-Seine. However.4-2. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Also. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Carol Trout. 2010. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. it illustrates the general concept of how wastewater impacts of reusable bag manufacturing are reduced the more times a bag is used.5. due to the fact that reusable bags are designed to be reused multiple times. 34 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. February 5.4-2. Customer Service Department. But even when assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags as presented in the analysis above. Inc.13 MGD at 85-percent conversion and 0. and holds 37 liters of groceries. Sapphos Environmental.35 The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on wastewater than a plastic carryout bag. 36 Ecobilan. Florence.

edu/research/papers/papers/PP020. John Johnston. Sacramento.37 The proposed ordinances intend to ban plastic carryout bags issued by certain stores in the unincorporated territory and incorporated cities of the County.38 Results of a Caltrans study of catch basins alongside freeways in Los Angeles indicated that plastic film was 7 percent by mass and 12 percent by volume of the total trash collected. including plastic carryout bags. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. the number of plastic carryout bags introduced into the litter stream.00 Wastewater Sources Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Wastewater Generation 0. respectively.01 0. an assessment of the litter content of storm drain catch basins estimated the weight and volume of plastic bag litter to be 25 percent and 19 percent. Inc. thus reducing the number of plastic carryout bags used per household and. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. consequently. and Biodegradable Material. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. 18 June 2004.09 0. Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff: Funding Requirements and Applications to Developing TMDL Implementation Plans.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.01 0. Characterization of Urban Litter.10 0. 38 City of Los Angeles. collect in catch basins and storm drains. streets. February 2004. or exceedance of the projected capacity of wastewater treatment providers. Gary Lippner. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. expansion or construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Suzanne.TABLE 3. Storm Drain System The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to the need for new or expanded storm water drainage systems. Urban runoff pollutants and litter. Page 3. of the trash collected.csus. CA: California Department of Transportation. and Kimberly Walter.5-11 . The network of storm drains in the County carries urban runoff from rooftops. 2001. where they adversely affect water quality.11 0. David Marx. or are carried to the ocean.01 0.39 The anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bag use that would result from implementation of the proposed ordinances would reduce the amount of disposal and potential littering of plastic carryout 37 City of Los Angeles. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant impacts to utilities related to wastewater treatment requirements.01 SOURCE: Ecobilan.5 Utilities. Paper. Therefore.owp. 39 Combs. CA. Neuilly-sur-Seine.09 0.5. and other impervious surfaces. France.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Available at: http://www. During the Great Los Angeles River Clean Up. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.4-2 WASTEWATER GENERATION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Wastewater Generation (MGD) Increased Wastewater Increased Wastewater Wastewater Generation Due to Generation Due to Generation from Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Plastic Carryout Reusable Bags Are Reusable Bags Are Bag Use Used 3 Times Used 20 Times 0. parking lots. Adopted April 2009.

Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Biodegradable Plastic. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan Prepared For: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Rochester.5. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to storm drain systems as related to new storm drain facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. showed that plastic bag trash accounted for 45 percent of the amount of trash collected in tributary streams and 20 percent of the amount of trash collected in rivers. Therefore. 2008. the impacts are less than significant. CA.bags. 2008. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.5-12 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.mwdh2o. 42 40 Ecobilan.html Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the proposed ordinances would be expected to indirectly reduce operational impacts associated with maintenance of the storm drain system (e. Los Angeles. A study performed for Washington. to June 30. 2007. which would in turn reduce the contribution of plastic carryout bags to runoff and accumulation in storm drains. and Reusable Grocery Bags.18 MGD if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. Water Supply The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to sufficiency of water supply to the County.g.Doc .43.42.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the EIR for the proposed ordinances.5 Utilities. As such. including the Ecobilan Study. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. The water districts within Los Angeles County supplied approximately 1. Page 3. Available at: http://www. the estimated water Anacostia Watershed Society. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Paper. Several studies have shown that the production of paper carryout bags requires more water than does the production of plastic carryout bags. paper carryout bags are less likely to accumulate in the storm drain system. and the ULS Report. and Recycled. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 1 June 2007. concerns were raised by certain representatives of the plastic bag industry that the proposed ordinances could indirectly impact water supply due a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan Prepared For: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. 41 Anacostia Watershed Society. The ULS Report. cleaning plastic carryout bag litter out of catch basin racks). and would not increase the potential need for storm drain system improvements. The proposed ordinances would not directly increase the demand for water within the County. 45 44 43 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.44 If the results of the Ecobilan LCA are used to analyze the potential consumption in a conservative worst-case scenario of 85-percent to 100-percent conversion of plastic to paper carryout bags.45 therefore.4-3.563 MGD in fiscal year 2007/2008. Recyclable Paper. France. reusable bags pose less of an issue for the storm drain system because they are not disposed of as frequently as plastic carryout bags because they are designed to be used multiple times and are not littered the way plastic carryout bags are.41 Due to the fact that paper carryout bags degrade when in contact with water.03 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. February 2004.40 However. Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Similarly. MI. 2007. and Appendix C). and up to an additional 0. December 2008. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1. the same study found that paper products were not found in the streams except in localized areas and were not present downstream.. District of Columbia. December 2008. the Boustead Study. The Ecobilan results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in required water supply due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0. Inc. However. Compostable.

4-3 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Conversion from Conversion from Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. Paper. and up to an additional 2. including the Boustead Study.4-3 and Appendix C).html Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. NOTES: 1. have also noted that paper carryout bag manufacturing requires more water consumption than plastic carryout bag manufacturing.01 percent of this total. Recyclable Paper.5 Utilities. France. The water districts within the County supplied approximately 1.03 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Water Consumption Water Consumption Due to Plastic Carryout Bags 0. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.Doc . 47 46 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.52 MGD if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County.811 paper carryout bags per day.03 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.836].23 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. the estimated water demands from the proposed ordinances would represent approximately 0.26 SOURCE: Ecobilan. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.03 0. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20.23 0. and up to an additional 0. Los Angeles.demands from the proposed ordinances would represent approximately 0. February 2004.5-13 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.47 The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in required water supply due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0.5. 2008. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Inc.mwdh2o.46 which represents approximately 0. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. Even assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1.5. Compostable. California. TABLE 3.02 percent of the water supply in the County.000 square feet or greater. and Biodegradable Material. and Recycled. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.10 0. to June 30.000 plastic carryout bags per day. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.000 x (14/20. 2008.48 liters. 2007.48 therefore.11 0. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.21 0.48) = 6. 2007. this would result in an increase in water consumption of 0. Available at: http://www.36 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.2 percent of this total.563 MGD in fiscal year 2007/2008.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Page 3.01 0. Biodegradable Plastic. An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Other studies.18 0.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08. 48 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.50 is considerably higher than the amount of water required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags based on Ecobilan data. The amount of water required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags according to the Boustead Study. which is conflictingly higher than the Ecobilan Study. 51 Green Cities California.2 percent of the water supply in the County.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. would not be anticipated to necessitate new or expanded entitlements for water.88 MGD from 85-percent conversion and 3. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. the impacts of the proposed ordinances to utilities related to water supplies would be expected to be below the level of significance. they became the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Counsel. Page 3. as water districts within the County currently provide enough water to cover any potential increase in water demand for paper carryout bag manufacturing. it is also important to note that the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that produce paper carryout bags for stores in the County appear not to be located within the County. Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. San Francisco.43 MGD for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.99 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County ((Table 3. this would result in an increase in water consumption of 0. Therefore. and the importance of understanding study boundaries. March 2010.49 which represents approximately 0. and Appendix C). Inc. Therefore.asp?CID=1106&DID=6983.5 Utilities.5-14 . Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.5.americanchemistry. Prepared by ICF International. the speculative nature of the LCA data analysis.43 MGD from 100-percent conversion according to the Boustead Study. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. In 2007.51 Again. and methodologies. the water supply required for paper carryout bag manufacturing may be supplied by other water districts outside of the County or outside of California.000 square feet or greater. CA. 50 49 The Progressive Bag Alliance was founded in 2005 and is a group of American plastic bag manufacturers who advocate recycling plastic shopping bags as an alternative to banning the bags. and up to an additional 2.from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. These apparently conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study. inputs. so impacts would not directly affect the water districts within the County. However. even in the conservative worst-case scenario as presented here. an indirect increase in water demand of approximately 2. which was prepared for the Progressive Bag Affiliates. Available at: http://www.4-4.com/s_plastics/doc. Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data.

48) = 6. the Ecobilan Study concluded that the life cycle of a particular type of reusable bag requires less water than a plastic carryout bag.5.811 paper carryout bags per day. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. it illustrates the general concept of how water supply impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. Paper.03 0. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.88 2.836]. there would be no significant impacts related to water consumption as a result of converting from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags in the County. Biodegradable Plastic. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. For example. and Biodegradable Material. An 85-prcent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. Recyclable Paper. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. But even when assuming the unlikely Ecobilan.52 The water demands of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. France. Therefore.53 As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. and Appendix C). which may further reduce water supply impacts. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.18 0.36 0.5-15 .5. Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.TABLE 3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.4-5 and Appendix C). Also. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.5. the water supply impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.43 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.000 x (14/20. 18 April 2007.5 Utilities.43 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Water Consumption Water Consumption Due to Plastic Carryout Bags 0.20 2.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.4-4 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Conversion from Conversion from Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in water savings equivalent to approximately 7 liters per household per year (which is equivalent to just under 2 gallons per household per year). the production of which would consume less water than the production of both paper and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. and Recycled. NOTES: 1. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. February 2004. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives. 53 52 Hyder Consulting.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Therefore. Compostable. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria.52 2. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon water supply. Inc.4-5.99 3. Page 3. Neuilly-sur-Seine. It is also important to note that the proposed ordinances would be expected to increase consumers’ use of reusable bags. 2007.

58.60 54 Ecobilan. Prepared for the Progressive Bag Affiliates. and the ULS Report. France. and Recycled. they are compostable (given the right conditions). 2007. Recyclable Paper. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.10 0. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Biodegradable Material.5 Utilities. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.10 0. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry raised several concerns during the scoping period for the Initial Study that the proposed ordinances might indirectly impact solid waste generation due to a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags. and they have higher rates of recycling 57. 1 June 2007. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Page 3. MI. and subsequent disposal of paper carryout bags would generate more solid waste than that of plastic carryout bags. France. Biodegradable Plastic. 56 55 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Rochester.5. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. use.56 Paper carryout bags are generally larger and heavier than plastic carryout bags. The ULS Report. Inc. including the Ecobilan Study. the Boustead Study. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 1990. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks.09 0.01 0.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. TABLE 3. However. Solid Waste The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to landfill capacity or related to solid waste regulations. Ltd. Compostable. February 2004. and Biodegradable Material.55. Several studies have shown that the production. paper carryout bags hold a larger volume of groceries than do plastic carryout bags. Prairie Village. In addition. KS. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.59.4-5 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Increase in Water Increase in Water Water Consumption Consumption Due to Consumption Due to from Plastic Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Carryout Bags Used 3 Times Used 20 Times 0.01 0.00 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Water Consumption 0..01 SOURCES: Ecobilan. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. 57 Franklin Associates. solid waste is generated during the manufacturing process of paper carryout bags. the amount of water required would not be significant when compared to the total daily water supply in the County. and Reusable Grocery Bags. which leads to the conclusion that they would take up more space in a landfill.54. Paper.01 0.5-16 .11 0. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Paper. February 2004.worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags as presented in the analysis above. However.

gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. whereas the recycling rate of paper bags and sacks was 36. the majority of solid waste generated during the life cycle of plastic and paper carryout bags is due to bag disposal rather than to manufacturing. Page 3.9 percent in 2007. According to the Ecobilan LCA. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Environmental Protection Agency.61 As such.4-6.56 tons.63 Similarly. February 2004. Available at: http://www. and wraps was 11. U.67 to 4.epa.8 percent in 2007. CA. and adjusting the data for current recycling rates and for the number of bags used by stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles.5 Utilities.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. November 2008.4-6 and Appendix C).62 Using the Ecobilan Study data for a scenario in which all bags go to landfills at the end of life. February 2004. Pasadena. DC. Compostable. Department of Public Works. the recycling rate of high-density polyethylene plastic bags.44 to approximately 27. France.00 tons. and Recycled. 60 Sapphos Environmental. DC. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Inc. Washington. and Biodegradable Material. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Data from Ecobilan and Adjusted for 2007 Recycling Rates.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Paper. it can be concluded that an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags in the unincorporated territories of the County would result in approximately 2. respectively. sacks. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.According to the USEPA. Paper. 2007. 59 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. respectively. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. and Appendix C). Washington. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Biodegradable Plastic. Neuilly-sur-Seine. the proposed ordinances would adhere to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 in promoting the use of paper and reusable bags and reducing the availability of plastic carryout bags. France.S. 58 Ecobilan. of additional waste deposited at landfills each day (Table 3.pdf 62 61 Ecobilan.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Environmental Protection Agency. Inc. of additional waste deposited at landfills each day (Table 3. 63 U. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Bag Usage Data Collection Study. 2010.S. Recyclable Paper. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags in the 88 incorporated cities of the County would result in approximately 18.5-17 . Neuilly-sur-Seine. Available at: http://www.5. November 2008. and Biodegradable Material.5.

000 plastic carryout bags per day. Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data).22 38. and Biodegradable Material.5. Based on first quarter 2009 daily average in-County disposal averages.48) = 6.386 million tons (Table 3. 2.05 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County. Neuilly-sur-Seine. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.epa. DC.749 tons per day Under a scenario of an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic to use of paper carryout bags.12 27. France. based on Ecobilan data. and the estimated remaining permitted capacity of the County landfills is 154. November 2008. Paper. Ecobilan.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.82 2.5 Utilities.S.04 18.4-6 SOLID WASTE GENERATION DUE TO DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA AND ADJUSTED FOR 2007 RECYCLING RATES Solid Waste Generation (Tons Per Day)1 Assuming 2007 USEPA recycling Rates2 Increase Due to Increase Due to Waste 85-percent 100-percent Generation Conversion from Conversion from Due to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 4.836 paper carryout bags per day [10. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.44 21.5-18 . An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. would be approximately 0.56 SOURCES: 1.4-7.00 Solid Waste Sources Solid waste due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Solid waste due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Solid Waste 33. Available at: http://www. impacts of the proposed ordinances upon utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the level of significance. Under the unlikely worst-case scenario of a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic to use of paper carryout bags. data indicates that the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of the proposed ordinances. Page 3. Inc. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.48 liters.TABLE 3.051 tons per day. would be approximately 0. Washington. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. based on Ecobilan data. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Environmental Protection Agency.811 paper carryout bags per day. The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20. The permitted daily maximum capacity of County landfills in total is 43. the amount of solid waste that would be generated throughout the County.pdf NOTES: 1.836]. U.07 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County. Therefore.5. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.56 31. the County landfills are not accepting anywhere near the daily maximum capacity.67 4. averaging only 21.000 x (14/20. February 2004.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the amount of solid waste that would be generated throughout the County. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.

Under the scenario of an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags.43 87.5 Utilities. based on Boustead data.4 percent of paper carryout bags are disposed of in landfills and 81. Finally. where paper bags can be recycled by homeowners conveniently.5. Biodegradable Plastic. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.51 94. and up to an additional 76. the amount of solid waste that would be generated throughout the County. The permitted daily maximum capacity of the County landfills in total is 43. There is nearly universal access to curbside recycling throughout the County. and Recycled.5. An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5.13 107. Other studies. Page 3. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6.5-19 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4-7. Therefore. would be approximately 0.78 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. and Appendix C).000 x (14/20.2 percent of plastic carryout bags are disposed of in landfills. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.08 13. including the Boustead Study. Additional public education and outreach would increase the number of bags recycled and consequently further reduce indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste.43 tons per day if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. although the impacts to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste would be expected to be below the level of significance.TABLE 3. Biodegradable Plastic.4-7 SOLID WASTE GENERATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Solid Waste Generation (Tons per day) Increase Due to Increase Due to Waste 85-percent 100-percent Generation Conversion from Conversion from Due to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 3.836 paper carryout bags per day [10.Doc .836].35 76. the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of the 64 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.65 Solid Waste Sources Solid waste due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Solid waste due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Solid Waste 23. the County is considering undertaking additional public outreach through a public education program that would aim to increase the percentage of paper carryout bags that are recycled within the County. Recyclable Paper.811 paper carryout bags per day.64 The Boustead Study assumes that 65. and Recycled.88 27. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Compostable. The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in solid waste due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 11. 2007.80 tons per day for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.5.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Inc.48) = 6. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Recyclable Paper. 2007. Compostable. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Data from Boustead. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10.46 11.749 tons per day (Table 3.20 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County. NOTES: 1. have noted that paper carryout bag disposal results in more solid waste generation than the disposal of plastic carryout bags.2-1).

February 2004. 68 Ecobilan. impacts of the proposed ordinances to utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the level of significance. due to the fact that reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. which together represent approximately 0. the speculative nature of the LCA data analysis. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. it could further reduce indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste. Further. Prepared by ICF International. The manufacturing process of reusable bags would also be expected to generate solid waste. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would decrease the total number of bags that are disposed of in landfills.65 The amount of solid waste generated for the life cycle of paper carryout bags according to the Boustead Study. weighs 44 grams. and the importance of understanding study boundaries. inputs. Inc. and Biodegradable Material. which was prepared for the Progressive Bag Affiliates. this would result in an increase in solid waste of 13.67 The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on solid waste than a plastic carryout bag. impacts of the proposed ordinances to utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the level of significance.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the apparently conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study. which are heavier and take up more volume than plastic carryout bags. France. However. averaging only 21.65 tons per day for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County and up to an additional 94. France. Page 3. Green Cities California. Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. if the County undertakes additional public outreach through a public education program that would aim to increase the percentage of paper carryout bags that are recycled within the County. San Francisco.8 mils).13 tons per day if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County. This is especially true given that the County landfills are not accepting anywhere near the daily maximum capacity. 67 66 65 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. March 2010. Finally. there would be no expected significant impacts related to solid waste as a result of converting from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags in the County.4-8 and Appendix C). as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. CA. Ecobilan.2-1). Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Appendix C). Paper.386 million tons (Table 3.66 However. and Biodegradable Material. Neuilly-sur-Seine.proposed ordinances. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. For example.25 percent of the total daily landfill capacity in the County. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. The proposed ordinances would also be anticipated to increase consumer use and eventual disposal of reusable bags. and methodologies. Therefore.000 square feet or greater. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the solid waste impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2.5. and holds 37 liters of groceries. resulting in a decrease in solid waste disposal in the County. Paper. the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of the proposed ordinances. is considerably higher than the amount of solid waste generated for the life cycle of paper carryout bags based on Ecobilan data.5-20 .5. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags.051 tons per day.5 Utilities. February 2004.5. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and the estimated remaining permitted capacity of the County landfills is 154. even under the unlikely worst-case scenario analyzed.68 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3.4-8. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.

18 -3. The proposed ordinances would not directly increase the demand for energy consumption within the County. But even when assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags as presented in the analysis above. and Reusable Grocery Bags. Rochester. As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. France.71 The results of the Ecobilan LCA were used to analyze the potential consumption in a conservative worst-case scenario of 85-percent to 100-percent conversion of plastic to paper carryout bags (Appendix C). Compostable. 2007. Page 3.5.70. February 2004. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. and Biodegradable Material.54 -32. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Inc. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and Biodegradable Material. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 70 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and The ULS Report. The Ecobilan results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in non69 Ecobilan. 1 June 2007. Recyclable Paper. the solid waste impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Neuilly-sur-Seine. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Energy Conservation The proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to energy conservation. which would further reduce solid waste impacts. Therefore. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the EIR for the proposed ordinances. Several studies have shown that the production of paper carryout bags requires more energy than does the production of plastic carryout bags. TABLE 3. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.23 SOURCES: Ecobilan.45 -4. MI.09 -3. However.4-8 SOLID WASTE DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Solid Waste (Tons per Day) Solid Waste Due to Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Used 3 Times Used 20 Times -0. France. Neuilly-sur-Seine.52 -37.Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. and Recycled. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable.5 Utilities.47 37. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Paper.5-21 . it illustrates the general concept of how solid waste impacts of reusable bag disposal are reduced the more times a bag is used.69. including the Ecobilan Study. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Biodegradable Plastic. the impacts of the proposed ordinances related to solid waste would be expected to be below the level of significance. February 2004. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.71 43. the amount of solid waste generated would not be significant when compared to the landfill capacity in the County. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry raised that the proposed ordinances could indirectly impact energy conservation due to a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags.72 Solid Waste Sources Solid waste due to reusable bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Solid waste due to reusable bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Solid Waste Solid Waste from Plastic Carryout Bags 5. 71 The ULS Report. Paper. Also. the Boustead Study.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.

836 paper carryout bags per day [10.ca.gov/elecbycounty. The estimated total electricity consumption in the County in 2007 was 68. Recyclable Paper. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. and Appendix C). 2007.4-9. have also noted that paper carryout bag manufacturing requires more energy consumption than plastic carryout bag manufacturing.5.02 million kWh if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3.08 0.48) = 6. An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6. February 2004. including the Boustead Study.120 million California Energy Commission. Other studies. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.5.” California Energy Consumption Data Management System.4-9. Page 3.02 0.08 -0. and Appendix C).836]. according to Ecobilan data (Table 3. Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data.48 liters. Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.72 therefore. Paper. and up to 0.73 The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in energy demand due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0.5-22 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Compostable. NOTES: The Ecobilan Study assumed that plastic carryout bags have a volume of 14 liters and paper carryout bags have a volume of 20. In fact.30 million kWh if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3.01 0.renewable energy due to an 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0. Inc.Doc . TABLE 3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Recycled.000 plastic carryout bags per day.19 million kWh for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. the indirect estimated electricity demands from the proposed ordinances would be negligible in comparison to the total energy demand of the nonresidential sector of the County.484 million kWh in the non-residential sector. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.811 paper carryout bags per day. with 47.4-9 NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Energy Consumption (million kWh) Increase Due to Increase Due to Energy 85-percent 100-percent Consumption Conversion from Conversion from Due to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.000 x (14/20.65 -0. Biodegradable Plastic. and Appendix C).02 SOURCE: Ecobilan.5 Utilities.aspx 73 72 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. “Electricity Consumption by County. Neuilly-sur-Seine.00 Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Energy Consumption 0. Accessed on: 4 May 2010.00 million kilowatts per hour (kWh) for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Biodegradable Material.4-10. France. the reasonable worst-case scenario of 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags would result in a slight decrease in non-renewable energy consumption. and up to an additional 1.57 0.07 -0.energy.5.5. Available at: http://ecdms. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. The estimated total electricity consumption in the County in 2007 was 68.120 million kWh.

which was funded by the Progressive Bag Affiliates. Available at: http://ecdms. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. and the importance of understanding study boundaries.75 which together represent approximately 0. implementation of the proposed ordinances would be expected to result in an increase in energy demand of 0.5 Utilities. and methodologies. “Electricity Consumption by County.004 percent of the non-residential electricity supply in the County.kWh. CA. even in the conservative worst-case scenario as presented here.484 million kWh in the non-residential sector. 76 Green Cities California. the energy supply required for paper carryout bag manufacturing may be supplied by other districts outside of the County or outside of California. the estimated electricity demands from the proposed ordinances would represent approximately 0. which paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities would be expected to require as an indirect result of the proposed ordinances. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. Inc. would be expected to be below the level of significance. Prepared by ICF International.000 square feet or greater. However.76 In addition. These apparently conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.gov/elecbycounty. during processes such as fuel extraction and bag manufacturing.65 million kWh if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 3. Accessed on: 4 May 2010. an increase in energy demand of approximately 1. it is also important to note that the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that produce paper carryout for stores in the County appear not to be located within the County.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.24 million kWh for the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. The majority of the energy use analyzed here occurs early in the life cycle of plastic and paper carryout bags. so impacts may not directly affect the County. California Energy Commission. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Page 3.74 therefore.89 million kWh from 100-percent conversion. with 47.5. and up to an additional 1.49 million kWh from 85-percent conversion and 1.4-10).” California Energy Consumption Data Management System.5-23 . Again. is considerably higher than the amount of energy required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags based on Ecobilan data. the speculative nature of the LCA data analysis. San Francisco. 74 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the Ecobilan data presented above was specifically for non-renewable energy. March 2010. rather than total energy.003 percent of the total energy use in the non-residential sector of the County. The amount of energy required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags according to the Boustead Study.aspx 75 Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. inputs. Therefore.ca.energy.

Biodegradable Plastic. Recyclable Paper. 18 April 2007.TABLE 3. Compostable. A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in energy savings of 190 mega joules per household.75 1.4-11.77 The energy demands of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3. the production of which would consume less energy than the production of both paper and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County1 Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County1 Total Energy Consumption SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.4-10 TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Energy Consumption (Million kWh) Increase Due to Increase Due to Energy 85-percent 100-percent Consumption Conversion from Conversion from Due to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.09 0.5-24 .4-11 and Appendix C).48) = 6. Paper. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and Appendix C).000 plastic carryout bags per day.19 0.5. February 2004.78 As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. 78 77 Hyder Consulting.5. which Ecobilan. NOTES: 1.683). a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon energy conservation. and Biodegradable Material.65 0. Therefore. Victoria.49 1. Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. the conservation impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Page 3.65 1. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. which is equivalent to powering a television for six months. Therefore. Australia.683 paper carryout bags per day (10. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. It was assumed that each store currently uses 10. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3.89 It is also important to note that the proposed ordinances would be expected to increase consumers’ use of reusable bags. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. Also. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.24 2007.811 paper carryout bags per day. it illustrates the general concept of how energy impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. so a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 6. An 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use would result in each store using 5. Neuilly-sur-Seine.000 x (14/20. there would be no significant impacts related to energy conservation as a result of converting from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags in the County.5. the Ecobilan Study concluded that the life cycle of a particular type of reusable bag requires less energy than a plastic carryout bag.30 1. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives. France. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Inc. and Recycled. 0. For example.5 Utilities.

5.5 Mitigation Measures As indicated by the documentation and analysis. implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to cause an incremental impact when considered with any related past. adoption of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to storm drain systems. But even when assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags as presented in the analysis above. Inc.08 Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags When Used 3 Times 0. when added to related past. Page 3. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.08 Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags When Used 20 Times 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\3. no mitigation is required. 3. there would be no expected significant impacts to utilities or service systems as a result of implementation of the proposed ordinances. solid waste.01 Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 67 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 462 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Energy Consumption 0. energy consumption. probable future projects would not be expected to result in cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems.5-25 . or reasonably foreseeable.4-11 NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Energy Consumption (Million kWh) Energy Consumption from Plastic Carryout Bags 0.57 0. Therefore. Based on existing capacities. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. or wastewater treatment.5.5. Paper. water supply. Therefore. the amount of electricity consumption would not be significant when compared to the total energy consumption in the County.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact related to utilities and service systems that would need to be reduced to below the level of significance.54 0. present. France. TABLE 3. Cumulative Impacts The incremental impact of the proposed ordinances. February 2004.61 0. 3.08 0.5 Utilities. or reasonably foreseeable.would further reduce energy conservation impacts. Neuilly-sur-Seine.65 0.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. present. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. probable future project.09 SOURCES: Ecobilan.

Convenience Stores. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. comments received during the scoping period. and comparison with the proposed ordinances The no-project analysis of what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed ordinances were not approved Pursuant to Section 15126. Inc.” Alternatives addressed in this EIR were derived from work undertaken by the County.SECTION 4.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives have been analyzed consistent with the recommendations of Section 15126. analysis. and technological factors. that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances but could potentially avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed ordinances. Pharmacies. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 3. The analysis of alternatives should be limited to those that the County determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances. Convenience Stores. if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative. five alternatives including the No Project Alternative were determined to represent a reasonable range: 1.0 Alternatives. The discussion of alternatives is intended to focus on four criteria: x x x x Alternatives to the proposed ordinances or their location that may be capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant effects that a project may have on the environment Alternatives capable of accomplishing most of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances and potentially avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects The provision of sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation. Page 4-1 . legal. 2. Pharmacies. social. 4. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 2. as well as from comments received in response to the NOP of the EIR and the comments provided by interested parties who attended the public scoping meetings. 5. environmental. Section 15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines feasibility as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time. or to the location of the proposed ordinances.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.0. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County The effectiveness of each of the alternatives to achieve the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances has been evaluated in relation to the statement of objectives described in Section 2. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 3. No Project Alternative Alternative 1. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative 4. and evaluation of the comparative merits of the alternatives. and the environmental analysis undertaken in the Draft EIR. As a result of the Initial Study.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES This section of the EIR describes alternatives to the proposed ordinances.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. which require evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed ordinances. taking into account economic. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the feasible action alternatives.

600 plastic carryout bags per household in 2007. certain members of the public suggested that the County should consider requiring stores to provide compostable or biodegradable carryout bags as an alternative to offering plastic or paper carryout bags.Project Description. Page 4-2 . clean-up. and reach at least 50. and Flood Control District’s costs for prevention. The proposed ordinances would meet all of the basic objectives established by the County (Table 4-1.0 Alternatives. TABLE 4-1 ABILITY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND ALTERNATIVES TO ATTAIN COUNTY OBJECTIVES Objective Conduct outreach to all 88 incorporated cities of the County to encourage adoption of comparable ordinances Reduce the Countywide consumption of plastic carryout bags from the estimated 1. to fewer than 800 plastic bags per household in 2013 Reduce the Countywide contribution of plastic carryout bags to litter that blights public spaces by 50 percent Reduce County’s. Ability of the Proposed Ordinances and Alternatives to Attain County Objectives).doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. of this EIR. the County has eliminated this alternative from further consideration due to the lack of commercial composting facilities in the County that would be needed to process compostable or biodegradable Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter in the County by $4 million Substantially increase awareness of the negative impacts of plastic carryout bags and the benefits of reusable bags. Although the No Project Alternative is not capable of meeting most of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances. it has been analyzed as required by CEQA. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.000 residents (5 percent of the population) with an environmental awareness message Reduce Countywide disposal of plastic carryout bags in landfills by 50 percent from 2007 annual amounts Proposed No Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Ordinances Project 1 3 4 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Cities’. However. Inc.

pdf County of Los Angeles.lacounty. Allowing the use of biodegradable plastic carryout bags without a separate collection system could cause an increase in 1 County of Los Angeles. In addition. Alhambra. Moorabbin VIC. Environmental Programs Division. unlike conventional plastic. Centre for Design at RMIT. persistent in the marine environment.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the environment into which the bags are released is unpredictable.Available at: http://www. compostable plastic requires environments only found in commercial composting facilities. Compostable Plastics. Page 4-3 .pdf ExcelPlas Australia. CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Separation and collection systems are required for the disposal of compostable plastic carryout bags to produce quality compost material and not contaminate the recycling stream. In addition. Contamination of the composting stream with non-compostable plastics may cause compost material to be toxic or unusable. and oxygen (not found in modern landfills) (Appendix B). the false sense of compostable plastic being environmentally friendly could cause consumers to become more careless with their plastic carryout bags and could lead to increased litter-related issues associated with plastic carryout bags. compostable. However. County of Los Angeles Biodegradable and Compostable Bags Fact Sheet).0 Alternatives. CA. Using compostable plastic carryout bags in Los Angeles County is not practical at this time. Many biodegradable plastics are made from very different polymers that look and feel similar to conventional carryout plastic carryout bags but would have very detrimental effects if mixed into the current recycling stream Appendix B.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.plastic carryout bags. Available at: http://dpw. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.4 Therefore. Available at: http://dpw. August 2007.1 Some. increasing solid waste impacts.gov/Publications/Plastics/2009001. “biodegradable” plastics are made of the same plastic polymers as conventional plastic carryout bags. Inc.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007. while other biodegradable plastics are made from very different polymers that look and feel similar to conventional plastic carryout bags (Appendix B. Therefore. August 2007. (2009). etc.ca. providing compostable and biodegradable plastic carryout bags as a replacement for conventional HDPE plastic carryout bags is an alternative that has been eliminated from further consideration. requiring it to be discarded (Appendix B). due to the lack of local commercial composting facilities willing to process such bags (Appendix B). which could result in more litter and pollution of marine and inland environments.calrecycle. since both types of plastic carryout bags have the same general characteristics of conventional plastic carryout bags (lightweight. so called. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.3 Current state law does not require grocery stores to supply different containers for recyclable.pdf. without a collection system and commercial composting facilities. 2004. Sacramento. Department of Public Works. the use of compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags would not achieve the County’s goal to reduce litter in the County and its potential harm to marine wildlife. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra.2 Contamination of the recycling stream could ultimately result in batches of recyclable plastic products or materials being sent to landfills.) (Appendix B). or biodegradable plastic carryout bags. moisture. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. CA. the presence of compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags in the recycling stream could jeopardize plastic recycling programs. as compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags cannot be recycled and constitute a contaminant if incorporated into plastic resins (Appendix B). AU. In addition. Department of Public Works. able to clog storm drain racks.lacounty. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. including a core temperature above 130°F / 54°C. Certain types of degradable plastic carryout bags are able to float and pose a risk of ingestion by fish and marine mammals. Environmental Programs Division. and NOLAN-ITU. 2 3 4 California Integrated Waste Management Board.

potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions would not increase in comparison with the proposed ordinances. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter in the County. However. the County would not pass an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags issued by certain stores in the unincorporated territories of the County. Page 4-4 . February 2004. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.2. 4. the No 5 Comparative Impacts Ecobilan.2. The No Project Alternative would not increase public awareness of the negative impacts of plastic carryout bags and the benefits of reusable bags. In addition. However. and. the No Project Alternative would not assist in reducing Countywide disposal of plastic carryout bags in landfills. in comparison with the proposed ordinances.3 Air Quality The No Project Alternative would not cause increased impacts to air quality in comparison with the proposed ordinances. The No Project Alternative would not facilitate encouragement of the 88 incorporated cities of the County to adopt ordinances to ban plastic carryout bags. would not result in a reduction of plastic carryout bag litter that blights public spaces and marine environments.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. to a lesser extent. France. and utilities and service systems would be exacerbated.2.1. impacts to biological resources. The No Project Alternative would not assist in reducing the Countywide consumption of plastic carryout bags.5 As with the proposed ordinances. The No Project Alternative has been analyzed in this EIR because detailed analysis on this alternative is required by CEQA.0 Alternatives.1.4-2). the No Project Alternative would not create any beneficial impacts to air quality in terms of reducing emissions of VOCs. CO. In addition. 4.2 Objectives and Feasibility The No Project Alternative would not accomplish any of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County (Table 4-1). and Biodegradable Material.1 4.2 4. hydrology and water quality. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. rather than be avoided or reduced. 4. a decrease in recycling and recycled material quality. clean-up. Cities’ and Flood Control District’s costs for prevention. PM. including those relating to litter. the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County.1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT No Project Alternative Alternative Components There are no components to the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative and as discussed in detail below. and would not encourage the adoption of comparable ordinances by the 88 incorporated cities within the County. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.1. Therefore. Paper. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.1. Neuilly-sur-Seine. distribution. and could introduce more harmful chemicals from plastic fragments into the environment and the food chain (Appendix B). and would not reduce the County’s. and disposal of paper carryout bags. SOx.2. Inc. as it would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. the No Project Alternative would not result in a potential indirect increase in NOx emissions due to an increase in the manufacture. because the No Project Alternative would not result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. caused by the manufacture of plastic carryout bags (Table 3.litter. which the proposed ordinances would be expected to do.

the No Project Alternative would not result in a potential indirect increase in GHG emissions resulting from an increase in the manufacture. Page 4-5 . the No Project Alternative would not cause a potential increase in delivery truck trips required to transport paper carryout bags to stores. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. federally protected wetlands.Project Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. and would continue to contribute to any existing degradation of major fishery nursery habitats at Marina del Rey. which has been shown to have potentially significant adverse impacts upon biological resources. due to the fact that the No Project Alternative would not result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. policy. It would also reduce impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions from potential increases in delivery trucks associated with the proposed ordinances. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Redondo Beach King Harbor. the No Project Alternative would not assist in reducing marine litter attributed to plastic carryout bag waste.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The No Project Alternative avoids potential beneficial impacts to biological resources that would be expected to result from implementation of the proposed ordinances. Unlike the proposed ordinances. and disposal of paper carryout bags. unlike the proposed ordinances. As with the proposed ordinances. the No Project Alternative would not have the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life and would not result in potentially beneficial impacts upon sensitive habitats. Therefore. or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. or species of special concern. or endangered species. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. distribution. would continue to contribute to any existing degradation of major coastal migratory corridors for marine mammals. and would conflict with County General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources. and would not conflict with any applicable plan. Unlike the proposed ordinances. the No Project Alternative would not create any benefits to GHG emissions in terms of reducing the GHG emissions caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags. even though those impacts are below the level of significance. and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The No Project Alternative would not increase impacts to GHG emissions in comparison with the proposed ordinances as it would not result in an increase in consumers’ use of paper carryout bags. the No Project Alternative would not directly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. rare. including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. rather than avoids or reduces.0 Alternatives. the No Project Alternative would not result in a significant reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags within the County. As with the proposed ordinances. However. or special status. would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. the No Project Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to air quality. impacts to biological resources. Inc. The No Project Alternative exacerbates. The No Project Alternative would perpetuate any existing adverse effect on up to 39 marine and avian species identified as candidate. Biological Resources Unlike the proposed ordinances. and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. threatened. sensitive. would continue to contribute to any existing degradation of riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore. would continue to contribute to any existing degradation of impacted roosting and foraging habitat on the Pacific Flyway.

distribution. the No Project Alternative would not result in potentially beneficial impacts on surface water drainage. Hydrology and Water Quality In comparison with the proposed ordinances. Unlike the proposed ordinances. injury or death involving flooding. and inland drainages in the Antelope Valley. As with the proposed ordinances. or mudflow. storm drain systems. However.delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. However. and would not cause inundation by seiche. and disposal of plastic carryout bags. As with the proposed ordinances. transport. the No Project Alternative would not 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. Unlike the proposed ordinances. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. tsunami.0 Alternatives. Page 4-6 . would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. due to the fact that the No Project Alternative would not result in significant reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. like the proposed ordinances. would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. the No Project Alternative would not cause a potential increase in delivery truck trips or related emissions of CO2. the No Project Alternative would not result in potential indirect increases in eutrophication caused by a potential increase in consumer use of paper carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the No Project Alternative would not result in any direct significant impacts to GHG emissions and would reduce indirect impacts related to CO2 emissions from potential increases in delivery trucks associated with the proposed ordinances. As with the proposed ordinances. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. or surface water quality in the County and would not assist the County in attaining TMDLs because the No Project Alternative would not result in a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags. The No Project Alternative would not reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality and would perpetuate existing violations of surface water quality associated with the contribution of plastic carryout bags to the litter stream. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc. the No Project Alternative may have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact due to indirect GHG emissions resulting from the production. Utilities and Service Systems The No Project Alternative would not increase impacts to utilities and service systems that would result from the implementation of the proposed ordinances as it would not result in an increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. However. the No Project Alternative would not exceed wastewater treatment Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the No Project Alternative would exacerbate impacts to hydrology and water quality as it would not result in significant reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. the No Project Alternative may also result in potential indirect impacts to surface water quality and drainage caused by the manufacture and disposal of plastic carryout bags. The No Project Alternative would not assist in achieving TMDL requirements and water quality standards or waste discharge requirements through the continued contribution of plastic carryout bags as litter to major surface water systems in the County drainage areas. the No Project Alternative would not create any potential benefits to utilities and service systems. the Pacific Ocean.

impacts to air quality.000 square feet or greater. Alternative 1 would also serve to reduce 6 As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program.requirements of the applicable regional water quality control board. would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Unlike the proposed ordinances. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.1 Alternative 1: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative Components Alternative 1 consists of extending the scope of the proposed ordinances to include a ban on both paper and plastic carryout bags in Los Angeles County. energy consumption. the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed County ordinance. As with the proposed ordinances. wastewater generation. would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. and would achieve additional benefits. and utilities and service systems.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. those within the County that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code.7 As with the proposed ordinances.2. 4. Alternative 1 would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to air quality. As with the proposed ordinances. and (2) are buildings that have over 10. the number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 1 in the unincorporated areas of the County is approximately 67. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.2. In addition.6 The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 1 in the incorporated cities of the County is approximately 462. state. Unlike the proposed ordinances. or avoided. GHG emissions. the No Project Alternative would not result in potential indirect increases in water use. hydrology and water quality. and utilities and service systems would be eliminated. reduced. the No Project Alternative would not lead to reduced operational impacts and costs associated with storm drain system maintenance.000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. biological resources. 4. Alternative 1 would accomplish all of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances required by the County. and solid waste generation caused by a potential increase in consumer use of paper carryout bags. but it would also not achieve the same benefits to utilities and service systems that would be expected with the proposed ordinances. would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. and encouraging the 88 incorporated cities to adopt similar ordinances. Section 14526.2.5. and would comply with federal. Alternative 1 would ban the issuance of paper and plastic carryout bags from the same stores addressed by the proposed ordinances. hydrology and water quality.2. that is.2 4. In that there would be no transition from plastic to paper carryout bags if both types of bags are banned. Page 4-7 . Inc. would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities.2 Objectives and Feasibility As shown in Table 4-1.0 Alternatives. would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supply. the No Project Alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. biological resources. 7 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.2.

to a lesser extent.1. Evans. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Prepared for Scottish Executive 2005. M. Alternative 1 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2002.10. J. these emissions are expected to be less than the emissions due to plastic carryout bags when calculated on a per-use basis (Table 3. distribution.4-6). Air Quality As with the proposed ordinances.2. the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced in comparison with the proposed ordinances which would not ban paper carryout bags.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Rochester. distribution. Australia. 1 June 2007. If the County were to expand the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial 8 Cadman. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Ltd.. unlike the proposed ordinances. the impacts to air quality caused by Alternative 1 would be expected to be below the level of significance.1. and Reusable Grocery Bags. Boyd. Inc.. 11 12 Marlet. Water. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags.8 It is anticipated that Alternative 1 would result in a significant decrease in the consumption of both paper and plastic carryout bags throughout the County. 2005. and VOCs. and Heritage: Canberra.4-3).2. would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. PM. as it would be even more effective than a fee on paper carryout bags as it would oblige consumers to use reusable bags in the affected stores. and Biodegradable Material. Alternative 1 would also create benefits to air quality in terms of reducing emissions of CO. and.Countywide consumption of paper carryout bags and the Countywide disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills. SOx caused by the life cycle of plastic carryout bags (Table 3. C.12 As banning the issuance of both plastic and paper carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.1.0 Alternatives. Page 4-8 . Therefore. The ULS Report. S.4-2). manufacture. September 2004. France.3 Comparative Impacts An assessment of the comparative impacts of plastic and paper carryout bags prepared for the Scottish Executive in order to analyze the impacts of a bag tax in Scotland. and litter. EuroCommerce. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. and disposal of paper carryout bags (Table 3. showed that imposing a fee on both plastic and paper carryout bags would be environmentally superior to placing a tax upon only plastic carryout bags due to reductions in air pollutant emissions.9. and R. Prepared for: Department of the Environment. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment Final Report. 10 Nolan-Itu Pty. Holland.11. February 2004. 4. Due to the fact that Alternative 1 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. 9 Ecobilan. Alternative 1 would be expected to significantly increase the use of reusable bags. as is the case with any manufactured product. would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Belgium. Paper. As with the proposed ordinances. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. GHG emissions. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does cause air pollutant emissions. Although the production. MI. Brussels. Neuilly-sur-Seine. air quality impacts could be reduced even further. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential indirect increase in NOx emissions due to an indirect increase in the manufacture.

which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores.0 Alternatives. Alternative 1 would result in lesser impacts to air quality than those associated with the proposed ordinances and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of all criteria pollutants. Alternative 1 would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate. Alternative 1 would have the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life and would result in potentially beneficial impacts upon sensitive habitats. reusable bags are heavier than plastic carryout bags. which has been shown to have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources. Reusable bags have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. As with the proposed ordinances. and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Although Alternative 1 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. Therefore. Alternative 1 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources and would achieve the same benefits. would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. rare. and endangered species. would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. federally protected wetlands. Unlike the proposed ordinances. The smaller number of reusable bags in the waste stream means that reusable bags are less likely to end up as litter and less likely to end up in the ocean or other wildlife habitats. As with the proposed ordinances. and would not conflict with County General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources. Alternative 1 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. Therefore. Page 4-9 . As with the proposed ordinances. Although reusable bags do eventually get discarded and become part of the waste stream. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated criteria pollutant emissions required to transport bags to stores. or special status. Alternative 1 would also be expected to increase consumer use of reusable bags. sensitive. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. and species of special concern. Alternative 1 would achieve the same reduction in litter composed of plastic carryout bag waste to freshwater and coastal environments. Inc. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags are used multiple times. the fact that they can be reused multiple times means that the number of reusable bags in the waste stream as a result of Alternative 1 would be much lower than the number of paper and plastic carryout bags that would end up in the waste stream as a result of the proposed ordinances. Further. Alternative 1 would result in a significant reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags within the County. meaning they are less likely to be blown by the wind and end up as litter. including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA.pollutant concentrations. the net number of bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 1. Biological Resources As with the proposed ordinances. threatened. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.

Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. Therefore. unlike the proposed ordinances. or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Belgium. As with the proposed ordinances. Marlet. 15 16 The ULS Report. 2004. Alternative 1 would be expected to significantly increase the use of reusable bags.0 Alternatives. and disposal of paper carryout bags. 1 June 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.doc .5-2). Herrera et al. Brussels. because the impacts would be less than the proposed ordinances. Alternative 1 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does cause GHG emissions. The impacts to GHG emissions caused by Alternative 1 would be expected to be below the level of significance. AU. Water. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. Belgium. C. GHG emission impacts could be reduced even further. and would not conflict with any applicable plan. and Heritage: Canberra. Rochester. C. Although Alternative 1 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. September 2004. as is the case with any manufactured product. Unlike the proposed ordinances. 2002. Prepared for: Department of the Environment. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. the net number of bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 1. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. Although the production. manufacture. 19 Marlet. MI. policy. Unlike the proposed ordinances. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Due to the fact that Alternative 1 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County.14. Ltd.3.17. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. 14 ExcelPlas Australia. distribution. 2007... Alternative 1 would not generate GHG emissions. the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced in comparison with the proposed ordinances. EuroCommerce. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items Volume I and II. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential indirect increase in GHG emissions due to an increase in the manufacture. 17 18 Hyder Consulting.3. Unlike the proposed ordinances. September 2004.18. If the County were to expand the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. January 2008. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated GHG emissions required to transport bags to stores.16. EuroCommerce. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.19 As banning the issuance of both plastic and paper carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. that may have a significant impact on the environment.Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative 1 would reduce impacts to GHG emissions in comparison with the proposed ordinances as it would not result in an increase in consumers’ use of paper carryout bags. either directly or indirectly.15. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags can be used multiple times. AU. Page 4-10 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Therefore. Inc. and NOLAN-ITU. these emissions are significantly reduced when calculated on a per-use basis (Table 3. and Reusable Grocery Bags. Moorabbin VIC. Centre for Design at RMIT. Alternative 1 would not result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact due to indirect GHG emissions from the 13 Nolan-Itu Pty. Brussels. Alternative 1 would also create indirect benefits to GHG emissions in terms of reducing emissions of CO2e caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. distribution. which would not ban paper carryout bags.13.5-4).

Neuilly-sur-Seine. distribution.4-1 and Table 3. and Biodegradable Material. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. However. and surface water quality in the County and would assist the County in attaining TMDLs because Alternative 1 would result in a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags.4. Alternative 1 would be expected to increase the demand for reusable bags. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the impacts to hydrology and water quality caused by Alternative 1 would be expected to be below the level of significance. when considered on a per-use basis (Table 3. would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. tsunami. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Hydrology and Water Quality As with the proposed ordinances. and disposal of paper carryout bags due to the presence of a ban on paper carryout bags. Alternative 1 would result in lesser impacts to GHG emissions than those associated with the proposed ordinances and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of GHGs due to the reduction in use of paper carryout bags. storm drain systems. would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.21 If the County were to expand the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.production. eutrophication impacts could be reduced even further. which may have the potential to indirectly increase eutrophication impacts from facilities that manufacture reusable bags. Page 4-11 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.0 Alternatives. Ecobilan. As with the proposed ordinances. February 2004. injury. would not 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. which would not ban paper carryout bags.4. and would not cause inundation by seiche. Paper. Alternative 1 would result in potentially beneficial impacts on surface water drainage. 2004. or mudflow. France. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon eutrophication are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to paper carryout bag manufacturing. Moorabbin VIC.doc . Alternative 1 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. Alternative 1 would also create potential benefits to hydrology and water quality due to a potential reduction of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. AU. Inc.4-2). The impacts of the life cycle of reusable bags upon eutrophication are reduced further when the bags are used additional times. transport. As with the proposed ordinances. or death involving flooding. and NOLAN-ITU. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. As with the proposed ordinances. 21 20 ExcelPlas Australia. Alternative 1 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality and would achieve the same benefits. Therefore. As with the proposed ordinances.20. would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Centre for Design at RMIT. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon eutrophication in comparison with the proposed ordinance.

However. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon utilities and service systems in comparison with the proposed ordinances.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.22 Therefore.Utilities and Service Systems As with the proposed ordinances. wastewater generation.0 Alternatives. Page 4-12 22 . France. Ecobilan. would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities.4-2.5. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.4-8. As with the proposed ordinances. storm drain systems. would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. impacts related to utilities and service systems would be reduced even further. and wastewater generation due to a reduction in the manufacture and disposal of paper carryout bags compared to current conditions. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. The impacts of the life cycle of reusable bags upon utilities and service systems are reduced further when the bags are used additional times. As with the proposed ordinances. would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.5. Paper. which would not ban paper carryout bags. and solid waste generation due to the life cycle of reusable bags. state. and Biodegradable Material. Therefore. and Table 3. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon these aspects of utilities and service systems are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to paper carryout bag manufacturing. Furthermore.4-11). As with the proposed ordinances. or wastewater generation due to an increase in the manufacture and disposal of paper carryout bags. Alternative 1 would be expected to increase the demand for reusable bags. water consumption. electricity consumption. February 2004. Neuilly-sur-Seine.5. If the County were to expand the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential indirect increase in solid waste generation. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Table 3. Table 3. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Alternative 1 would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control board.5. Alternative 1 would also create potential benefits to utilities and service systems. due to the fact that Alternative 1 would result in significant reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. Inc. and wastewater due to a reduction in the use of both paper and plastic carryout bags. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems and would achieve additional benefits to solid waste generation. energy consumption. when considered on a per-use basis (Table 3. would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supply. Alternative 1 would lead to reduced operational impacts and costs associated with storm drain system maintenance due to a reduction in the amount of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. water consumption. unlike the proposed ordinances. the impacts to utilities and service systems caused by Alternative 1 would be expected to be below the level of significance. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. which may have the potential to indirectly increase water demand. Alternative 1 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags.4-5. water supply. Alternative 4 would be anticipated to result in indirect reductions in solid waste generation. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. and would comply with federal.

that is. 4. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.000 square feet or greater. those within the County that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code. unlike a ban.26 Therefore. Inc.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. reduced.1 Alternative 2 consists of extending the scope of the proposed ordinances to include a fee on paper carryout bags in Los Angeles County. Alternative 2 would also serve to reduce Countywide consumption of paper carryout bags and the Countywide disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills. 24 23 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. In that there would be a minimal transition from plastic to paper carryout bags if a fee is placed on paper carryout bags. Convery. impacts to air quality.3. and would achieve additional benefits. resulted in an 86-percent decrease in the number of carryout bags used in the first month after the fee was implemented. Page 4-13 26 25 .23 The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 2 in the incorporated cities of the County is approximately 462. the number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 2 in the unincorporated areas of the County is approximately 67. biological resources. 4. the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed County ordinance.go. and utilities and service systems.. S.3 Alternative 2: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative Components 4.2.3. For example.000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.2 Objectives and Feasibility As shown in Table 4-1. hydrology and water quality. a fee on paper carryout As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program. Section 14526.” Available at: http://abcnews. As with the proposed ordinances. Paper presented 26 June 2008. GHG emissions. biological resources. McDonnell. Ireland’s fee on plastic carryout bags resulted in more than a 90 percent reduction in retailer purchases of plastic carryout bags.2. and (2) are buildings that have over 10.2.25 The recent 5-cent plastic and paper carryout bag fee in Washington.” ABC News. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.0 Alternatives. and encouraging the 88 incorporated cities to adopt similar ordinances. However. or avoided in comparison with the proposed ordinances. and C. DC.com/Politics/plastic-bag-plummets-nations-capital/story?id=10239503 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and utilities and service systems would be eliminated.2. 30 March 2010. “The Irish Plastic Bag Levy – A Review of its Performance 5 Years On. “Nickel Power: Plastic Bag Use Plummets in Nation's Capital. Alternative 2 would require a fee for paper carryout bags issued from the same stores addressed by the proposed ordinances. In addition.3.5.4. Alternative 2 would not result in significant adverse impacts to air quality. Alternative 2 would accomplish all of the basic objectives of the proposed project required by the County. it is anticipated that a fee on paper carryout bags would reduce the number of paper carryout bags used and disposed of in the County. hydrology and water quality.3 Comparative Impacts Fees on carryout bags in other countries and states have been shown to be highly effective in reducing the number of carryout bags used.24 As with the proposed ordinances.

or public awareness programs. If the County were to expand the 27 Ecobilan. the Ireland and Washington D. 29 30 Marlet. as is the case with any manufactured product. several members of the public indicated that a fee on paper carryout bags would also have the potential to cause increased administrative costs to grocery stores. Inc. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Therefore. Alternative 2 would also create benefits to air quality in terms of reducing emissions of CO.30 As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags and placing a fee on paper carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.1 through 3. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. and disposal of paper carryout bags (Table 3.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Heritage: Canberra. during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine.29.bags would not result in a 100 percent reduction in retailer purchases of paper carryout bags by affected stores. MI. Prepared for: Department of the Environment. A fee on paper carryout bags has the potential to raise funds that could be used for County programs such as litter clean up. 2002. Even so. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does cause air pollutant emissions. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. which would not place a fee on paper. Rochester. as the Ireland and Washington D. Australia. France. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Alternative 2 would result in a lesser indirect increase in NOx emissions due to an indirect increase in the manufacture.C. Page 4-14 . Any increase in paper bag usage as a result of Alternative 2 that is less than a 100-percent conversion to paper-carryout bags. However.1.4-3). the reduction in use is still quite significant. Alternative 2 would be anticipated to have both adverse and beneficial socioeconomic impacts.. it is anticipated that the reduction in paper carryout bags caused by Alternative 2 would not be as large as the anticipated reduction in paper carryout bags caused by Alternative 1.and 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags as seen in Sections 3. Paper. Although the production. While it is not possible to determine the actual percentage increase in conversion to paper carryout bags as a result of Alternative 2.4-6). bag fees indicate. Alternative 2 would result in a smaller increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. Alternative 2 would be expected to significantly increase the use of reusable bags. manufacture. 28 Nolan-Itu Pty. recycling.5. Water. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. 1 June 2007.1. and Biodegradable Material. distribution. would be less of an impact than the unlikely worst case scenario studied for at 100-percent conversion. Brussels. PM. which would not be expected to result if a ban were issued. Ltd. bag fees indicate that the percentage increase from conversion to paper carryout bags would likely be minimal and would certainly not be above 85-percent.27. the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced in comparison with the proposed ordinances. EuroCommerce. September 2004. and to a lesser extent SOx caused by the life cycle of plastic carryout bags (Table 3.1. these emissions are significantly reduced when calculated on a per-use basis (Table 3. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. and Reusable Grocery Bags.4-2). distribution. as consumers would retain the option to purchase paper carryout bags. the impacts to air quality caused by Alternative 2 would be expected to be below the level of significance.0 Alternatives. Belgium. C. unlike the proposed ordinances. and VOCs. February 2004. The ULS Report. Compared with the proposed ordinances. this EIR has studied the environmental impacts resulting from a conservative worst-case scenario of 85. Due to the fact that Alternative 2 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. Therefore. Therefore.C. However. Air Quality As with the proposed ordinances.28.

would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. or special status.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. As with the proposed ordinances. meaning that they are less likely to be blown by the wind and end up as litter. air quality impacts could be reduced even further. Inc.scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Alternative 2 would result in lesser impacts to air quality than those associated with the proposed ordinances and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of all criteria pollutants. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. federally protected wetlands. rare. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. and would not conflict with County General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources.0 Alternatives. threatened. reusable bags are heavier than plastic carryout bags. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate. sensitive. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Biological Resources As with the proposed ordinances. Therefore. Further. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags are used multiple times. the fact that they can be reused multiple times means that the number of reusable bags in the waste stream as a result of Alternative 2 would be much lower than the number of paper and plastic carryout bags that would end up in the waste stream as a result of the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would achieve the same reduction in litter composed of plastic carryout bag waste to freshwater and coastal environments. The proposed ordinances would also be expected to increase consumer use of reusable bags. and endangered species. and species of special concern. Alternative 2 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources and would achieve the same benefits. Alternative 2 would have the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life and would result in potentially beneficial impacts upon sensitive habitats. Alternative 2 would result in a significant reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags within the County. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. Page 4-15 . Reusable bags have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. which has been shown to have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources. the net number of bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 2. would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Alternative 2 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated criteria pollutant emissions required to transport bags to stores. would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Although Alternative 2 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. Unlike the proposed ordinances. including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. As with the proposed ordinances. Therefore. Although reusable bags do eventually get discarded and become part of the waste stream. The smaller number of reusable bags in the waste stream means that reusable bags are less likely to be littered and less likely to end up in the ocean or other wildlife habitats.

5-2). Water. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable. Alternative 2 would not generate a similar increase in GHG emissions directly that may have a significant impact on the environment. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. Prepared for: Department of the Environment. Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities.. AU. 1 June 2007. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags are used multiple times. Ltd. 33 34 The ULS Report. Due to the fact that Alternative 2 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. and Reusable Grocery Bags. manufacture. these emissions are significantly reduced when calculated on a per-use basis (Table 3. 35 Hyder Consulting. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated GHG emissions required to transport bags to stores. 32 ExcelPlas Australia.0 Alternatives. Belgium.5-4). Compared with the proposed ordinances. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items Volume I and II. Therefore. and NOLAN-ITU. Centre for Design at RMIT. Victoria. or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced in comparison with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would be expected to significantly increase the use of reusable bags. 36 Herrera et al. which would be expected to cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. 18 April 2007.37 As banning the issuance of plastic carryout bags and placing of a fee on paper carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.doc .. As with the proposed ordinances. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Australia. Marlet. The impacts to GHG emissions caused by Alternative 2 would be expected to be below the level of significance. distribution. Brussels. Alternative 2 would result in lesser impacts due to indirect GHG emissions from the production. September 2004. transport. 2004. Unlike the proposed ordinances. MI.32.. the indirect impacts to GHG emissions from the life cycle of paper carryout bags may have the potential to be to be cumulatively considerable.3. distribution. Although Alternative 2 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. Page 4-16 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Alternative 2 would also create indirect benefits to GHG emissions in terms of reducing emissions of CO2e caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. Moorabbin VIC. however.34. Belgium. Brussels. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. and Heritage: Canberra. C. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. which would not place a fee on paper carryout bags. the net number of carryout bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would result in a lesser increase in GHG emissions resulting from the manufacture. Compared with the proposed ordinances.31. as is the case with any manufactured product. EuroCommerce. policy. GHG emission impacts could be reduced even further. Rochester. January 2008. If the County were to expand the scope of the proposed County ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Although the production.3. 2002. September 2004. and eventual disposal of reusable bags does cause GHG emissions. AU.Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to GHG emissions in comparison with the proposed ordinances as it would not result in a similar increase in consumers’ use of paper carryout bags due to the presence of a fee on paper carryout bags. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. and disposal of paper carryout bags. and disposal of paper carryout bags. Inc. C. 31 Nolan-Itu Pty. distribution. and would not conflict with any applicable plan. Alternative 2 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. EuroCommerce.35.33.36. 37 Marlet. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria.

2004. which may have the potential to indirectly increase eutrophication impacts from facilities that manufacture reusable bags. eutrophication impacts could be reduced even further. This conclusion is primarily based on the County’s assumption of the most conservative and unlikely worst-case scenario of 85. and Biodegradable Material. Paper.C. actual bag usage per day. number of stores affected.to 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags despite the presence of a fee (see Section 3. D. Alternative 2 would be expected to increase the demand for reusable bags. Alternative 2 would also create potential benefits to hydrology and water quality due to a potential reduction of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. would not 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 impacts of the life cycle of reusable bags upon eutrophication are reduced further when the bags are used additional times (Table 3.4. However. Centre for Design at RMIT. Hydrology and Water Quality As with the proposed ordinances. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. and does not account for any decrease in paper bag usage resulting from the likely scenario that more members of the public will transition to reusable bags. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss.3. would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.depending on the actual percentage increase in conversion to paper carryout bags despite the presence of a fee. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Alternative 2 would result in lesser impacts to GHG emissions than those associated with the proposed ordinances and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of GHGs due to reduction in the use of paper carryout bags.39 Therefore. Moorabbin VIC. 39 38 ExcelPlas Australia. an individual city may find that after considering these factors. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. if the paper bag fee in Alternative 2 has a similar effect of decreasing conversion to paper carryout bags like the Ireland and Washington.38.0 Alternatives. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. Inc..4. the impacts to hydrology and water quality caused by Alternative 2 would be expected to be below the level of significance.4-1 and Table 3. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Alternative 2 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.doc . Page 4-17 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. As with the proposed ordinances. injury. As with the proposed ordinances. bag fees. Finally. and would not cause Ecobilan. France. would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. indirect impacts to GHG emissions likely would be minimal and could be less than significant on both a project and cumulative impact level. and NOLAN-ITU. Further. or death involving flooding.4-2). when considered on a per-use basis. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon eutrophication are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to plastic and paper carryout bag manufacturing. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon eutrophication. the impacts would be below the level of significance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. AU. and other relevant factors that are specific to each of the 88 incorporated cities within the County. depending on the size. territory. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. February 2004. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. If the County were to expand the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.

Table 3. Alternative 2 would lead to reduced operational impacts and costs associated with storm drain system maintenance due to a reduction in the amount of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. water consumption. or wastewater generation due to an increase in the manufacture and disposal of paper carryout bags. the impacts to utilities and service systems caused by Alternative 2 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Page 4-18 . Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. storm drain systems. 41 40 Hyder Consulting. As with the proposed ordinances.5. As with the proposed ordinances.4-5. and Biodegradable Material. Utilities and Service Systems As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control board. the impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated to be reduced in comparison with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems and would achieve Ecobilan. and surface water quality in the County and would assist the County in attaining TMDLs because Alternative 2 would result in a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags and any associated litter resulting from paper carryout bags.5. Victoria. require less water supply. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. tsunami. to the extent it exists. state.40. February 2004. Paper. Alternative 2 would be expected to result in a smaller increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times (Table 3. or mudflow. Alternative 2 would result in potentially beneficial impacts on surface water drainage.4-11). and Table 3.4-8. Inc. As with the proposed ordinances. France. would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities.4-2. unlike the proposed ordinances. The indirect impacts of reusable bags upon utilities and service systems are reduced further when the bag is used additional times. Compared with the proposed ordinances. would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supply. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.0 Alternatives. If the County were to expand the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. generate less wastewater. would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. due to the fact that Alternative 2 would result in significant reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Table 3. the production of which would consume less energy. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and would comply with federal. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.41 As the banning of plastic carryout bags and imposing a fee on paper carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.5.inundation by seiche. As with the proposed ordinances. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. Alternative 2 would also create potential benefits to utilities and service systems. Australia. would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore. would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.5. It is also important to note Alternative 2 would be expected to increase consumers’ use of reusable bags. As with the proposed ordinances. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 2 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality and would achieve the same benefits. 18 April 2007. and produce less solid waste than the production of both paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced even further. Alternative 2 would not result in lesser indirect increases in solid waste generation.

it was determined that approximately 10. and 446110 with no filters for gross annual sales volume or square footage. energy consumption. but not including restaurant establishments. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. Dona Sturgess. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. Alhambra.46 While 10. 45 Data from the infoUSA indicates that approximately 40 percent of the stores greater than 10. Page 4-19 46 . 43 Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Section 14526.000 plastic carryout bags per day. it would be reasonable to estimate that the stores smaller than 10.000 square feet currently uses approximately 5. Department of Public Works.0 Alternatives.084. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential.695 bags used per store per day. convenience stores.44 and each store smaller than 10.000 square feet that would be affected by Alternative 3 would be at less than half the size of the stores to be affected by the proposed ordinances and would use less than half the number of bags.000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day. the average size of the stores to be affected by the proposed County ordinance would be greater than 20. pharmacies and drug stores.000 square feet in the unincorporated territories of the County are larger than 40. for the purposes of this EIR.984 bags per day. 4. County of Los Angeles. 445120.42 The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 3 in the incorporated cities of the County is approximately 5. as it is more than twice the bag average reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2008 for AB 2449 affected stores. and wastewater due to a reduction in the use of both paper and plastic carryout bags. The same may also be true 42 Number of stores in the unincorporated territories of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Therefore. 44 Based on coordination between the County Department of Public Works and several large supermarket chains in the County.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Sacramento. Alternative 3 would apply to stores within the County that are part of a chain of convenience food stores. supermarkets and other grocery stores. The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 3 in the unincorporated areas of the County is approximately 1.1 Alternative 3 consists of extending the scope of the proposed ordinances to apply to all supermarkets and other grocery stores. Accordingly.5. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns.000 square feet in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas. Convenience Stores. and (2) are buildings that have retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.000 square feet currently uses approximately 10.4.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may not accurately reflect the actual number of bags consumed per day on average for stores greater than 10.2. pharmacies and drug stores in the County. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122.4 Alternative 3: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. A daily average per store was then calculated at 10. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario.700 stores statewide affected by AB 2449 reported an average of 4. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and 446110 with no filters for gross annual sales volume or square footage.000 square feet. Pharmacies. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative Components 4. CA. 4.000 bags per day. In addition. storm drain systems.additional benefits with regard to solid waste generation.091. convenience stores. CA. 445120. In 2008. water supply. 43 It was assumed that each store larger than 10.2.000 square feet.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10. 29 April 2010.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Alternative 3 would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags from stores within the County that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code.45 It is important to note that these numbers is likely very high. Inc.

and VOCs. Alternative 3 would be more effective than the proposed ordinances in reducing the Countywide consumption of plastic carryout bags. clean-up.4. Air Quality As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 3 would create indirect benefits to air quality in terms of reducing emissions of CO.3-1. and utilities and service systems due to paper carryout bags may be increased. but an increase in NOx (Table 4. and disposal of paper carryout bags (Table 3. biological resources. PM. and using life cycle data from the Ecobilan study. distribution. Due to the fact that Alternative 3 would result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. indirect GHG emission impacts due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day estimate for stores less than 10. and Flood Control District’s costs for prevention. biological resources.4. As with the proposed ordinances.4.4-3). due to a likely increase in the demand for paper carryout bags. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario as well. corresponding adverse impacts to air quality. for the purposes of this EIR. Accordingly. In addition. this result is largely a tradeoff and is inconclusive because the conversion from Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Inc. PM. Alternative 3 would encourage the 88 incorporated cities of the County to adopt similar ordinances to ban plastic carryout bags.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.4-2).000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may likely be very high. 4. and the County’s. Page 4-20 . indirect impacts to air quality. SOx.of the 5. biological resources.1. and VOCs caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. As with the proposed ordinances. and would achieve additional benefits. and Appendix C). In that there would be an increased reduction in the consumption of plastic carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Alternative 3 would be more effective than the proposed ordinances in reducing Countywide disposal of plastic carryout bags in landfills. GHG emissions. or avoided. the corresponding reductions in plastic carryout bag use throughout the County would be increased. GHG emissions. Alternative 3 would accomplish all of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County. Alternative 3 would result in a potential indirect increase in NOx emissions due to an indirect increase in the manufacture. However. plastic carryout bag litter that blights public spaces. reduced. Cities’. Based on an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Alternative 3 would increase public awareness of the negative impacts of plastic carryout bags and the benefits of reusable bags. Alternative 3 would not result in significant adverse impacts to air quality. As with the proposed ordinances.2.2 Objectives and Feasibility As shown in Table 4-1. Alternative 3 would result in an overall decrease in emissions of CO.000 square feet.1. While the 5. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter in the County. and utilities and service systems due to plastic carryout bags would be eliminated. hydrology and water quality.2. as with the proposed ordinances.3 Comparative Impacts Due to the fact that Alternative 3 would ban plastic carryout bags at a greater number of stores throughout the County than the proposed ordinances. the impacts to air quality caused by Alternative 3 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Alternative 3 would result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. Therefore.0 Alternatives. 4.2. hydrology and water quality. or hydrology and water quality.

NOTES: 1.444 -1. depending on which criteria pollutants are analyzed. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. SOx emissions. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. depending on which criteria pollutants are analyzed.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would result in increased NOx and.3-2. distribution. 2.978 -4. with manufacturing facilities located in other air basins in the United States and in other countries that may have different emission thresholds and regulations. Similar conclusions would be true if one were to apply the Ecobilan data in the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags (Table 4.587 3. The production of plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags is not limited to the SCAB or the MDAB. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in both beneficial and adverse impacts to air quality.3-1 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA 1 Emission Sources Emission changes caused by a 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 1. ethane. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. whereas LCA data cover all stages of production.0 Alternatives. Page 4-21 . which appear not to occur within the SCAB or the MDAB. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data). Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. resulting in an overall improvement in air quality. Neuilly-sur-Seine. when considering VOCs.2.4.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions VOCs Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)2 NOx CO SOx PM -274 687 -799 -24 -302 -1. February 2004. These results cannot reasonably be evaluated in relation to the operational thresholds of significance set by SCAQMD because the operational thresholds are intended for specific projects located in the SCAB for the SCAB.291 -3. As before. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emission changes caused by an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 5. this result is largely a tradeoff and is inconclusive because the conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in both beneficial and adverse impacts to air quality. a conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags would reduce the total weight of daily air emissions. Paper. TABLE 4.628 -140 -1.4. France.2. However. and PM.829 -116 -1. and Biodegradable Material.746 SOURCE: Ecobilan.313 3. to a lesser extent. apart from methane. Inc. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data for plastic carryout bags from the data for paper carryout bags. and acetone. CO. and end-of-life procedures related to a particular product. As before. The emissions of NOx mainly occur during the processes of paper production and bag manufacturing.

2007.2. February 2004.467 311 -1.48 However.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emission changes caused by an 100percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 5. However. 15 July 2009.695 257 -1. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. France. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 50 49 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Sapphos Environmental.doc .084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions VOCs Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)2 NOx CO SOx PM -190 903 -772 54 -288 -909 4. Ltd.3-2 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA 1 Emission Sources Emission changes caused by a 100percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 1. and acetone. KS. and Recycled. Biodegradable Plastic. Using 47 Franklin Associates.50 it is not necessary to extrapolate LCA data to determine emission levels for the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB and the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB.TABLE 4. ethane. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. 5 February 2010. the majority of these criteria pollutant emissions are likely to originate from processes that occur early on in the life cycle of paper and plastic carryout bags.49 or from countries outside of the United States.47.4. The end-of-life data include emissions due to transport of waste from households to landfills. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Santa Monica. Recyclable Paper. Inc. 1990.099 5. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. Watt. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. Although the facilities that manufacture paper carryout bags that are supplied to the stores in the County are not located within the SCAB or the MDAB. 48 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.. Stephanie. Carol Trout. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. apart from methane.327 -3. and Biodegradable Material. such as raw material extraction and product manufacturing. such as Canada.665 SOURCE: Ecobilan. Prairie Village. NOTES: 1. an assumption that is not accurate for the County. 2. Paper. as with the Ecobilan data. KY. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in air pollutants generated by paper carryout bags in comparison to the air pollutants generated by plastic carryout bags by subtracting the data for plastic carryout bags from the data for paper carryout bags. the majority of the landfills that accept plastic and paper carryout bag waste are located within these air basins. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Inc.230 -4. Florence. CA. the end-of-life data assume that a large percentage of solid waste is incinerated. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Telephone communication with Ms. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.0 Alternatives. Customer Service Department. Other LCAs reviewed during preparation of this EIR also state that air pollutant emissions due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags would be higher than those emitted during the life cycle of plastic carryout bags.377 -1. Compostable. Page 4-22 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The Ecobilan data indicates that approximately 21 percent of the NOx emissions generated during the life cycle of paper carryout bags can be attributed to end of life.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. the County is also controlling for emissions by requiring in its new refuse agreements that alternative-fuel refuse vehicles be used. In addition. 11 May 2010. In the unlikely scenario of a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. are currently controlled by regional and State regulations. whereas LCA data cover all stages of end-of-life procedures related to a particular product.pdf 55 County of Los Angeles. the assumption that every store greater than 10. the increase in NOx emissions from transport of paper carryout bags to landfills would be expected to be approximately 55 pounds per day. 54 53 52 County of Los Angeles. County of Los Angeles. While the 5. Available at: http://file. Department of Public Works.the Ecobilan data for the end of life for plastic and paper carryout bags and adjusting for a scenario where all bags go to landfills at the end of life and are not incinerated. Department of Public Works.57 Any increases in air pollutant emissions as an indirect impact of 51 Dona Sturgess. Sacramento. 11 May 2010. Award of Contract for Athens/Woodcrest/Olivita Garbage Disposal District.0 Alternatives. Report 13. Finally.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may likely be very high.gov/bos/supdocs/54560. If Alternative 3 were to be applied to every incorporated city in the County.53 emissions resulting from the end of life of paper carryout bags would be distributed among the facilities within and outside of the County. County of Los Angeles.52 and approximately 20 percent of County waste is distributed to other out-of-County landfills. respectively. and further adjusting for USEPA 2007 recycle rates. CA. Monthly Solid Waste Disposal Quantity Summary by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. 30 March 2010.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day estimate for stores less than 10. Report 34. For example. Any emissions resulting from the end of life of paper carryout bags.51 The same may also be true of the 5. SCAQMD Rule 1193 applies to governmental agencies and private entities that operate solid-waste collection fleets with 15 or more solid-waste collection vehicles. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Inc. Available at: http://file.2.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate. Alhambra.4.lacounty.000 plastic carryout bags per day. In addition.pdf Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Award of Contract for Walnut Park Garbage Disposal District. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. Clean On-road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles.54. for the purposes of this EIR. These results also cannot reasonably be evaluated in relation to the operational thresholds of significance set by SCAQMD for the SCAB or by AVAQMD for the MDAB because the operational thresholds are intended for specific projects located in the SCAB and MDAB.56. CARB's Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule also requires owners of refuse collection vehicles to use best available control technology that has been verified by CARB to reduce vehicle emissions. Page 4-23 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. The aforementioned calculations are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not consider the potential for Alternative 3 to result in an increased number of customers using reusable bags. Estimated NOX Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data). Department of Public Works. as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to 5. the increase in NOx emissions from transport of paper carryout bags to landfills due to an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the unincorporated areas of the County would be approximately 44 pounds per day (Table 4. In addition. Department of Public Works. 29 April 2010.000 square feet in size currently uses 10. Department of Public Works. including from truck trips transporting paper carryout bag waste to landfills in the County.doc .55.lacounty. the increase in NOx emissions would be 212 and 264 pounds per day due to an 85-percent and 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags.gov/bos/supdocs/54567. County of Los Angeles. SCAQMD Rule 1193. due to the fact that there are 11 landfills within the County. Waste Disposal Summary Reports by Quarter by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst-case scenario as well. CA. requires all public and private solid-waste collection fleets within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD to acquire alternative-fuel refuse collection vehicles when procuring or leasing these vehicles.33.000 square feet. 30 March 2010.

Alternative 3 would also be expected to result in increased use of reusable bags. U. The Ecobilan Study also presented an LCA analysis of a reusable bag and concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on air pollutant emissions than a plastic carryout bag. 11 May 2010. Available at: http://file. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.pdf NOTES: 1.lacounty. for the Unincorporated Area of Hacienda Heights. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon air quality. 19 January 2010. Alternative 3 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2.pdf Ecobilan. the impacts of Alternative 3 to air quality due to vehicle trips transporting paper carryout bag waste to landfills would be expected to be below the level of significance.S. Ecobilan. Washington. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Assuming 36. February 2004.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. it illustrates the general concept of how air quality impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.4-6). Environmental Protection Agency. As with the proposed ordinances. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. France. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Therefore. would not result in a cumulatively 56 County of Los Angeles. If the County were to expand the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rate for paper bags and sacks.4.lacounty. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.0 Alternatives.8 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 11. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of four times (Table 3. Available at: http://file.58 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times. air quality impacts could be reduced even further. DC. Award of Contract for an Exclusive Franchise Agreement to Valley Vista Services.9 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills. and Biodegradable Material. therefore.epa.gov/bos/supdocs/52931. Department of Public Works. France. Paper.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 5. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. February 2004.1.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions 212 256 264 319 SOURCES: 1. November 2008.pdf 57 County of Los Angeles.Alternative 3 would be controlled by SCAQMD Rule 1193 and the CARB Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule. Award the Contract for Firestone Garbage Disposal District.3-3 ESTIMATED NOX EMISSION INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day) 85-percent conversion 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper from plastic to paper carryout bags1 carryout bags1 NOx NOx 44 55 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 1.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. Inc. Department of Public Works.2. Inc. TABLE 4. Page 4-24 58 . and Biodegradable Material. would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.gov/bos/supdocs/54559. Paper. Available at: http://www. Neuilly-sur-Seine.

doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.4. would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. as with the proposed ordinances.77 3.2.considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.304.304.2. a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in fewer than 33 additional truck trips required per day.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x (67 stores x 10. Alternative 3 would achieve additional reductions in litter composed of plastic carryout bag waste in freshwater and coastal (1.622 stores each using 5. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.28 1.000 plastic carryout bags per day that would be affected by Alternative 3 in the unincorporated territory of the County.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x 13 §33 daily truck trips (4. an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in fewer than 157 additional truck trips required per day.000 plastic carryout bags per day that would be affected by Alternative 3 in the 88 incorporated cities of the County. in comparison with the proposed ordinances. The unmitigated emissions from delivery truck trips would be expected to be well below the SCAQMD and AVAQMD thresholds of significance (Table 4. Alternative 3 would result in a significant reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags within the County.59 Assuming that there are 462 stores each using 10. Inc.3-4.5 4.622 stores x 5.000 plastic carryout bags per day and 1.2.024 stores x 5. However.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.4. and up to 157 additional truck trips per day to and from the 5.13 19.3-4).091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Therefore.65 3. and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. impacts to air quality would still be expected to be below the level of significance.66 1 150 82 No Therefore.3-4 ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emission Sources 33 delivery truck trips in the unincorporated territory of the County 157 delivery truck trips in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions SCAQMD Threshold AVAQMD Threshold Exceedance of Significance? Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day) CO SOx PM2.304.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x (462 stores x 10.65 4 550 548 No 0 0. TABLE 4. Biological Resources As with the proposed ordinances.16 0. Alternative 3 would cause a potential increase in delivery truck trips required to transport paper carryout bags to stores. Estimated Daily Operational Emissions) (Appendix D).304.024 stores each using 5.02 0 150 137 No 0.000 plastic carryout bags per day and 4.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.60 The criteria pollutant emissions that would be anticipated to result from 33 additional truck trips per day to and from the 1.3 <1 55 137 No NOx 0.084 stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County were calculated using URBEMIS 2007 (Table 4.0 Alternatives.4.5 daily truck trips Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.74 <1 55 No VOCs 0.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x 13 § 156. Page 4-25 60 59 . Alternative 3 would not reduce impacts to air quality related to criteria pollutant emissions from potential increases in delivery trucks or from indirect emissions due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags.1 1 55 137 No PM10 0.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2. As with the proposed ordinances. Assuming that there are 67 stores each using 10.

and Mike A. paper is compostable. Alternative 3 would result in a potential indirect increase in GHG emissions due to an indirect increase in the manufacture.environments. “Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics. Available at: http://dpw. indirect GHG emissions caused by Alternative 3 may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable due to the fact that Alternative 3 would result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. showed that paper bags were not found in streams except in localized areas. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Alternative 3 would have the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life and would result in potentially beneficial impacts upon sensitive habitats. which means that they are less likely to be blown by the wind and end up as litter. Based on an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic 61 Anacostia Watershed Society. Alternative 3 would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate. reusable bags are heavier than are plastic carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. and were not present downstream. DC.62 the paper used to make standard paper carryout bags is originally derived from wood pulp. Bladensburg. Due to paper’s biodegradable properties. distribution. which is naturally a biodegradable material. which has been shown to have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources. 2009. Backyard Composting. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As with the proposed ordinances. as with the proposed ordinances. Department of Public Works. The smaller number of reusable bags in the waste stream means that reusable bags are less likely to be littered and less likely to end up in the ocean or other wildlife habitats than plastic carryout bags.61 Unlike plastic. Neal. federally protected wetlands. Page 4-26 . Although reusable bags do eventually get discarded and become part of the waste stream. the fact that they can be reused multiple times means that the number of reusable bags in the waste stream as a result of Alternative 3 would be much lower than the number of paper and plastic carryout bags that would end up in the waste stream as a result of the proposed ordinances. Web site. including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. As with the proposed ordinances.lacounty.3. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Reusable bags have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. Alternative 3 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources and would achieve additional benefits due to a reduction in use of plastic carryout bags. the direct impacts to GHG emissions caused by Alternative 3 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Alternative 3 would create indirect benefits in terms of reducing emissions of GHGs caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. However. or special status. rare. would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. As with the proposed ordinances. and would not conflict with County General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources.5-2). and disposal of paper carryout bags. and endangered species.cfm 63 Andrady. Therefore. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment. 62 County of Los Angeles.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0 Alternatives.63 As with the proposed ordinances.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Alternative 3 may result in an indirect increase in the number of paper carryout bags consumed in the County. A study performed in Washington.gov/epd/sg/bc. 364: 1977–1984. Due to the fact that Alternative 3 would result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. threatened. sensitive. Anthony L. December 2008. Inc. MD. Further. would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Accessed on: 28 April 2010. paper bags do not persist in the marine environment for as long as plastic bags. and species of special concern. as with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 3 would also be expected to increase consumer use of reusable bags. As with the proposed ordinances.

2.12 percent of the 2020 target emissions for the County (108 million metric tons per year) and 0.04 percent of California's business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions target for Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 4-27 . Alternative 3 would be expected to result in an indirect increase of GHG emissions of approximately 342 metric tons per day.17 percent of the 2020 target emissions for the County (108 million metric tons per year) and 0. GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags).320 metric tons per year.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions in the County Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita1 98.02 21. Further. which is approximately 183.3-6. In the interest of being conservative and assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario.002 9.08 341.4.13 59. Inc. or other countries such as Canada. France. which is approximately 124. and using life cycle data from Ecobilan. these emissions would be approximately 0. or approximately 0.carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags.0 Alternatives. NOTES: 1. GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags). or approximately 0.615.03 percent of California's business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 of 427 million metric tons per year.2. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10. a comparison of the emissions of plastic and paper carryout bags indicates that 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags within the entire County would increase emissions of GHGs by approximately 502 metric tons per day. these emissions would be approximately 0. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.6 469.720 0.3-5.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emissions in the 5. However. Paper.012 metric tons per capita per year (Table 4.012 SOURCE: Ecobilan.96 282.017 metric tons per capita per year (Table 4.700).010 568.2.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. TABLE 4. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. indirect GHG emissions due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable.720 metric tons per year.3-5 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA USING 85-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Increase Resulting from 85-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Metric Tons Tons Per Metric Tons Per Year Per Day Year Per Capita1 Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Emissions Areas Emissions in the 1. Neuilly-sur-Seine.4.543 0.176 0. the emissions would not be limited to the County. if one were to apply the Ecobilan data in the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100 percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bag use.68 103. as manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear to be located within other areas of the United States. February 2004. When considered on a Countywide scale.4.70 124. When considered on a Countywide scale.

a significant portion of these GHG emissions are likely to originate from processes that occur early on in the life cycle of paper and plastic carryout bags. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. although the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 provides new regulatory direction towards 64 Franklin Associates. Page 4-28 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Biodegradable Material. Ltd.017 SOURCE: Ecobilan. as with the Ecobilan data. TABLE 4. Centre for Design at RMIT. 65 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.65.doc . and NOLAN-ITU.13 86. as manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear to be located within other areas of the United States. 2007. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. Inc.014 568. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.96 415. February 2004. Moorabbin VIC. regulations or laws addressing global warming. 66 ExcelPlas Australia.2.665 0.615. However. France.700).084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions in the County Increase Resulting from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout bags to Paper Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Metric Tons Per Year Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita1 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita1 98. Prairie Village.6 469.08 502. Further. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10.003 9. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.655 0.49 151. such as raw material extraction and product manufacturing. 1990. KS. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.4. or other countries such as Canada. 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Paper.75 31. there are no adopted Federal plans. the emissions would not be limited to the County. Other LCAs reviewed during preparation of this EIR also state that GHG emissions due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags would be higher than those emitted during the life cycle of plastic carryout bags. Compostable. Biodegradable Plastic. policies. No significance thresholds have been adopted by any agency or jurisdiction that would assist the County in conclusively determining whether the incremental effect of Alternative 3 is cumulatively considerable when using the LCA data to evaluate impacts resulting from manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags. As of the date of release of this EIR.25 183.0 Alternatives. NOTES: 1.320 0.64. indirect GHG emissions due to the life cycle of paper carryout bags may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable.2020 of 427 million metric tons per year. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.3-6 GHG EMISSIONS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA USING 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2e Emission Sources Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day Emissions in the 1. AU. Recyclable Paper.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emissions in the 5. and Recycled. In the interest of being conservative and assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario.66 However.

2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to 0.4.1. 29 April 2010.011 metric tons per capita (Table 4. the majority of the landfills that accept plastic and paper carryout bag waste are located within these air basins. These calculations are based on an unlikely worst-case scenario that does not take into account the potential for Alternative 3 to result in an increased number of customers using reusable bags. County of Los Angeles.3.000 plastic carryout bags per day is an overestimate.028 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0.2-1) and the County’s 2020 GHG emissions target of 108 million metric tons per year (Table 3. CA.and 100-percent conversion could be cumulatively significant when considered on a global scale. CA.033 percent of the target 2020 emissions for California and 0.3-7.13 percent of the target 2020 emissions for the County.000 plastic carryout bags per day. have a recommended emission threshold for determining significance associated with GHGs from development projects.3-1). A 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags throughout the County would be expected to generate approximately 142. and because the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts of Alternative 3 from a conservative worst-case scenario. Sacramento. certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have claimed that paper bags are significantly worst for the environment from a GHG emissions perspective. which is equivalent to approximately 0. regional.014 metric ton per capita.108 metric tons GHG emissions per year.limiting GHG emissions. as Statewide data indicates that this number is likely to be closer to 5. Page 4-29 67 . it can be conservatively determined that the impacts resulting from an 85.550 metric tons per year. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. an assumption that is not accurate for the County. These results are likely to be overestimates for the County. even though the impacts on a regional scale appears to indicate otherwise. However. and further adjusting for USEPA 2007 recycling rates. state or federal regulations to establish a criterion for significance to determine the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions on global warming. the increases resulting from 85 and 100-percent conversion would be expected to be below the level of significance when considered in context with California's 2020 GHG emissions target of 427 million metric tons per year (Table 3. the LCA results presented above would be equivalent to 0. which is equivalent to approximately 0. Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data).3. the assumption that every store above 10. In addition. To date.0 Alternatives. The end of life data includes emissions due to transport of waste from households to landfills. Alhambra. as emissions from active landfills in the County are strictly controlled by SCAQMD Rule 1150.67 The same may also be true of the 5. However. For a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags. For an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags on a metric tons per year basis.11 percent of the County’s target 2020 emissions. On this basis. the GHG emissions from landfills due to an 85percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags throughout the entire County would be approximately 120. Inc. Using the Ecobilan data for the end of life for plastic and paper carryout bags and adjusting for the alternative scenario where all bags go to landfills at the end of life and are not incinerated. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.000 plastic carryout bags Dona Sturgess.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.000 square feet currently uses 10. and specific to this project only. no air districts in California. including SCAQMD. The Ecobilan data indicates that approximately 18 percent of the GHG emissions generated during the life cycle of paper carryout bags can be attributed to end of life. Further. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. Department of Public Works.2.1 and AVAQMD Rule 1150. the LCA data assumes that a large percentage of solid waste is incinerated. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. and there are no local. while the quantitative analysis appears to show a less than significant impact and there are no defined regulations establishing significance on a cumulative level. there is little guidance regarding thresholds for impacts from proposed projects. Although the facilities that manufacture paper carryout bags that are supplied to the stores in the County appear not to be located within the SCAB or the MDAB. even under the worst-case scenario as presented here.

2.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. TABLE 4.823 24.712 metric tons of CO2e per year for the entire County (Table 4. the disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills would have the potential to result in the emissions of 393. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Recycled.108 SOURCES: Ecobilan. France.1. February 2004.3-8).pdf NOTES: 1.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions 99.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt. While the 5. Inc.36 percent of the 2020 target emissions 68 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.1. Washington. Alternatively. if it is assumed that paper carryout bag hold 1. 2007.2. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.3-8.5 times the amount of groceries that plastic carryout bags hold. the Boustead study states that from all operations just prior to disposal. Biodegradable Plastic.561 142.epa. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. November 2008.0 Alternatives. Recyclable Paper. and any potential increases in GHG emissions in landfills in the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB would be controlled by AVAQMD Rule 1150. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Paper.30 percent to 0.000 square feet. the resulting CO2e emissions are more than 20 percent greater for the plastic carryout bag compared to the paper carryout bag.S. based on a scenario where 100 percent of customers would switch to using paper carryout bags under Alternative 3. The Boustead Study indicates that the majority of GHG emissions (approximately 60 percent) associated with the life cycle of paper carryout bags occur during decomposition in landfills.9 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills. even assuming a worst-case scenario where Alternative 3 causes an indirect increase in disposal of paper carryout bags.3-7 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e Per Year) Increase Resulting from 85-percent Increase Resulting from conversion from 100-percent conversion plastic to paper from plastic to paper carryout bags1 carryout bags1 20. In fact.985 metric tons of CO2e per year for the entire County (Table 4. the disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills would have the potential to result in the emissions of 330.727 120. However.550 117. Assuming 36. These results are between approximately 0.547 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 1. and Biodegradable Material.per store per day estimate for stores less than 10. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario as well. based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rates.2. Page 4-30 . any potential increases in GHG emissions in landfills in the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB would be controlled by SCAQMD Rule 1150.4.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 5. Table 26B.68 Using the Boustead data. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Available at: http://www. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Environmental Protection Agency. Compostable.8 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 11.4. it can be extrapolated that under a scenario where 85 percent of customers would switch to using paper carryout bags under Alternative 3. U.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may likely be very high. DC. Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Data from Boustead). for the purposes of this EIR. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.4.

TABLE 4. even assuming a worst-case scenario where Alternative 3 causes an indirect increase in disposal of paper carryout bags.3-8 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS INCREASES DUE TO END OF LIFE BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e Per Year) Increase Resulting Increase Resulting from from 85-percent 100-percent conversion conversion from from plastic to paper plastic to paper carryout bags1 1 carryout bags 57. and between approximately 0.1.for the County (108 million metric tons). and Recycled. which means that CH4 emissions are considered to have 23 times the global warming potential compared to CO2. the Boustead Study calculates GHG emissions for end-of-life using 20 year CO2 equivalents.007 Emission Sources Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 1. California Climate Action Registry. Recyclable Paper. Compostable. 2007.813 330.172 68. These results are significantly higher than those calculated using Ecobilan data.70 The non-standard method of calculating CO2e for end of life in the Boustead Study causes the results to be elevated and not directly comparable to CO2e for end of life calculated in other LCAs. the Boustead Study assumes that 40 percent of methane in landfills is captured. Page 4-31 70 .09 percent of the 2020 target emissions for California (427 million metric tons).712 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. Recyclable Paper. 2007. Compostable. any potential increases in GHG emissions in landfills in the SCAQMD portion of the SCAB will be controlled by SCAQMD Rule 1150. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. In addition. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.1. emphasizing the uncertainty in using LCA data to estimate GHG emissions. In addition.and 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags due to end of life based on LCA data may have the potential to be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with all other related past. Table 26B.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions 273. Version 3.985 325.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Inc. or reasonably foreseeable. 69 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags in the 5.2. the County is attempting to evaluate the GHG emissions impacts of Alternative 3 resulting from paper bags being land-filled from a conservative worst-case scenario for the aforementioned reasons. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. NOTE: 1. January 2009.0 Alternatives.705 393. and any potential increases in GHG emissions in landfills in the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB will be controlled by AVAQMD Rule 1150. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. However. As with its analysis of GHG emissions resulting from the manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags using LCA data. and Recycled.69 which means that CH4 is considered to have 62 times the global warming potential of CO2. Assuming 21 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 5. it can be conservatively determined that the impacts resulting from an 85. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Biodegradable Plastic. CA. It is standard practice to use 100 year CO2 equivalents when calculating CO2e.1.08 to 0. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Biodegradable Plastic. present.4. probable future projects or activities. Therefore.2 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills. Los Angeles.

622 stores x 5.3.000 plastic carryout bags per day that would be affected by Alternative 3 in the unincorporated territory of the County. and up to an additional 426 metric tons per year if similar Ecobilan. and would not conflict with any applicable plan.304. Therefore.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x 13 § 33 daily truck trips (4. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Alternative 3 would cause a potential increase in delivery truck trips required to transport paper carryout bags to stores. and up to 157 additional truck trips per day to and from the 5.622 stores each using 5.3-9. The unmitigated emissions due to delivery truck trips would be approximately 89 metric tons per year of CO2 for the 1. Moorabbin VIC. Assuming that there are 67 stores each using 10. AU.The Ecobilan Study also presented an LCA analysis of a reusable bag and concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on GHG emissions than a plastic carryout bag. Page 4-32 75 74 . it illustrates the general concept of how GHG emission impacts of the life cycle of reusable bags are reduced the more times a bag is used.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x 13 § 156.74 Assuming that there are 462 stores each using 10.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.000 plastic carryout bags per day that would be affected by Alternative 3 in the 88 incorporated cities of the County. 72 71 ExcelPlas Australia. policy.0 Alternatives. 18 April 2007. Inc. GHG emission impacts could be reduced even further.091 stores that would be affected by Alternative 3 in the unincorporated territory of the County. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Australia.024 stores each using 5.5 daily truck trips Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.72 A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in annual GHG emission savings of approximately 6 kilograms per household.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x (67 stores x 10.5-4). the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced. an 85-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in fewer than 157 additional truck trips required per day. 2004. and NOLAN-ITU.000 plastic carryout bags per day and 4.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3.024 stores x 5.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2. (1. As with the proposed ordinances. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores.2.084 stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County were calculated using URBEMIS 2007 (Table 4. Victoria.71 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times.304. Centre for Design at RMIT. If the County were to expand the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives. February 2004. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 3 would not directly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. reusable bags had the lowest GHG emission impacts over the total life cycle. Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags) (Appendix D). Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Biodegradable Material. Paper. 73 Hyder Consulting. a 100-percent conversion to paper carryout bags would be expected to result in fewer than 33 additional truck trips required per day. of the different types of bags studied.000 plastic carryout bags per day / 2.304.304. France.73 As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.4. The ExcelPlas report supports these findings by concluding that.75 The GHG emissions that would be anticipated to result from 33 additional truck trips per day to and from the 1.000 plastic carryout bags per day and 1. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria.000 plastic carryout bags per truck) x (462 stores x 10. a conversion from plastic carryout bag use to reusable bag use would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon GHG emissions.

111. as required by AB 32 (approximately 427 million metric tons in total or 9. Inc.78 Using the Ecobilan results. into water than does plastic carryout bag manufacturing.6 metric tons per capita by 2020). Ltd. Prairie Village.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0005 percent of the County’s target emissions for 2020 (108 million metric tons).3-9).arb. or 0.73 515. due to the potential for increased use of paper carryout bags.00012 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 of 427 million metric tons per year. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks.48 CO2 Emissions per Capita (metric tons/Year) 0. impacts to GHG emissions may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable due to potential indirect emissions from the life cycle of paper carryout bags. such as nitrates and phosphates.93 425. However. and approximately 0. 1990.44 3. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the impacts to hydrology and water quality caused by Alternative 3 would be expected to be below the level of significance.00005 metric ton per capita per year.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. the GHGs emissions due to mobile sources that could potentially be an indirect impact of Alternative 3 would be expected to be below the level of significance.76 Therefore. Due to the fact that Alternative 3 would result in additional reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. December 2008. Several LCAs have analyzed the impacts of bag manufacturing upon eutrophication and concluded that paper carryout bag manufacturing releases more pollutants.2.000040 0.4.3-9 ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS DUE TO INCREASED VEHICLE TRIPS FROM 100-PERCENT CONVERSION FROM PLASTIC TO PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) 89.21 0. Alternative 3 would have the potential for impacts on surface water quality due to eutrophication. Alternative 3 would also create additional potential benefits to hydrology and water quality. Page 4-33 . Hydrology and Water Quality As with the proposed ordinances. TABLE 4. which would not conflict with the emission reduction goals established to reduce emissions of GHGs in California down to 1990 levels by 2020. Alternative 3 would not reduce potential impacts to GHG emissions related to CO2 emissions from potential increases in delivery trucks for paper carryout bags. The total indirect GHG emissions due to mobile sources as a result of a 100-percent conversion from plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags throughout the entire County represents an increase of approximately 0. Available at: http://www.000008 9.6 2571.ordinances were adopted in the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4.ca. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.htm 77 Franklin Associates. it was determined that the 76 California Air Resources Board.2.49 In comparison with the proposed ordinances. KS.0 Alternatives. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.77.4. As with the proposed ordinances.000049 Target GHG Emissions per Capita in the County (metric tons of CO2e) Emission Sources 33 delivery truck trips in the unincorporated territory of the County 157 delivery truck trips in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions CO2 Emissions (Pounds/Day) 540.

and Biodegradable Material. February 2004. Eutrophication Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. February 2004.79 16. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. when considered on a per-use basis. Paper.2. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. Paper. Increased demand for reusable bags may also have the potential to indirectly increase eutrophication impacts from facilities that manufacture reusable bags. it illustrates the general concept of how the eutrophication impacts of reusable bag manufacturing are reduced with each time a bag is used. France.3-10. However. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.59 10. France.4.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Page 4-34 79 . and Biodegradable Material.79 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3. TABLE 4.4-2). Inc. and holds 37 liters of groceries and concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on eutrophication than a plastic carryout bag.39 77. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Paper. For example. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. this would result in an increase in eutrophication of approximately 19 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day for the 1. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags 78 Ecobilan. France. and Biodegradable Material.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total eutrophication due to carryout bag use 8.75 112. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.3-10 EUTROPHICATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Eutrophication (kilograms phosphate equivalent) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Eutrophication Conversion from Conversion from from Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 1. Ecobilan. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and up to an additional 78 kilograms of phosphate per day if similar ordinances were adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County. and up to an additional 93 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day if similar ordinances were adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the eutrophication impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2. Therefore. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon eutrophication are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to plastic and paper carryout bag manufacturing.0 Alternatives.12 SOURCE: Ecobilan.37 Eutrophication Sources Eutrophication due to carryout bag use in the 1. weighs 44 grams. and Appendix C).55 93.2. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.74 92.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Eutrophication due to carryout bag use in the 5.4.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.19 19.901 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. February 2004. Neuilly-sur-Seine.4.potential for an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic to paper carryout bags would result in an increase in eutrophication of approximately 16 kilograms of phosphate equivalent per day for the 1.8 mils).42).4.

Sapphos Environmental. Florence. CA. indirect impacts to water quality from eutrophication due to a potential increase in the demand for paper carryout bag manufacturing would be expected to be less than significant. impacts of Alternative 3 upon surface water quality outside of the Southern California region due to eutrophication would also be expected to be less than significant. would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. pollutant discharges from bag manufacturing facilities have to comply with NPDES requirements and permits. Alternative 3 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. As with the proposed ordinances. It is incorrect to assume that eutrophication resulting from the production and manufacture of paper carryout bags would be left unchecked and unregulated. As with the proposed ordinances. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Carol Trout. The County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Within the United States. there would be no impacts to water quality resulting from eutrophication during the manufacturing process. In addition. Page 4-35 . tsunami. Telephone communication with Ms. 81 80 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Customer Service Department. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.80 or from countries outside of the United States. 15 July 2009. would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company. and surface Watt. injury.81 there are no impacts from eutrophication to surface water quality in the watersheds in the County as a result of Alternative 3. Therefore. KY. or mudflow. Santa Monica.. While a quantitative analysis for eutrophication has been undertaken as discussed above. Inc. regional. which could further reduce eutrophication impacts. 2010. storm drain systems. Since the majority of paper carryout bags supplied to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area are produced in and delivered from states outside of California. determining the level of significance of eutrophication impacts from bag manufacturing would be speculative due to the lack of an established baseline or significance threshold and is further inapplicable given the fact that the manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear not be located within the County. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association and Forest Product Association of Canada Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Further. Alternative 3 would result in potentially beneficial impacts on surface water drainage. would not 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. Inc. February 5.would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon eutrophication.0 Alternatives. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. and federal laws applicable to each manufacturing plant.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. such as Canada. or death involving flooding. Stephanie. would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. any adverse indirect impact upon water quality due to eutrophication would likely be offset by the positive impacts Alternative 3 would be expected to have upon water quality due to a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags in water bodies. and would not cause inundation by seiche. would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore. any indirect increase in pollutant discharge from manufacturing plants due to increased demand for paper carryout bags would be regulated and controlled by the local. Since there appears to be no manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas.

Utilities and Service Systems As with the proposed ordinances.0 Alternatives. “Wastewater Facilities. Alternative 3 would result in potential increases in water use. wastewater generation. Alternative 3 would also create additional potential benefits to utilities and service systems in terms of reducing indirect impacts associated with the production and disposal of plastic carryout bags. would not be considered a significant increase in wastewater.4. energy consumption.84 MGD due to paper carryout bag use throughout the entire County. this would result in an increase in wastewater of 0. Available at: http://www. Due to the fact that Alternative 3 would result in additional reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. and Appendix C). It is important to note that manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear not to be located within the County. Page 4-36 82 .16 percent of the current amount of wastewater treated per day. Accessed on: 8 March 2010.lacsd. However. Wastewater Generation Using the Ecobilan results. Inc. However. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. it was determined that the potential for an 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags would result in an increase in wastewater of approximately 0.19 MGD for the 1.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.3-11.2 percent of the total wastewater treated per day in the County and would not be anticipated to necessitate construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.15 MGD for the 1.” Web site. even assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Alternative 3 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality and would achieve additional benefits due to a greater reduction in the use of plastic carryout bags.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.2. an additional 0.70 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4. the impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of Alternative 3 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. and up to an additional 0.92 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4.3-11. or less than 0.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities. This is less than 0.water quality in the County and would assist the County in attaining TMDLs because Alternative 3 would result in a greater decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags. Therefore. and Appendix C). As with the proposed ordinances. Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.901 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.82 Therefore. and up to an additional 0. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County treat approximately 510 MGD. as with the proposed ordinances.asp Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4. and solid waste generation caused by a potential increase in consumer use of paper carryout bags.2. any increase in wastewater generation due to paper carryout bag manufacturing would not impact wastewater treatment providers in the County.

Inc. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Available at: http://www.2.0 Alternatives.12 0. 83 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.mwdh2o.000 square feet or greater. The water districts within Los Angeles County supplied approximately 1.57 0.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08. France. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 2008.563 MGD in fiscal year 2007/2008.3-12.TABLE 4. California. and up to an additional 1. even assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags.15 0. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1.83 therefore. Los Angeles.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County and up to an additional 1. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.19 Wastewater Sources Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 1. Water Supply The Ecobilan results also show that the potential increase in required water supply due to an 85percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0.11 percent of the water supply in the County and would not be considered to be significant. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.3-11 WASTEWATER GENERATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Wastewater Generation (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to Wastewater 85-percent 100-percent Generation Due Conversion from Conversion from to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. Therefore.84 which represents approximately 0.29 MGD for the 1. 2007 to June 30.22 MGD for the 1.84 0.html Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.doc .4.70 0.92 1. February 2004. the estimated water demands from Alternative 3 would represent approximately 0. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. It is important to note that manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear not to be located within the County. 2008.083 percent of this total.4.08 MGD if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4.11 SOURCE: Ecobilan.2. any increase in water supply necessary for paper carryout bag manufacturing would not impact water suppliers in the County. this would result in an increase in water consumption of 0.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Wastewater Generation 0.37 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County. Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data). and Biodegradable Material.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 5. Paper. However. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.69 0. Page 4-37 84 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.

Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data. Therefore.3-13. Compostable.85 The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in required water supply due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 3.96 MGD if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County.22 0.doc .86 therefore.60 0.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.13 0. and up to an additional 15. 85 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.75 MGD for the 1. and Biodegradable Material. would not be anticipated to necessitate new or expanded entitlements for water. Other studies. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc.29 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 1. 2008. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Los Angeles. Recyclable Paper. The water districts within Los Angeles County supplied approximately 1. Biodegradable Plastic.30 1.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5. so impacts may not directly affect the water districts within the County. France.4. the potential indirect increases in water supply which paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities would be expected to require as an indirect result of Alternative 3. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. to June 30.2 percent of this total.000 square feet or greater. and up to an additional 17. the water supply required for paper carryout bag manufacturing may be supplied by other water districts outside of the County or outside of California. Paper.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Water Consumption Water Consumption Due to Plastic Carryout Bags 0. Page 4-38 Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.3-12 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Conversion from Conversion from Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.4 percent of the water supply in the County.2. 2007.66 SOURCE: Ecobilan. the estimated water demands from Alternative 3 would represent approximately 1.08 1.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. have also noted that paper carryout bag manufacturing requires more water consumption than plastic manufacturing.0 Alternatives. 2007. including the Boustead Study. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08. California. Therefore.87 which represents approximately 1. it is also important to note that the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that produce paper carryout bags for stores in the County appear not to be located within the County. Again. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. and Recycled. Available at: http://www.563 MGD in fiscal year 2007/2008. Neuilly-sur-Seine.72 1.10 MGD if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4.4.37 1.TABLE 4.html 87 Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. February 2004. and Appendix C). 86 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.15 MGD for the 1. this would result in an increase in water consumption of 3.2. 2008.mwdh2o.

10 18.75 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 1. the amount of solid waste generated throughout the entire County based on Ecobilan data would be approximately 0.15 3.22 1. an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags in the 88 incorporated cities of the County would result in approximately 110. Based on first quarter 2009 daily average in-County disposal averages. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.3.54 tons of additional waste deposited at landfills each day. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.5.07 1. approximately 20 percent of County waste is distributed to other out-of-County landfills.4. Under the unlikely worst-case scenario of a 100-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags.TABLE 4. Biodegradable Plastic. and expected impacts of U.26 17. and Recycled. Recyclable Paper.5. the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of Alternative 3. Environmental Protection Agency.71 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. the amount of solid waste generated throughout the County based on Ecobilan data would be approximately 0.386 million tons (Table 3. Inc. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.88 Similarly. and further adjusting the data for current recycling rates and the number of bags used by stores that would be affected by the Alternative 3 throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. the estimated remaining permitted capacity of County landfills is 154. 30 March 2010.2-14. Available at: http://www. Waste Disposal Summary Reports by Quarter by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. Solid Waste Using the Ecobilan data and adjusting for a scenario in which all bags go to landfills at the end of life. Department of Public Works.051 tons per day.S.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.pdf County of Los Angeles. respectively (Table 4.epa.30 15. The permitted daily maximum capacity of the County landfills in total is 43. Page 4-39 89 88 .4. it can be concluded that an 85-percent to 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would result in approximately 23.46 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County. averaging only 21. the County landfills are not accepting anywhere near the daily maximum capacity. respectively (Table 4.42 tons of additional waste deposited at landfills each day. 2007.4. Washington.749 tons per day (Table 3.31 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County.96 21.2. In addition. Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.0 Alternatives.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Water Consumption Water Consumption Due to Plastic Carryout Bags 0. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5.70 to 165. November 2008.3-13 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Increase Due to Increase Due to 85-percent 100-percent Conversion from Conversion from Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 3.89 Therefore.2-1).2-1). Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.3. Under a scenario of an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags. DC. and Appendix C). Report 34.2-14 and Appendix C).11 to 34. Compostable.

impacts from Alternative 3 to utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the 90 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.54 Solid Waste Sources Waste due to carryout bag use in the 1.11 34. NOTE: 1. Recyclable Paper. and Biodegradable Material.2. Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data.90 The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in solid waste due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 95.70 133.3-14 SOLID WASTE GENERATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Solid Waste Generation (Tons per day) Increase Due to 85Increase Due to 100percent Conversion percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper from Plastic to Paper Plastic Carryout Bag Use.40 241.63 23.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Waste due to carryout bag use in the 5. 2007.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. There is nearly universal access to curbside recycling throughout the County. the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of Alternative 3. TABLE 4. February 2004.3 percent of the total daily capacity of the landfills in the County. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. have noted that paper carryout bag disposal results in more solid waste generation than the disposal of plastic carryout bags.0 Alternatives. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Therefore.749 tons per day (Table 3.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total waste 199.4.2-1). Compostable. although the impacts to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste would be expected to be below the level of significance. Paper. the amount of solid waste generated throughout the entire County based on Boustead data is approximately 1. Under the scenario of an 85-percent conversion from plastic to paper carryout bags. the County is considering undertaking additional public outreach through a education program that would aim to increase the percentage of paper carryout bags that are recycled within the County. Additional public education and outreach would increase the number of bags recycled and further reduce indirect impacts of Alternative 3 to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates.2.4. Carryout Assuming Assuming Bag LCA 0-percent Recycling1 0-percent Recycling 41. Biodegradable Plastic.42 199.3-15.96 SOURCE: Ecobilan.79 tons per day for the 1.81 165. Neuilly-sur-Seine. including the Boustead Study. The permitted daily maximum capacity of the County landfills in total is 43. Carryout Bag Use. and Appendix C). and Recycled.74 tons per day if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4. Page 4-40 .03 110. where paper bags can be recycled by homeowners conveniently. France. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.Alternative 3 to utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the level of significance. Negative numbers indicate the extent of the decrease in solid waste generation that would be expected from a conversion Other studies. Inc.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. Finally. and up to an additional 458.5.

Inc.36 173. and methodologies. The manufacturing process of reusable bags would also be expected to generate solid waste. TABLE 4.5.79 117. and Recycled. and the estimated remaining permitted capacity of the County landfills is 154.000 square feet or greater. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.386 million tons (Table 3. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. if the County undertakes additional public outreach through a paper bag recycling public education program that would aim to increase the percentage of paper carryout bags that are recycled within the County.00 682. Finally. Page 4-41 92 . Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.level of significance. even under the unlikely worst-case scenario analyzed.92 However.0 Alternatives. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.4.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. which are heavier and take up more volume than plastic carryout bags.97 tons per day for the 1. These apparently conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study and the importance of understanding study boundaries.93 95.6 percent of the total solid waste disposed of the total daily landfill capacity in the County. Biodegradable Plastic. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. due to the fact 91 Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. and up to an additional 565. averaging only 21.74 554. this would result in an increase in solid waste of 117. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates Alternative 3 would also be anticipated to increase consumer use and eventual disposal of reusable bags.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Waste due to carryout bag use in the 5. This is especially true given that the County landfills are not accepting anywhere near the daily maximum capacity. Prepared by ICF International. Green Cities California. impacts of Alternative 3 to utilities and service systems related to solid waste generation would be expected to be below the level of significance. CA. the existing landfills in the County would be expected to be able to accommodate any indirect solid waste impacts of Alternative 3.00 tons per day if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County.97 Solid Waste Sources Waste due to carryout bag use in the 1.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Solid Waste 143.53 565. Compostable.2. March 2010. inputs. Recyclable Paper.91 which represents approximately 1.29 458. However. The amount of solid waste generated for the life cycle of paper carryout bags according to the Boustead Study is considerably higher than the amount of solid waste generated for the life cycle of paper carryout bags based on Ecobilan data.051 tons per day. it could further reduce indirect impacts of Alternative 3 to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste. San Francisco.2-1).3-15 SOLID WASTE GENERATION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Solid Waste Generation (Tons per day) Increase Due to 85Waste percent Conversion Increase Due to 100Generation due from Plastic to percent Conversion to Plastic Paper Carryout Bag from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Use Carryout Bag Use 29. 2007.97 SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd.

Prepared for: Carrefour Group. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would decrease the total number of bags that are disposed of in landfills. with 47.aspx Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.93 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3.11 million kWh if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County. Accessed on: 4 May 2010.4-8). 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Inc. In fact. and up to 0. Energy Conservation The results of the Ecobilan LCA were used to analyze the potential energy consumption in a conservative worst-case scenario of 85-percent to 100-percent conversion of plastic carryout bags to paper carryout bags (Table 4.4.4-8 and Appendix C).3-16.gov/elecbycounty.4. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag.94 therefore.2.” California Energy Consumption Data Management System. The estimated total electricity consumption in the County in 2007 was 68. Paper. “Electricity Consumption by County. and Biodegradable Material. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the solid waste impacts of a reusable bag and concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on solid waste than a plastic carryout bag. resulting in a decrease in solid waste disposal in the County.0 Alternatives.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and Appendix C).484 million kWh in the non-residential sector. which could further reduce solid waste impacts. France. the indirect estimated electricity demands from Alternative 3 would be negligible in comparison to the total energy demand of the non-residential sector of the County. the reasonable worst-case scenario of 85-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags would result in a slight decrease in non-renewable energy consumption according to Ecobilan data (Table 4. For example. it illustrates the general concept of how solid waste impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Page 4-42 94 93 . California Energy Commission.120 million kWh. Also.ca.2.02 million kilowatts per hour (kWh) for the 1. the solid waste impacts are anticipated to be reduced. The Ecobilan results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in non-renewable energy due to a 100-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 0. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.5.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.3-16 and Appendix C). As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Ecobilan.5. Available at: http://ecdms.that reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. February 2004. Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.energy.

72 -0.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Energy Consumption 3. 95 The Boustead results aided the conclusion that the potential increase in energy demand due to an 85-percent conversion from use of plastic carryout bags to use of paper carryout bags would be approximately 1. 2007. inputs.energy.aspx 97 96 Number of stores determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.02 percent of the total energy use in the non-residential sector of the County. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.ca. and Recycled.43 4.97 which represents approximately 0. rather than total energy. and methodologies. Page 4-43 98 . the Ecobilan data presented above was specifically for non-renewable energy. Accessed on: 29 April 2010.4.14 -0. Prepared by ICF International. These apparently conflicting results emphasize the particularity of each study and the importance of understanding study boundaries. including the Boustead Study. Paper. The majority of the energy use 95 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. and Appendix C). Recyclable Paper. France.” California Energy Consumption Data Management System.11 0.3-16 NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Energy Consumption (million kWh) Energy Consumption Energy Due to Plastic Consumption Energy Consumption Sources (million kWh) Carryout Bags 0. “Electricity Consumption by County.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5.13 SOURCE: Ecobilan.02 Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 1.gov/elecbycounty.TABLE 4. Accessed on: 4 May 2010.000 square feet or greater.03 percent of the non-residential electricity supply in the County. Green Cities California. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags.484 million kWh in the non-residential sector.89 million kWh if similar ordinances were to be adopted by the 88 incorporated cities of the County. Other studies. have also noted that paper carryout bag manufacturing requires more energy consumption than plastic carryout bag manufacturing.63 million kWh for the 1.09 0. and up to an additional 9. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.42 -0. the estimated electricity demands from Alternative 3 would represent approximately 0.51 0.82 million kWh if similar ordinances were adopted within the 88 incorporated cities of the County (Table 4.2. this would result in an increase in energy demand of 2. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Biodegradable Plastic. Compostable.0 Alternatives. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Inc.2. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. San Francisco.06 million kWh for the 1. March 2010. When assuming the unlikely worst-case scenario of 100-percent conversion from the use of plastic carryout bags to the use of paper carryout bags. with 47.3-17.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County. and up to an additional 7. and Biodegradable Material. The estimated total electricity consumption in the County in 2007 was 68.96 therefore. CA.4. The amount of energy required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags according to the Boustead Study is considerably higher than the amount of energy required for the life cycle of paper carryout bags based on Ecobilan data. February 2004. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.98 In addition.120 million kWh. Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data. Available at: http://ecdms. California Energy Commission.

Compostable. an increase in energy demand of approximately 9. it illustrates the general concept of how energy impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.100 As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5.99 The energy demands of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 3.82 9. Therefore. which is equivalent to powering a television for six months.06 2007. and Biodegradable Material. 3. the conservation impacts are anticipated to be reduced. A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in energy savings of 190 mega joules per household. the energy supply required for paper carryout bag manufacturing may be supplied by other districts outside of the County or outside of California. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.4-11 and Appendix C). Biodegradable Plastic. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. even in the conservative worst-case scenario as presented here.2.3-17 TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO PLASTIC AND PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS BASED ON BOUSTEAD DATA Energy Consumption (Million kWh) Increase Due to Increase Due to Energy 85-percent 100-percent Consumption Conversion from Conversion from Due to Plastic Plastic to Paper Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Carryout Bag Use Carryout Bag Use 0.4. Recyclable Paper. Paper. February 2004. Again. Page 4-44 100 99 .5.0 Alternatives.95 It is also important to note that Alternative 3 would be expected to increase consumers’ use of reusable bags.5. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives.92 4.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.82 1. 18 April 2007.analyzed here occurs early in the life cycle of plastic and paper carryout bags.74 7. the Ecobilan Study concluded that the life cycle of a particular type of reusable bag requires less energy than a plastic carryout bag.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total energy consumption SOURCE: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. would be expected to be below the level of significance. Therefore. during processes such as fuel extraction and bag manufacturing. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria. a conversion Ecobilan.63 2.89 11. and Recycled. However. it is also important to note that the paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities that produce paper carryout bags for stores in the County appear not to be located within the County.45 million kWh from 85-percent conversion and 11. which paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities would be expected to require as an indirect result of Alternative 3. Neuilly-sur-Seine.4-11 and Appendix C). Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. Hyder Consulting. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 3. the production of which would consume less energy than the production of both paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis.45 9. TABLE 4. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. France. so impacts may not directly affect the County.95 million kWh from 100-percent conversion. Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 1. For example. Inc. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times.

Unlike the proposed ordinances. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. which could further reduce energy conservation impacts. In that there would be an increased reduction in the consumption of plastic carryout bags. Alternative 3 would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control board.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. and utilities and service systems due to plastic carryout bags would be eliminated. pharmacies. and would comply with federal. convenience stores. Alternative 3 would result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems with regard to solid waste generation. As with the proposed ordinances. Inc.000 square feet under the proposed ordinances). 4. and would achieve additional benefits.5. Alternative 4 would not result in significant adverse impacts to air quality. hydrology and water quality.5. would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Alternative 3 would lead to reduced operational impacts and costs associated with storm drain system maintenance. Alternative 4 would apply to stores within the County that are part of a chain of convenience food stores. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Unlike the proposed ordinances.1 Alternative 4 consists of extending the scope of the proposed ordinances to apply to all supermarkets and other grocery stores. or avoided. Also. Pharmacies. In addition. would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.5 Alternative 4: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. pharmacies. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative Components 4. As with the proposed ordinances. biological resources. Convenience Stores. biological resources.0 Alternatives.2. would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supply. and drug stores in Los Angeles County. Page 4-45 . and drug stores (as opposed to applying only to stores greater than 10. but not including restaurant establishments. Alternative 4 would ban the issuance of plastic and paper carryout bags from stores within the County that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code. but would achieve additional benefits to the storm drain system due to a greater reduction in the use of plastic carryout bags.from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon energy conservation. Alternative 4 would not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions. Section 14526. corresponding adverse impacts to air quality. and utilities and service systems. state. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. convenience stores.2. hydrology and water quality. all supermarkets and other grocery stores. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and (2) are buildings that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. reduced. As with the proposed ordinances. GHG emissions.

000 square feet currently uses approximately 5. 105 Dona Sturgess.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may not accurately reflect the actual number of bags consumed per day on average for stores greater than 10.984 bags per day.000 bags per day. 104 103 102 Data from the infoUSA indicates that approximately 40 percent of the stores greater than 10.2. clean-up. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.000 square feet. Reported data from only 12 stores reflected a total plastic carryout bag usage of 122. 102 It was assumed that each store larger than 10.084.249 plastic carryout bags and rounded to approximately 10. for the purposes of this EIR.000 square feet in the unincorporated territories of the County are larger than 40.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day may likely be very high. Number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110. plastic carryout bag litter that blights public spaces. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 4-46 . Based on coordination between the County Department of Public Works and several large supermarket chains in the County. 445120.000 square feet. 4.091. The same may also be true of the 5. Therefore. as it is more than twice the bag average reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in 2008 for AB 2449 affected stores. In addition. and at the request of the large supermarket chains providing this data.5.700 stores statewide affected by AB 2449 reported an average of 4. Accordingly. cities’. A daily average per store was then calculated at 10.0 Alternatives.000 square feet that would be affected by Alternative 3 would be at less than half the size of the stores to be affected by the proposed ordinances and would use less than half the number of bags.2 Objectives and Feasibility As shown in Table 4-1. and 446110 with no filters for gross annual sales volume or square footage. and Flood Control Districts’ costs for prevention. Inc. it was determined that approximately 10. Alternative 4 would also serve to reduce Countywide consumption of paper carryout bags and the Countywide disposal of paper carryout bags in landfills. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.104 It is important to note that these numbers is likely very high. County of Los Angeles.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Alternative 4 would result in encouraging the 88 incorporated cities of the County to adopt similar ordinances to ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags. CA. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario. In 2008. it would be reasonable to estimate that the stores smaller than 10. Alternative 4 would increase public awareness of the negative impacts of plastic carryout bags and the benefits of reusable bags. E-mail to Luke Mitchell. Sacramento.000 plastic carryout bags are used per store per day. Department of Public Works. CA. While the 5.The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 4 in the unincorporated areas of the County is approximately 1. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. and enforcement efforts to reduce litter in the County. Alternative 4 would be more effective than the proposed ordinances in reducing the Countywide consumption of plastic carryout bags. 4.101 The number of stores that could be affected by Alternative 4 in the incorporated cities of the County is approximately 5. the names of these large supermarket chains will remain confidential.000 square feet.000 square feet in the County unincorporated and incorporated areas. Alternative 4 would accomplish all of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County. this number was used to conservatively evaluate impacts resulting from a worst case scenario as well.000 plastic carryout bags per day. 445120.103 and each store smaller than 10. and the County’s. Alhambra. for the purposes of this EIR. 101 Number of stores in the unincorporated territories of the County was determined from the infoUSA database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes 445110.105 While 10.695 bags used per store per day.000 plastic carryout bags per day. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. 29 April 2010. Due to confidential and proprietary concerns. the average size of the stores to be affected by the proposed County ordinance would be greater than 20. and 446110 with no filters for gross annual sales volume or square footage. Alternative 4 would be more effective than the proposed ordinances in reducing Countywide disposal of plastic carryout bags in landfills.000 square feet currently uses approximately 10.000 plastic carryout bags per store per day estimate for stores less than 10.

5. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Paper.8 mils thick.3-1. The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on air pollutant emissions than a plastic carryout bag.3 Comparative Impacts An assessment of the comparative impacts of plastic and paper carryout bags prepared for the Scottish Executive in order to analyze the impacts of a bag tax in Scotland. and R. unlike the proposed ordinances. the air quality impacts are anticipated to be reduced. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Therefore. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Therefore. GHG emissions. Prepared for: Scottish Executive 2005.1. showed that imposing a fee on both plastic and paper carryout bags would be environmentally superior to placing a tax upon only plastic carryout bags due to reductions in air pollutant emissions.4. France. Inc. and disposal of paper carryout bags (Table 3.107 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times.1. to a lesser extent. 2005. The Ecobilan Study presented an LCA analysis of a reusable bag that is approximately 2. February 2004. 106 Cadman. J. Also. weighs 44 grams.2. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of four times (Table 4. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Holland. Due to the fact that Alternative 4 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. and. 107 Ecobilan. Air Quality As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential indirect increase in NOx emissions due to an indirect increase in the manufacture.4-2). Neuilly-sur-Seine.2.0 Alternatives. M. it illustrates the general concept of how air quality impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment Final Report. Alternative 4 would also create benefits to air quality in terms of reducing emissions of CO. and Biodegradable Material. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. and litter. Page 4-47 . and VOCs.5. Boyd.106 It is anticipated that Alternative 4 would result in a significant decrease in the consumption of both paper and plastic carryout bags throughout the County.4-3). Prepared for: Carrefour Group. distribution. which could further reduce air quality impacts. Evans. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. SOx caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. the impacts to air quality caused by Alternative 4 would be expected to be below the level of significance. as it would oblige consumers to use reusable bags in the affected stores. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. PM.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon air quality. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Ecobilan Data). S. and holds 37 liters of groceries.

Alternative 3 would also be expected to increase consumer use of reusable bags. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags are used multiple times. Total VOCs include all compounds defined as contributors to the formation of photochemical oxidants in the Ecobilan Study. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. Alternative 4 would result in lesser impacts to air quality than those associated with the proposed ordinances and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of all criteria pollutants due to further reductions in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags as well as a reduction in the use of paper carryout bags. the fact that they can be reused multiple times means that the number of reusable bags in the waste stream Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Although Alternative 4 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. Page 4-48 . Therefore. Therefore. the net number of bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 4. February 2004. France.992 SOURCE: Ecobilan.TABLE 4. Alternative 4 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Reusable bags have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County2 Total Emissions VOCs -517 Air Pollutants (Pounds/Day)3 NOx CO SOx -158 -758 -917 -818 -3. NOTES: 1.736 -118 -563 -681 PM -116 -556 -672 -2.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. which are not included in the SCAQMD definition of VOCs under Rule 102. Emissions are reduced further when the bags are used additional times. would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Unlike the proposed ordinances.3-1 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS USED FOUR TIMES BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA 1 Emission Sources Emissions due to the 1. Although reusable bags do eventually get discarded and become part of the waste stream. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. and acetone.918 -4. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated criteria pollutant emissions required to transport bags to stores. Inc. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. and Biodegradable Material. Based on each reusable bag being used 4 times. 3. apart from methane.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County2 Emissions due to the 5.2. Alternative 4 would achieve the same reduction in litter composed of plastic carryout bag waste in freshwater and coastal environments.475 -2. which has been shown to have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources. As with the proposed ordinances.0 Alternatives.5. Biological Resources As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 4 would result in a significant reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags within the County. ethane. would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 2. Paper. and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Alternative 4 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

distribution. Page 4-49 . Alternative 4 would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate. sensitive. would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. unlike the proposed ordinances. Therefore. and endangered species.2. and would not conflict with County General Plan policies requiring the protection of biological resources. and species of special concern. and holds 37 liters of groceries.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0 Alternatives. would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. As with the proposed ordinances. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags.32.as a result of Alternative 3 would be much lower than the number of paper and plastic carryout bags that would end up in the waste stream as a result of the proposed ordinances. rare. 108 Ecobilan. Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Three Times Based on Ecobilan Data).5-2).8 mils thick. As with the proposed ordinances. Due to the fact that Alternative 4 would also result in significant reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags in the County. Therefore. Also. or special status.108 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times. or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. which could further reduce GHG emission impacts. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 4. and disposal of paper carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. the GHG emission impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Unlike the proposed ordinances. federally protected wetlands. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. a conversion from plastic carryout bag use to reusable bag use would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon GHG emissions. The smaller number of reusable bags in the waste stream means that reusable bags are less likely to be littered and less likely to end up in the ocean or other wildlife habitats than plastic carryout bags. it illustrates the general concept of how GHG emission impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. weighs 44 grams. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. France. Unlike the proposed ordinances. February 2004. and Biodegradable Material. meaning that they are less likely to be blown by the wind and end up as litter. The Ecobilan Study presented an LCA analysis of a reusable bag that is approximately 2.5. Alternative 4 would have the potential to improve habitats and aquatic life and would result in potentially beneficial impacts upon sensitive habitats. As with the proposed ordinances. The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on GHG emissions than a plastic carryout bag. including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. Paper. threatened. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the impacts to GHG emissions caused by Alternative 4 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential indirect increase in GHG emissions due to an increase in the manufacture. Inc.3. Alternative 4 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources and would achieve additional benefits due to further reductions in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. reusable bags are heavier than are plastic carryout bags. Alternative 4 would also create indirect benefits to GHG emissions in terms of reducing emissions of CO2e caused by manufacturing plastic carryout bags (Table 3. Further.

As with the proposed ordinances.65 -21. policy. Therefore.002 568.773 -0.TABLE 4. Per capita emissions are calculated using the estimated 2010 population in the County (10. Although Alternative 4 would increase demand for reusable bags and would result in additional reusable bags being transported to stores. Alternative 4 would not directly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Based on each reusable bag being used three times.96 -59. NOTES: 1. the net number of bags used by each store would be expected to decrease under Alternative 4.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Emissions in the 5. and would not conflict with any applicable plan.3-2 ESTIMATED DAILY EMISSION CHANGES DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS USED THREE TIMES BASED ON DATA FROM ECOBILAN CO2e Emission Sources Plastic Carryout Bags Metric Tons Per Day 100-percent Conversion from Plastic Carryout Bags to Reusable Bags Used Three Times1. or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.615.0 Alternatives.700).002 SOURCE: Ecobilan. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. which would cause a less than significant increase in emissions due to delivery truck trips to transport paper carryout bags to stores. the number of reusable bags required by each store would be significantly less than the current number of bags used by each store due to the fact that reusable bags are used multiple times.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Emissions in the County Metric Tons Per Year Per Capita3 98.546 0. February 2004. the impacts to hydrology and water quality caused by Alternative 4 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Unlike the proposed ordinances. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Paper. Page 4-50 .46 -4. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Inc. Neuilly-sur-Seine.11 -26. Alternative 4 would not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions and would be expected to result in a net decrease in emissions of GHGs due to further reductions in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags as well as a reduction in the use of paper carryout bags. France. As with the proposed ordinances. 2.000 9.13 -12. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.5.2 Metric Tons Per Year Per Metric Tons Metric Tons Capita3 Per Day Per Year 2020 CO2e Target Emissions Emissions Areas Emissions in the 1. Alternative 4 would be expected to result in a net decrease in delivery truck trips required to transport both plastic and paper carryout bags to stores. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. emissions are reduced further when the bags are used additional times.2.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.08 -72. Unlike the proposed ordinances. and Biodegradable Material. 3.319 -0. Hydrology and Water Quality As with the proposed ordinances.6 469. resulting in a decrease in the number of truck trips and associated GHG emissions required to transport bags to stores.

France.85 -7. France.110 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 4. The County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.5. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. 110 Ecobilan. Page 4-51 .8 mils). February 2004.2. weighs 44 grams.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total eutrophication due to carryout bag use 8. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. which could further reduce eutrophication impacts.2. and holds 37 liters of groceries. and Biodegradable Material.55 Eutrophication Sources Eutrophication due to reusable bag use in the 1. February 2004.41 -8.15 -1. and Biodegradable Material. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. Neuilly-sur-Seine. impacts of reusable bag manufacturing upon eutrophication are likely to be less significant than the impacts due to plastic and paper carryout bag manufacturing. However. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.0 Alternatives. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.4-2). it illustrates the general concept of how the eutrophication impacts of reusable bag manufacturing are reduced with each time a bag is used. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. February 2004. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Eutrophication due to reusable bag use in the 5. Paper. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. and Biodegradable Material.3-3. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Paper. Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data).4.4-1 and Table 3.3-3). would not 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. Increased demand for reusable bags may also have the potential to indirectly increase eutrophication impacts from facilities that manufacture reusable bags.3-3 EUTROPHICATION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Eutrophication (kilograms phosphate equivalent) Eutrophication Eutrophication Due to Eutrophication Due to from Plastic Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Carryout Bags Used 3 Times1 Used 20 Times1 1. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Alternative 4 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.Alternative 4 would also create potential benefits to hydrology and water quality due to a potential reduction of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. NOTE: 1.5. Inc.96 SOURCE: Ecobilan. would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially increase the rate or 109 Ecobilan.70 -0.79 -0.2. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 4. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.39 -0. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the eutrophication impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2.59 10.5. Neuilly-sur-Seine. TABLE 4. Paper. France.109 The analysis concluded that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on eutrophication than a plastic carryout bag.4. For example. As with the proposed ordinances. Therefore. when considered on a per-use basis (Table 3. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would be anticipated to have reduced impacts upon eutrophication.

Prepared for: Carrefour Group. 112 Ecobilan. tsunami. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss.5. Alternative 4 would be anticipated to result in indirect reductions in solid waste generation.3-4. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. France. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and holds 37 liters of groceries. 111 Ecobilan. Neuilly-sur-Seine. France. water consumption. water consumption. February 2004. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential increase in the consumer use of paper carryout bags. which could further reduce wastewater impacts. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. or wastewater generation due to an increase in the manufacture and disposal of paper carryout bags. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags.112 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 4. Unlike the proposed ordinances. In fact. and Biodegradable Material. storm drain systems. and wastewater generation due to a reduction in the manufacture and disposal of paper carryout bags compared to current conditions. or mudflow. energy consumption. it illustrates the general concept of how wastewater impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. Paper.111 The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on wastewater than a plastic carryout bag. February 2004. would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Page 4-52 . Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and surface water quality in the County and would assist the County in attaining TMDLs because Alternative 4 would result in a decrease of litter attributed to plastic carryout bags. Alternative 4 would not result in a potential indirect increase in solid waste generation.8 mils). and Appendix C). would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Inc. it is expected that the amount of wastewater generated will be lower than the amount of wastewater generated by the manufacture of plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.2. Paper. Alternative 4 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality and would achieve additional benefits due to further reductions in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags and paper carryout bags. due to the fact that reusable bags will be designed to be reused multiple times. unlike the proposed ordinances. As with the proposed ordinances. weighs 44 grams. Neuilly-sur-Seine. Therefore. For example. would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times. and would not cause inundation by seiche. and Biodegradable Material. Alternative 4 would result in potentially beneficial impacts on surface water drainage.0 Alternatives. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Utilities and Service Systems As with the proposed ordinances. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. the wastewater impacts are anticipated to be reduced. Wastewater Generation Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. the Ecobilan Study evaluated the wastewater impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2. Wastewater Generation Although the manufacture of reusable bags also will also produce wastewater. the impacts to utilities and service systems caused by Alternative 4 would be expected to be below the level of significance. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Also. injury or death involving flooding. As with the proposed ordinances.

Prepared for: Carrefour Group.113 The water demands of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 4. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. France.12 -0.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Wastewater Generation 0. and Biodegradable Material. 113 Ecobilan. Inc.10 Wastewater Sources Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 1. France.3-4 WASTEWATER GENERATION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Wastewater Generation (MGD) Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater Generation Due to Generation Due to Generation from Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Plastic Carryout Reusable Bags Are Reusable Bags Are Bags Used 3 Times1 Used 20 Times1 0.TABLE 4.3-5 and Appendix C). Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.06 -0.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Page 4-53 114 .2.2. Hyder Consulting.3-5.49 -0. Paper.01 -0.69 -0. Neuilly-sur-Seine.2. February 2004. which could further reduce water supply impacts. Water Supply Alternative 4 would be expected to significantly increase consumers’ use of reusable bags. Neuilly-sur-Seine.57 0. NOTE: 1. it illustrates the general concept of how water supply impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.05 -0.0 Alternatives. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. and Appendix C).5. and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Wastewater generation due to carryout bag use in the 5. For example. Also. Prepared for: Carrefour Group.5. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. 18 April 2007. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in water savings equivalent to approximately 7 liters per household per year (which is equivalent to just under 2 gallons per household per year). Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. the production of which would consume less water than the production of both paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. Paper.5. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. the Ecobilan Study concluded that the life cycle of a particular type of reusable bag requires less water than a plastic carryout bag. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives. February 2004. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.114 As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 4. the water supply impacts are anticipated to be reduced.59 SOURCE: Ecobilan.

091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5. Neuilly-sur-Seine. The manufacturing process of reusable bags would also be expected to generate solid waste. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. the solid waste impacts are anticipated to be reduced. and Appendix C). the Ecobilan Study evaluated the solid waste impacts of a reusable bag that is 70 micrometers thick (approximately 2. France.TABLE 4. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags.08 -0.2.11 0. and Biodegradable Material.52 -0. Paper.3-6 and Appendix C). NOTE: 1.13 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags When Used 3 Times1 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags When Used 20 Times1 Water Consumption Sources Water consumption due to carryout bag use in the 1. 115 Ecobilan. which could further reduce solid waste impacts.63 SOURCE: Ecobilan. and holds 37 liters of groceries. which are heavier and take up more volume than plastic carryout bags.10 -0.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total water consumption -0. France.5. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. Also. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.60 0. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.115 The conclusion from the analysis was that this particular reusable bag has a smaller impact on solid waste than a plastic carryout bag.3-6. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 4. it illustrates the general concept of how solid waste impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.5.72 -0. 116 Ecobilan.2. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. resulting in a decrease in solid waste disposal in the County.02 -0. Neuilly-sur-Seine.8 mils). France.3-5 WATER CONSUMPTION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Water Consumption (MGD) Water Consumption from Plastic Carryout Bags 0. and Biodegradable Material. due to the fact that reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. February 2004. a conversion from plastic carryout bags to reusable bags would decrease the total number of bags that are disposed of in landfills. For example. Page 4-54 .0 Alternatives. However. weighs 44 grams. and Biodegradable Material. Paper. Paper. Solid Waste Alternative 4 would also be anticipated to increase consumer use and eventual disposal of reusable bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.116 The impacts of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 4. Neuilly-sur-Seine.5. Inc.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. February 2004. Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. February 2004.2.

NOTE: 1. France.3-7 and Appendix C). Prepared for: Carrefour Group.87 -12. which is equivalent to powering a television for six months. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria.5. the County is considering expanding the scope of its ordinance to include a performance standard for reusable bags. Page 4-55 118 . Australia.2. which could further reduce energy conservation impacts. February 2004.58 -22. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. Paper. February 2004. the Ecobilan Study concluded that the life cycle of a particular type of reusable bag requires less energy than a plastic carryout bag. Inc. Neuilly-sur-Seine. 18 April 2007. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. For example. Neuilly-sur-Seine.5. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bag Alternatives.71 123.3-6 SOLID WASTE DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Solid Waste (Tons per Day) Solid Waste Due to Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags When Reusable Bags When Used 3 Times1 Used 20 Times1 -2.2. Victoria.78 SOURCE: Ecobilan. 117 Ecobilan.118 As the banning of plastic carryout bags is expected to increase the use of reusable bags. Although the Ecobilan data is particular to a specific type of reusable bag. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.94 -106. and Biodegradable Material.3-7.53 -128. France.2. Paper. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic.5.15 148. the production of which would consume less energy than the production of both paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags when considered on a per-use basis. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. A study by Hyder Consulting supports this finding and concludes that a reusable non-woven polypropylene bag that is used 104 times would result in energy savings of 190 mega joules per household.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Solid waste due to reusable bag use in the 5. the energy conservation impacts are anticipated to be reduced.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0 Alternatives. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Also. and Appendix C). Energy Conservation Alternative 4 would be expected to significantly increase consumers’ use of reusable bags. Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.117 The energy demands of the reusable bag are reduced further when the bag is used additional times (Table 4. as long as the reusable bag is used a minimum of three times (Table 4.TABLE 4. and Biodegradable Material.24 Solid Waste Sources Solid waste due to reusable bag use in the 1. Hyder Consulting.36 -14.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Solid Waste Solid Waste from Plastic Carryout Bags 25. because reusable bags are designed to be used multiple times. it illustrates the general concept of how energy impacts of reusable bag manufacture are reduced the more times a bag is used.

Inc.61 Energy Consumption Sources Energy consumption due to 1. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine. and Biodegradable Material. February 2004.5. and utilities and service systems would be exacerbated. Alternative 4 would not be expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems and would achieve additional benefits due to a reduction in the use of paper carryout bags. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4.TABLE 4.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. the No Project Alternative is incapable of meeting any of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County.94 -3. would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. In addition. would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Page 4-56 .56 SOURCE: Ecobilan. As with the proposed ordinances. and would comply with federal.26 -2.14 -0.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Although the No Project Alternative would reduce potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions compared with the proposed ordinances. would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.21 -0. NOTE: 1. A negative number for emissions indicates the extent of the reduction in GHG emissions generated by reusable bags compared to the GHG emissions generated by plastic carryout bags. due to the fact that Alternative 4 would be expected to result in significant reductions in the disposal of plastic carryout bags in the County. would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supply. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 4 would be expected to lead to reduced operational impacts and costs associated with storm drain system maintenance due to a reduction in the amount of plastic carryout bag waste in the litter stream. 4.3-7 NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION DUE TO REUSABLE BAGS BASED ON ECOBILAN DATA Energy Consumption (Million kWh) Energy Consumption from Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Plastic Carryout Due to Reusable Bags Due to Reusable Bags When Used 3 Times1 When Used 20 Times1 Bags 0. would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. state. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.72 -0.084 stores in the incorporated cities of the County Total Energy Consumption 3. and when taking into account that the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts resulting from paper carryout bags from a conservative worst-case scenario. Alternative 4 would not be expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control board.2. France. Paper. As with the proposed ordinances.04 -0.43 4. impacts to biological resources.0 Alternatives. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternatives 2 and 3 may have the Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. As with the proposed ordinances. Alternative 4 would also create potential benefits to utilities and service systems due to a reduction of plastic carryout bag litter in storm drains.091 stores in the unincorporated territory of the County Energy consumption due to carryout bag use in the 5. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. hydrology and water quality. rather than avoided or reduced.

Alternative 2 would be expected to reduce consumption of paper carryout bags through implementation of a fee. Alternative 3 would result in additional benefits to biological resources as a result of reduced consumption of plastic carryout bags and would still meet all of the objectives identified by the County.doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. However. Page 4-57 . Alternative 4 is anticipated to result in the greatest reduction in use of both plastic and paper carryout bags.potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions. and is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\4. Unlike the proposed ordinances. Inc. while still meeting all of the objectives identified by the County. Ordinances to Ban Carryout Plastic Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.0 Alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 4 would not result in the potential for cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions and would result in additional beneficial impacts.

any indirect GHG emissions at bag manufacturing facilities or landfills would be controlled by the owners of the facilities in accordance with applicable regional. However. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 2. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 3.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. significant impacts. Convenience Stores. Pharmacies. this EIR identifies four alternatives capable of reducing consumer use of paper bags and the related potentially beneficial impacts to air quality. There are no feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce cumulative impacts. and utilities and service systems.0 of this EIR. Pursuant to CEQA.0 SIGNIGIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES ARE IMPLEMENTED This section of the EIR summarizes an analysis of the potential for implementation of the proposed ordinances to result in significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided. considering the related past. However. and Level of Significance after Mitigation. probable future projects. GHG emissions. present. or reasonably foreseeable. of this EIR. and they are described in Section 4. Consistent with the requirements of Section 15126. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative 4. The potential for the implementation of the proposed ordinances to result in significant environmental impacts has been analyzed in Section 3. therefore.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. biological resources.0 of this EIR. and utilities and service systems: x x x x Alternative1. hydrology and water quality. including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to the level below significance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design. the impacts’ implications and reasons why the proposed ordinances are being proposed. biological resources. Pharmacies. the proposed ordinances would not be expected to result in significant impacts related to air quality. cumulative impacts due to indirect GHG emissions may remain as adverse significant impacts. State. Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores.0 Significant Unavoidable. are described in this section of the EIR. The indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances on GHG emissions were determined to be below the level of significance due to the low level of per-capita emissions. Impacts. Mitigation. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. and federal regulations pertaining to GHG emissions. Existing Conditions. notwithstanding their effects. the indirect impacts of the proposed ordinances may have the potential to contribute significantly to cumulative global climate change impacts. Inc. and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Each of these four alternatives is capable of meeting all of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances. Convenience Stores. Page 5-1 .SECTION 5. Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores. hydrology and water quality. are also described. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\5. Based on the analysis contained in Section 3.0.

Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.0.SECTION 6.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES This section of the EIR summarizes the potential for implementation of the proposed ordinances to result in significant irreversible environmental changes. In addition. or other environmental changes that commit future generations to similar uses.0 Significant Irreversible. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Page 6-1 . Irreversible environmental changes can also result from potential accidents associated with the proposed ordinances.0 of this EIR determined that the proposed ordinances would not result in significant adverse irreversible environmental changes that would commit future generations to similar uses. there would be no environmental changes related to the consumption of non-renewable resources or from accidents identified for any issue area analyzed in Section 3. The analysis performed in Section 3. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\6. Such a change refers to an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources. Inc.

As such. The types of projects that are normally considered to result in growth-inducing impacts are those that provide infrastructure suitable to support additional growth or remove an existing barrier to growth. would be filled by the existing labor force in the area.Doc Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. The proposed ordinances would not include the development of infrastructure such as water systems. Inc. sewer systems. Page 7-1 . in the surrounding environment. 2010 W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\7. Such impacts normally occur when a project fosters economic or population growth. the proposed ordinances would not result in or contribute to a growth-inducing impact. any jobs related to the implementation of the proposed ordinances. The proposed ordinances aim to significantly reduce the amount of litter in the County that can be attributed to the use of plastic carryout bags. if any. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. either directly or indirectly. schools. energy generation. or the construction of additional housing. The proposed ordinances would not create or contribute to growth-inducing impacts.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS This section of the EIR analyzes the potential for the proposed ordinances to result in growth-inducing impacts. public services. Further. or transportation improvements that could potentially result in increased population growth in the County.0 Growth Inducing. The proposed ordinances do not contain any development and would not be expected to result in the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly. and do not contain elements that would be expected to foster economic or population growth.SECTION 7.

.................................Bret Banks Regional Water Quality Control Board.................... Inc.........................1.....................................................................3 Regional County of San Francisco Legislative Aid for District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi ..............Stacy Harvey Civil Engineering Assistant.................... Dona Sturgess 8............................... Daniel Garcia Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Operations Manager.......................................................1.................................Burt Kumagawa Manager........Coby Skye Senior Civil Engineer.................................2 PUBLIC AGENCIES Federal State California Air Resources Board Office of Climate Change ...........................................................................................................1............1.............................SECTION 8.................................................. Nilda Gemeniano Administrative Assistant II.......... Luke Mitchell Assistant Division Engineer..................0 Organizations Consulted...................4 County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office Principal Analyst ............................... Jeannie Blakeslee California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ........ Chief Executive Officer ................................................... Los Angeles Region....................................................... W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\8.................. Lahontan Region ...............................1 8................................................................ 2010 Sapphos Environmental...........Dorothea Park Department of Public Works Associate Civil Engineer .................... Javier Minjares South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Specialist.....................................................1 8............................................................................. Pat Proano Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2..................Doc Page 8-1 ............... Rick Galbreath Southern California Association of Governments........................................................................ Carlos Ruiz Assistant Deputy Director...................................................... Jack Macy San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ..Eric Wu San Francisco Department of the Environment ................. Judith Unsicker Regional Water Quality Control Board...................Karen Hurst 8.................................................... Suk Chong Associate Civil Engineer ....................................0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8.................................................................

.................................Christine Safriet Duro Bag Manufacturing Company Customer Service Department ......................................................Civil Engineering Assistant.................................5 Cities City of Berkeley...... W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\8...1......................................................................................................... Allen Tai City of Malibu Environmental Programs Coordinator ......... Rick Crandall AECOM Senior Associate ............................................................................................................................... Truc Moore Principal County Counsel.............................................................................................. Gisela Batres Office of the County Counsel Deputy County Counsel ............................................................................... Inc............................. Phil Bobel 8.............................. Andy Schnieder City of San Jose Environmental Services Department .......... Eric Haaland City of Palo Alto..................................................Doc Page 8-2 .........0 Organizations Consulted................................... David (last name not provided) Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2...... Department of Public Works Recycling Program Manager...................................................................................................................................................Jennifer Voccola City of Malibu Department of Public Works ..............James Dragan 8.........................................................2 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Albertsons Director of Environmental Stewardship........................................................................................ Carol Trout Uline ............ 2010 Sapphos Environmental.......... Department of Public Works Environmental Compliance Manager..............................................................................Judith Fries Department of Public Health...............Amanda (last name not provided) Uline .......................... Rebecca Nelson City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Department...

Inc.SECTION 9. 2010 Sapphos Environmental.0 Report Preparation Personnel.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL The following individuals contributed to the preparation of this document: 9.3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Title Principal Analyst Manager. CEO Area of Responsibility Strategic coordination Strategic coordination Contributor Burt Kumagawa Dorothea Park Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\9.2 COUNTY COUNSEL Title Deputy County Counsel Principal County Counsel Area of Responsibility Strategic coordination Strategic coordination Contributor Truc Moore Judith Fries 9.Doc Page 9-1 .1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Title Associate Civil Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Assistant Division Engineer Assistant Deputy Director Associate Civil Engineer Administrative Assistant II Civil Engineering Assistant Civil Engineering Assistant Area of Responsibility Project management Strategic coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Coordination Contributor Coby Skye Suk Chong Carlos Ruiz Pat Proano Nilda Gemeniano Stacy Harvey Gisela Batres Luke Mitchell 9.

Contributor Marie Campbell Title Principal Area of Responsibility Strategic coordination CEQA quality assurance / quality control Senior project management Project management Laura Kaufman Tony Barranda Environmental Compliance Director Senior Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator Environmental Compliance Specialist Environmental Compliance Coordinator Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator Technical Editor Senior Resources Coordinator Eimon Raoof Laura Watson Stephanie Watt Donna Grotzinger Cristina Yamasaki Debra de la Torre 9. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\9.Doc Page 9-2 . Inc. have been included in Appendix E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Document production Biological Resources SUBCONSULTANTS Title Principal Economic Research Associates Project Manager Economic Research Associates Area of Responsibility Socioeconomic analysis Socioeconomic analysis Contributor Amitabh Barthakur Christine Safriet Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2. Air Quality.0 Report Preparation Personnel.4 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.5 Project management Project management. Résumés of key personnel from Sapphos Environmental. Inc.9. Key Personnel Résumés.

Prepared for: Progressive Bag Alliance. Alhambra.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.. Mike Holland and Richard Boyd. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy -. CA. Edinburgh. M. Sept 9–11. Evans. Suzanne Evans. County of Los Angeles. CA. CA. Biodegradable Plastic. J. 2007. 30 March 2010. and Recycled. 26 January 2010. Pasadena.. May 2005. Bamford (eds). Cadman. Andrady. Sapphos Environmental. City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy – Extended Impact Assessment Final Report. S. Uline.0 References.com/Politics/plastic-bag-plummets-nationscapital/story?id=10239503 Amanda (last name not provided). MD. Antelope Valley AQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines.asp?CID=1106&DID=7212 Cadman. Banks. and R. Available at: http://www.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. CA. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría.SECTION 10. C. AVAQMD Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Available at: http://www. Scotland: Scottish Executive. and Mike A. Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of the Environment.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOSOR&R-30. “Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics. Arthur. Sapphos Environmental. Compostable. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2008.com/s_plastics/doc. Inc. Bladensburg. Inc. “Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence. James. Bobel. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic. Page 10-1 . 20 May 2008. 364: 1977–1984. Prepared for: Scottish Executive.Extended Impact Assessment: Volume 1: Main Report: Final Report. 2009.. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. Telephone correspondence with Leanna Guillermo.mdaqmd..” Available at: http://abcnews. August 2005. Inc.go. Lancaster. J. Neal.0 REFERENCES ABC News. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. 22 April 2010. Pasadena. Lancaster. Holland.aspx?documentid=916 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. 2009. Recyclable Paper. California. December 2008. Anacostia Watershed Society. 8 March 2010. CA. 2005. Anthony L. Operations Manager.americanchemistry. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. “Nickel Power: Plastic Bag Use Plummets in Nation's Capital. Baker and H. Phil. Palo Alto. Anacostia Watershed Trash Reduction Plan. Bret. Department of Public Works. Boyd.ca.

Assembly Bill 32. Available at: http://www. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. California Climate Action Team. Available at: http://www. 21 May 2008. Sections 15000–15387. California Air Resources Board. California Code of Regulations.0 References. California Department of Justice. CA. CA. Sacramento. Available at: http://www. Sacramento. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General. Title 14. Updated 9 December 2008. Chapter 3. Appendix G. Page 10-2 . California Air Resources Board. Available at: http://www. CA.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.arb.htm California Air Resources Board. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.htm California Climate Action Registry. CA. December 2008.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument. Sacramento.arb. CA.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration.arb. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act.ca. January 2008. California Climate Action Team. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. 24 October 2008. Sacramento. California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. Office of the Attorney General. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit. October 2007.California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.pdf California Air Resources Board.arb.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs. Final Draft of Chapter 8 on Economic Assessment of the Draft Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. CA.ca. 3 April 2006. CA. Division 6. January 2009. CA.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Prelim_Draft_Staff_Proposal_10-24-08. Reviewed 5 March 2008.opr. Available at: http://www. Rarefind 3: California Natural Diversity Database.pdf California Air Resources Board.ca. Sacramento. 16 November 2007. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10. Version 3.ca. 12 January 2006. Sacramento. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. CA.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report. Inc. Sacramento.pdf California Air Resources Board.ca. Los Angeles.1. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. 2009.

CA. 2007.ca. “Basin Plan Amendment–TMDLs.” Don’t Trash California.opr. CA.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB_97_bill_20070824_chaptered. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group. “Table ES-3: Composition of California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type. Inc. Available at: http://www. Senate Bill No. 97. Available at: http://www.ca. CA.pdf. Available at: http://www.” Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study. CA. Inc.aspx California Environmental Protection Agency. Berkeley.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/tmdl/tmdl_list.ciwmb. Available at: http://www. Compostable Plastics.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.gov/Publications/default. 2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Inc. p.gov/Publications/Plastics/2009001.” California Energy Consumption Data Management System.ca.shtml California Governor.waterboards. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 12 June 2007. Available at: http://www.pdf California Integrated Waste Management Board.gov/Publications/default. 24 August 2007. Sacramento. CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Sacramento. Sacramento.calrecycle. Executive Order S-3-05. December 2004. California Governor. “Table ES-3: Composition of California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type. CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Compostable Plastics. Berkeley. Accessed September 2009.pdf California Energy Commission.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency. CA. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Accessed on: 4 May 2010. December 2004.energy. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10. Sacramento. “Facts at a Glance. Board Meeting Agenda. 2009.ca. Inc.pdf Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. CA.0 References. 2005. Available at: http://www. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.ca.” Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study. December 2004. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.California Department of Transportation. Contractor’s Report to the Board: 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Executive Order S-20-06.calrecycle. “Electricity Consumption by County. Resolution: Agenda Item 14.info/pdf/Statistics.gov/elecbycounty.ciwmb. Available at: http://ecdms. 6. 2003. (2009).asp?pubid=1097 California Environmental Protection Agency. 6. 19 June 2008. Sacramento.ca. Page 10-3 .donttrashcalifornia. Web site. Integrated Waste Management Board.asp?pubid=1097 California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento.ca. p.gov/publications/localasst/34004005. Chapter 185.ca. Technical Advisory.Available at: http://www. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Available at: http://www. Integrated Waste Management Board.gov/Publications/Plastics/2009001. Integrated Waste Management Board.ciwmb. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group. Berkeley. 2003. CA.” Water Issues. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group.

gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_d ocumentation. South Lake Tahoe. Lahontan Region. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. CA. Los Angeles.” Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.” Los Angeles. Los Angeles Region Integrated Report. Plastic Film Cooperative Recycling Initiative. “Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated cities therein.ca.ca. CA. Available at: http://www. Except the City of Long Beach. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board.ca. CA.pdf California Regional Water Quality Control Board.calrecycle. Monterey Park. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.ca.ca. Water Quality Control Plan. CA. Problem Statement. An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter. Los Angeles Region. Clean Water Act Section 305(b): “Report”.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Monterey Park. Adopted 13 June 1994. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. December 2004. Adopted 13 June 1994. Available at: http://www.0 References.waterboards. Water Quality Control Plan.opc.waterboards.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Los Angeles Region. 13 December 2001.gov/Plastics/Film/#Problem California Integrated Waste Management Board. Los Angeles Region. 27 July 2007. CA.waterboards. CA. Inc. Los Angeles. and Section 303(d): “List of Impaired Waters–2008 Update. Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.” Order No. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. Revised 27 July 2007. Los Angeles Region Integrated Report. Page 10-4 . Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. 01-182 NPDES Permit No. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. July 2009. California Ocean Protection Council. as amended through December 2005. Clean Water Act Section 305(b): “Report”. Sacramento. Los Angeles Region.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references. Available at: http://www. CA. 20 November 2008. Available at: http://www. Los Angeles Region. July 2009. CAS004001. and Section 303(d) “List of Impaired Waters–2008 Update.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_d ocumentation.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/opc_ocean_litter_final_strategy. Los Angeles Region. and as amended.” California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Los Angeles Region.California Integrated Waste Management Board. Statewide Waste Characterization Study. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Accessed on: 1 March 2010. Effective 31 March 1995. Available at: http://www.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Adopted 13 June 1994. Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Monterey Park, CA. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_d ocumentation.shtml California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. 27 July 2007. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. Los Angeles, CA. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 9 August 2007. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region. Attachment A to Resolution No. 07-012. Monterey Park, CA. Available at: http://63.199.216.6/larwqcb_new/bpa/docs/2007012/2007-012_RB_BPA.pdf California State Assembly. Assembly Bill 939: “Integrated Waste Management Act,” Chapter 1095. California Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda. 17 April 2008. Tentative Decision Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate. Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling vs. City of Oakland et al. Case No. RG07-339097. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/Oakland%20ruling%20on%20plastic%2 0bag%20ordinance.pdf California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. 3 May 2010. Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief, Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS115845. CIT Ekologik, Chalmers Industriteknik. 2000. Distribution in Paper Sacks. Goteborg, Sweden. City and County of San Francisco. “Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance.” Web site. Available at: http://www.sfgov.org/site/sf311csc_index.asp?id=71355 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division. January 2002. High Trash-generation Areas and Control Measures. Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division. January 2002. High Trash-generation Areas and Control Measures. Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Watershed Protection Division, Bureau of Sanitation. Stormwater Program. May 2009. Web site. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://www.lacitysan.org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan.htm City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Watershed Protection Division, Bureau of Sanitation. May 2009. Web site. Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff (Clean Stormwater / Urban Runoff Master Plan). Stormwater Program. Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://www.lacitysan.org/wpd/Siteorg/program/masterplan.htm City of Los Angeles, Sanitation Department of Public Works. June 2006. Technical Report: Assessment of Catch Basin Opening Screen Covers. Los Angeles, CA.
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-5

City of Los Angeles, Sanitation Department of Public Works. June 2006. Technical Report: Assessment of Catch Basin Opening Screen Covers. Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles. 18 June 2004. Characterization of Urban Litter. Prepared by: Ad Hoc Committee on Los Angeles River and Watershed Protection Division. Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles. Adopted April 2009. City of Los Angeles Water Quality Compliance Master Plan for Urban Runoff: Funding Requirements and Applications to Developing TMDL Implementation Plans. City of San Francisco, San Francisco Environment Department. 2008. The City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re-audit. Prepared by: HDR; Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc.; and MGM Management Environmental and Management Service. San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/2008_litter_audit.pdf Combs, Suzanne, John Johnston, Gary Lippner, David Marx, and Kimberly Walter. 2001. Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation. Available at: http://www.owp.csus.edu/research/papers/papers/PP020.pdf Combs, Suzanne, John Johnston, Gary Lippner, David Marx, and Kimberly Walter. 1998–2000. Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation. Convery, F., S. McDonnell and S. Ferreira. 2007. “The Most Popular Tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish Plastic Bags Levy.” In Environmental and Resource Economics, 38: 1–11. County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. 19 December 2006. “Policy No. 3.045, Energy and Environmental Policy.” Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy Manual. Available at: http://countypolicy.co.la.ca.us/ County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. 10 April 2007. Board of Supervisors Motion. Los Angeles, CA. County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. 22 January 2008. Minutes of the Board of Supervisors. Los Angeles, CA. County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. 22 January 2008. Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program (Resolution and Alternative 5). Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/Resources.cfm County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. August 2007. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra, CA. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.pdf County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. October 2008. County of Los Angeles Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program – Program Resource Packet. Alhambra, CA.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-6

County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 11 December 2006. Press Release for Project Pollution Prevention. Available at: http://ladpw.org/prg/StormWater/TrashBoomMediaEventReleaseFINAL.pdf County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 2001. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2000 Annual Report on the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element. Alhambra, CA. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 2007–2009 Biennial Report. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 30 March 2010. Report 13. Monthly Solid Waste Disposal Quantity Summary by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 30 March 2010. Report 34. Waste Disposal Summary Reports by Quarter by Aggregated Jurisdiction Data. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Accessed on: 18 March 2010. “Los Angeles River Watershed.” Web site. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/watershed/LA County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Accessed on: 28 April 2010. Backyard Composting. Web site. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/sg/bc.cfm County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. January 2009. County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Los Angeles, CA. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. October 2009. 2008 Annual Report for the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element of the County of Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. November 1980. County of Los Angeles General Plan. Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://ceres.ca.gov/docs/data/0700/791/HYPEROCR/hyperocr.html County of Los Angeles. Accessed June 2009. Unincorporated Areas. County of Los Angeles Web site. Available at: http://portal.lacounty.gov/ Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five. Decision: 27 January 2009. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/Manhattan%20Beach%20appeal%20dec ision.pdf Craig, Tim. 29 March 2010. “Bag tax raises $150,000, but far fewer bags used.” The Washington Post. Available at: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/03/bag_tax_raises_150000_but_far.html?wprss=dc Crandall, Rick, Director of Environmental Stewardship, Albertsons, Los Angeles, CA. 25–26 January 2010. E-mail correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-7

David, K., A. Barnes, Francois Galgani, Richard C. Thompson and Morton Barlaz. 2009. “Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 1985–1998. District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 10, “Retail Establishment Carryout Bags,” Section 1001. Dona Sturgess, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 29 April 2010. E-mail to Luke Mitchell, California Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Dragan, James, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 17 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. E-mail correspondence with Nilda Gemeniano, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Ecobilan. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. Company Web site. Available at: https://www.ecobilan.com/uk_who.php Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic, Paper, and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. Environment Protection and Heritage Council. April 2008. Decision Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the impacts of plastic bags. Adelaide, Australia. ExcelPlas Australia, Centre for Design at RMIT, and NOLAN-ITU. 2004. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. Moorabbin VIC, AU. Fenton, R. 1991. The Winnipeg Packaging Project: Comparison of Grocery Bags. Department of Economics, University of Winnipeg: Manitoba, Canada. Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1990. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. Prairie Village, KS. Friends of the Los Angeles River and American Rivers. 2004. Great Los Angeles River. Los Angeles and Nevada City, CA. Galbreath, Rick, County of San Francisco, California. 10 May 2010. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, California. Garcia, Daniel, Air Quality Specialist, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA. 21 January 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. GHK Ltd. May 2007. The Benefits and Effects of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme. Prepared for: Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong, China. Green Cities California. March 2010. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags. Prepared by ICF International, San Francisco, CA.
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-8

Green Seal, Inc. 13 October 2008. Green Seal Proposed Revised Environmental Standard For Reusable Bags (GS-16). Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.greenseal.org/certification/gs16_reusable_bag_proposed_revised_standard_background%20document.pdf Gregory, Murray R. 2009. “Environmental Implications of Plastic debris in Marine Settings -Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-on, Hitch-hiking and Alien Invasions.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 2013–2025. Herrera et al. January 2008. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items Volume I and II. Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities. Holland, R.F.1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Resources Agency. Hurst, Karen, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA. 18 May 2010. Telephone conversation with Luke Mitchell, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Hyder Consulting. 18 April 2007. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. Prepared for: Sustainability Victoria, Victoria, Australia. infoUSA. Accessed on: 29 April 2010. Database for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10,000 square feet or greater. Omaha, NE. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Approved 12–17 November 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5. Valencia, Spain. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Jeannie Blakeslee, Office of Climate Change, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. 16 March 2010. Telephone correspondence with Laura Watson, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approved 28 June 2007 by USEPA. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r6_06_ 303d_reqtmdls.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California, on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, California. 27 July 2009. Settlement Agreement and Mutual Releases. Agreement between Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA, and City of Palo Alto, CA. On behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20Palo%20Alto%20settlement.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 12 December 2008. Action filed: 12 August 2008. Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Staying Plastic Bag Ordinance; Declarations of Stephen L. Joseph, Peter M. Grande and Catherine Brown. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, City Council of Manhattan Beach. Case No. BS116362. On behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-9

Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20mot%20for%20preliminary%2 0inj%20against%20Manhattan%20Beach.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 12 January 2009. Letter to Mayor, City Council, Director, and City Attorney, City of Santa Monica, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20CEQA%20objections%20to%2 0Santa%20Monica%20plastic%20bag%20ban%20ordinance.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 16 July 2008. First Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality Act and Declaratory Judgment. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Los Angeles, Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Case No. BS115845. Action Filed: 17 July 2008. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com//UploadedFiles/STPB%20LA%20County%20Complaint. pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 17 September 2009. Letter to City of Palo Alto Planning Department, Palo Alto, California. Subject: Objections to Proposed Negative Declaration and Notice of Intent to File Lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20objections%20to%20Palo%20 Alto%20negative%20declaration.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 17 September 2009. Letter to Mayor and City Council, City of Encinitas, California. Subject: CEQA demand and objection; objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag ban; objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag fee. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20City%20of%2 0Encinitas.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 18 September 2009. Letter to Mayor, City Council, Director, and City Attorney, City of San Jose, California. Subject: CEQA demand and objection; objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag ban; objection and notice of intent to litigate regarding plastic bag fee. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%202%20to%20San%20J ose.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 19 November 2008. Letter to Kathy Kretchmer, Esq., County of Santa Clara, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20Santa%20Clara %20County%201.pdf
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-10

Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 20 April 2009. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality Act. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Palo Alto. Case No. 1-09-CV-140463. Action Filed: 21 April 2009. Filed on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20Petition%20against%20Palo% 20Alto.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 26 January 2009. Letter to Mayor and City Council, City of Morgan Hill, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20Morgan %20Hill.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 26 January 2009. Letter to Mayor and City Council, City of Mountain View, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20Mountai n%20View.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 28 November 2008. Letter to City Council and City Attorney, City of San Diego, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%20to%20San%20Diego %201.pdf Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph, Esq., Tiburon, California. 29 January 2009. Letter to Mayor, City Council, Director, and City Attorney, City of San Jose, California. Subject: Proposed plastic bag ordinance; CEQA demand; legal objections; notice of intent to file lawsuit. Prepared on behalf of Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20letter%201%20to%20San%20J ose.pdf Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12.80, “Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control.” Los Angeles County Code, Title 22: “Planning and Zoning,” Chapter 22.46. Available at: http://ordlink.com/codes/lacounty/index.htm Los Angeles County Code, Title 22: “Planning and Zoning.” Available at: http://ordlink.com/codes/lacounty/index.htm Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. October 2009. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2009/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20 Report.pdf
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-11

Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. October 2006. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2006/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/PrincipalPermittee_AnnualReportFY0506.pdf Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. October 2007. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2007/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Annual%20Rpt%2006-07.pdf Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order 01-182) Individual Annual Report Form. October 2008. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/NPDESRSA/AnnualReport/2008/Appendix%20D%20%20Principal%20Permittee%20Annual%20Report/Principal%20Permittee%20&%20Count y%20Annual%20Report%20FY07-08.pdf Malibu Municipal Code, Title 9, “Public Peace and Welfare,” Chapter 9.28, “Ban on Shopping Bags,” Section 9.28.020. Marlet, C., EuroCommerce. September 2004. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context. Brussels, Belgium. McDonnell, S., and C. Convery. Paper presented 26 June 2008. “The Irish Plastic Bag Levy – A Review of its Performance 5 Years On.” Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, S.B. Weisberg, G.L. Lattin, and A.F. Zellers. October 2002. “A Comparison of Neustonic Plastic and Zooplankton Abundance in Southern California's Coastal Waters.” In Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44 (10): 1035–1038. Moore, Charles James. October 2008. “Synthetic Polymers in the Marine Environment: A Rapidly Increasing, Long-term Threat.” In Environmental Research, 108 (2): 131–139. Munz, Philip A. and D.D. Keck, 1949. “California Plant Communities.” In El Aliso, 2 (1): 87–105. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 5 February 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC, and Forest Product Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. February 5, 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags. Prepared for: American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC, and Forest Product Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_oliveridley.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Species. Accessed on: 5 March 2010. Web site. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-12

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed on: 5 March 2010. “Proactive Conservation Program: Species of Concern.” Web site. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. 2008. Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. National Research Council. 2008. “Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century.” Committee on the Effectiveness of National and International Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts. Washington, D.C. Nelson, Rebecca, City of Malibu Department of Public Works, Malibu, CA. 22 April 2010. Telephone conversation with Angelica SantaMaría, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd., et al. December 2002. Environment Australia: Department of the Environment and Heritage: Plastic Shopping Bags –Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts: Final Report. Sydney, Australia. Nolan-Itu Pty. Ltd. 2002. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of Levies and Environmental Impacts. Prepared for: Department of the Environment, Water, and Heritage: Canberra, AU. Ocean Conservancy. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. International Coastal Cleanup 2009 Report. Available at: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.pdf Oehlmann, Jörg, et al. 2009. “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 2047–2062. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 5, “Health and Sanitation,” Chapter 5.35, Section 5.35.020. Progressive Bag Affiliates. Accessed on: 21 May 2010. Web site. Available at: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1106&DID=6983 Public Resources Code, Section 42250–42257. 2006. Assembly Bill 2449. Ralphs Grocery Company. 2009. “Doing Your Part: Try Reusable Shopping Bags.” Web site. Available at: http://www.ralphs.com/healthy_living/green_living/Pages/reusable_bags.aspx Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Revised 27 July 2007. “Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed.” Los Angeles, CA. San Francisco Environment Code, Chapter 17, Section 1703.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-13

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Accessed on: 8 March 2010. “Wastewater Facilities.” Web site. Available at: http://www.lacsd.org/contact/facility_locations/wastewater_facilities.asp Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Web site. Available at: http://www.lacsd.org/default.asp Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 1 December 2009. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Pasadena, CA. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 22 January 2010. Bag Usage Data Collection Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Pasadena, CA. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 29 January 2010. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Waste Management Analysis Report. Pasadena, CA. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. July 2008. Supplemental Objections to the City of Manhattan Beach, California. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/STPB%20supplemental%20objections% 20to%20Manhattan%20Beach.pdf Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Sheavly, S.B. 2007. National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant Number X83053401-02. Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, eds. 2008. “California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California.” In Studies of Western Birds, 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5 September 2008. SCAQMD Climate Change Policy. Diamond Bar, CA. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/September/080940a.htm South Coast Air Quality Management District. 6 May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Diamond Bar, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. June 2007. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. October 2006. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/appC.pdf
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-14

Southern California Association of Governments. 2 June 2008. E-mail to William Meade, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association. 2007. Web site. Available at: http://www.plasticsindustry.org/ State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. 27 July 2007. Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed. Los Angeles, CA. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach et al. Case No. BS116362. Ruling: 20 February 2009. Available at: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/Manhattan%20Beach%20ruling.pdf The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2008. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008. Los Angeles, CA. Available at: http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/AR/AR08.html The River Project. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. “Know Your Watershed.” Web site. Available at: http://www.theriverproject.org/lariver.html The ULS Report. 1 June 2007. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable Compostable Biodegradable, and Reusable Grocery Bags. Rochester, MI. Thompson, R. C. 7 May 2004. "Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?" In Science, 304 (5672): 843. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. “State & County Quick Facts: Los Angeles County, California.” Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 August 1997. “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining.” In Federal Register, 62 (158). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1997/August/Day-15/a20968.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15 August 2008. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Federal Clean Air Act, Title I, Air Pollution Prevention and Control. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 26 September 1996. “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Redesignation of Puget Sound, Washington for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Ozone.” In Federal Register, 61 (188). Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/e1f3db8b0 06eff1a88256dcf007885c6/$FILE/61%20FR%2050438%20Seattle%20Tacoma%20Ozone %20MP.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. Washington, DC.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-15

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2002. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1983. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2008. “Table 21: Recovery of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2007.” Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2008. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Updated 14 July 2009. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 2008. Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Plan. Available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/stal_recovery_plan.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Summer 2009. Endangered Species Bulletin, 34 (2). Washington, D.C. U.S. Supreme Court. 2 April 2007. Massachusetts, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. 549 U.S. 1438; 127 S. Ct. 1438. Washington, DC. Uline. 15 July 2009. Telephone correspondence with Stephanie Watt, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA. United Nations Environment Programme. April 2009. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_C hallenge.pdf United Nations Statistics Division, Millennium Development Goals indicators: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2 (collected by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center). Available at: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid= United States Code, Title 33, Section 1251 et seq. 1972. United States Code, Title 33, Section 1313: “Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans.” Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). Unsicker, Judith, Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region. 11 March 2010. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-16

Watt, Stephanie, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Santa Monica, CA. 15 July 2009. Telephone communication with Ms. Carol Trout, Customer Service Department, Duro Bag Manufacturing Company, Florence, KY. Western Regional Climate Center. 5 April 2006. Period of Record General Climate Summary— Precipitation. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?cateha World Wildlife Fund. Accessed on: 19 March 2010. Web site. Available at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na1201_full.html Wu, Eric, Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region. 9 March 2010. Telephone correspondence with Donna Grotzinger, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2, 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\10.0 References.DOC

Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Page 10-17

California 95814 California Department of Transportation District 7 Elmer Alvarez. IGR / CEQA Branch Chief 100 South Main Street Los Angeles.2. California 93001-2801 California Natural Resources Agency Chris Calfee. District Manager 89 South California Street. Deputy Director Steve Hudson. Suite 1311 Sacramento. California 91803 11.0 Distribution List.1 State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Milford Wayne Donaldson. State Historic Preservation Officer 1416 9th Street. Suite 200 Ventura.1 CLIENT County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Client contact: Coby Skye. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\11. Room 1442 Sacramento. Special Counsel Ian Peterson.SECTION 11. Public Records Officer 1001 I Street Sacramento.2 PUBLIC AGENCIES 11. Inc. Assistant Planner 1416 Ninth Street. 3rd Floor Alhambra. California 95814 (916) 653-5656 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. California 95814 California Coastal Commissions South Central Coast District Office John (Jack) Ainsworth. Page 11-1 .0 DISTRIBUTION LIST 11. California 90012 California Environmental Protection Agency Jami Ferguson. Civil Engineer Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue.

10th Floor Long Beach. California 95814 California Department of Conservation Division of Recycling Bridgett Luther. California 95812-4025 State Water Resources Control Board Gita Kapahi. Manager of the Office of Public Affairs 1001 I Street Sacramento. California 95814 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. California 90802-4416 California Native American Heritage Commission Dave Singleton. Director 1001 I Street Sacramento. Deputy Director Gary Timm. California 95812 California Integrated Waste Management Board Mindy Fox. Program Analyst 915 Capitol Mall. Room 364 Sacramento. District Manager 200 Oceangate. Region 4 Ejigu Solomon. Page 11-2 . Inc. California 95814 California Air Resources Board Robert Fletcher. California 95814 California Water Quality Control Board. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\11. Director of Conservation 801 K Street.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. MS 19-01 Sacramento.0 Distribution List. Chief 1001 I Street Sacramento. California 90013 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Scott Morgan.California Coastal Commissions South Coast District Office John (Jack) Ainsworth. Suite 200 Los Angeles. Manager of the Office of Education and the Environment Chris Peck. Stormwater – Compliance and Enforcement Manager 320 West Fourth Street. Assistant Deputy Director and Senior Planner 1400 Tenth Street (Corner of 10th and N Streets) Sacramento.

Supervisor.3 County Agencies 11. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\11. Page 11-3 .1 Supervisorial Districts First Supervisorial District Gloria Molina. Inc. Supervisor.11. Second District 866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles. California 91765 Southern California Association of Governments Jacob Lieb. California 90017 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Ruth I. Manager of Assessment 818 West 7th Street. Program Supervisor – CEQA Section Planning Rule Development & Area Sources 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar.2. Watershed Management Assistant Deputy Director 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra. CA 93535 South Coast Air Quality Management District Steve Smith. Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department 1955 Workman Mill Road Whittier. California 90601 County of Los Angeles Flood Control District Gary Hildebrand.2. 12th Floor Los Angeles. California 90012 (213) 974-2222 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Suite 206 Lancaster. CA 91803 11. Operations Manager 43301Division Street.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental.2.0 Distribution List. Frazen. California 90012 Second Supervisorial District Mark Ridley-Thomas.2 Regional Agencies Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Bret Banks.3. First District 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles.

2 Public Service Agencies County of Los Angeles Fire Department Administrative Services – Planning Division Debbie Aguirre. Supervisor.0 Distribution List. Room 2001 Norwalk. California 90012 Office of the Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filings 12400 Imperial Highway. California 90012 11. California 90012 Fourth Supervisorial District Don Knabe. Inc. Program Manager. Fourth District 822 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles.Third Supervisorial District Zev Yaroslavsky. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\11. Supervisor. California 90063 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Leroy D. 20th Floor Los Angeles.3. California 90650 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Baca. California 91754 Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety Yi Hwa Kim. Supervisor.2. Long Range Planning One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles. Antonovich. California 90017 County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Susan Chapman. Chief of Planning Division 1320 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles. Third District 821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles. Page 11-4 . Deputy Director of Environmental Health and Safety 333 South Beaudry Avenue. California 90012 Fifth Supervisorial District Michael D. Sheriff Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard Monterey Park. Fifth District 869 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles.

0 Distribution List. Page 11-5 . Principal 10990 Wilshire Boulevard.DOC Draft Environmental Impact Report Sapphos Environmental. Inc.4 STAKEHOLDERS The County has compiled a list of approximately 459 stakeholders to whom NOAs of a Draft EIR will be distributed electronically by e-mail and/or by mail in hard copy form.11. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County June 2. Suite 1500 Los Angeles.3 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Economics Research Associates (an AECOM company) Amitabh Barthakur. California 90024 11. 2010 W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft EIR\11.

APPENDIX A BAG USAGE DATA COLLECTION STUDY .

2010 . California 91107 June 2. Inc.ORDINANCES TO BAN PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAG USAGE DATA COLLECTION STUDY Prepared For: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue. 430 North Halstead Street Pasadena. California 91803 Prepared By: Sapphos Environmental. 3rd Floor Alhambra.

...1 Purpose and Scope ...2......... 1-1 1.... 4-3 5.......................... 2-8 2....................................... 2-8 2................................................2 Survey Area ..1........ 5-1 5................................................................................ 5-3 Conclusions..... 4-1 4........ 3-2 Nontraditional Stores ...........................2.............. 5-1 5....1 Result.. 2-1 2....................................................................................................................1 Survey Description ......................................................3 Store Selection Methodology .................................1 Store Trial....... 2010 Sapphos Environmental...2 Traditional Stores..........................................................................................................................................3............................... 2-1 Methodology ...............................................2 Paper Bags ................................................................................................................................. Inc.................................1..............................................................0 CONCLUSION......3......... 2-7 Caveats/Considerations.................... 5-2 Bag Size Comparison.................................. 2-8 2.................................0 BAG CAPACITY ANALYSIS .. 1-2 2.......................................................................1 Consumer Traffic ...............................................................3.... 1-1 1.................................................... 2-7 2.........................................4 Rejection ...................................................2......3 3......................................................................................................... 5-1 5................. 2-4 2..........................1..2 Cost Factor ..........1...............................................1 Purpose ........................................................ 2-8 2.........3.............................1 Bags by Type ..........................................................................1........................................1 Plastic Bags .................................2 5....2 Definitions........................... 5-1 5...............1 3..................................................TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS ES 1............................................................................................2........................Doc Page i ..0 PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 2-5 2..................2 Store Selection. 2-9 2.....1.... W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Table Of Contents........................3 Reusable Bags .................3 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2...........3............5 Statistical Application .....................0 METHODOLOGY .4 Data Collection Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1........................ 5-3 5........................................ 2-4 2................. 3-1 3........... 3-4 4................ 2-8 2..............1 2.................................................................................... 1-1 1.................... 4-1 4....................1...................................................................3 Scope ........................0 BAG USAGE ANALYSIS ...........3 Bagging Technique .................................................................... ES-1 INTRODUCTION..................................................

...............................................2-1 FOLLOWS PAGE Stores Subject to Proposed Ordinances.. 2-5 Traditional Stores Summary .................................2.... 1-2 Number of Stores Surveyed within Supervisorial Districts......................... Inc.............FIGURES 1......................1-2 3.1........................ 5-1 Paper Bag Usage Summary . 2-1 Percentage of Bag Types Used at Traditional Stores and Nontraditional Stores........................Doc Page ii ....................2-1 3.3-1 2............ 3-3 Number of Bags Used per Total Amount Spent at Nontraditional Stores by Bag Type .....................2-1 5............................................................................1...1-1 3........................................................................3-1 APPENDICES A B C Sample Data Collection Form Survey Results Standard Grocery List Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2................1-1 3............... 3-3 Number of Bags Used per Total Amount Spent at Traditional Stores by Bag Type.....................1..................................................................................................................................................................... W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Table Of Contents................2-1 4......................1-1 5................1-1 5................... 3-3 Nontraditional Stores Summary ............................................ 2-1 Store Sample List ............................... 5-2 Reusable Bag Usage Summary.............. 3-4 Store Trial Shopping List.........1-1 2.............. 3-5 PAGE Survey Store Locations...............1-1 3............................................... 2010 Sapphos Environmental..1............................................................... 4-1 Plastic Bag Usage Summary................. 5-2 TABLES 2..............................

Inc.2 As an independent check. Inc.doc Page ES-1 . Inc.5 ratio is a reasonable representation of the relationship between paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags in terms of use and carrying capacity. 2009. At stores where plastic carryout bags were available. At stores that did not make plastic carryout bags readily available. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. conducted consumer surveys and collected data counts from August 29 to September 29. 1990. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec ES. to compare the load capacity of paper carryout bags and that of plastic carryout bags. 78 percent were paper carryout bags and 18 percent were reusable bags. Section 4. The trial confirmed that a 1:1. KS. 24 percent used reusable bags while shopping. The results of the observations and data collected are presented in this Bag Usage Data Collection Study. Franklin Associates. of this study describes the elements of the store trial in detail. 4 percent used reusable bags while shopping. Sapphos Environmental. of the total bags consumed. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. in other words. 1 2 AEA Technology. Ltd. Single Use Bag Study.. where the carrying capacity of plastic to paper bags was tested. Prairie Village. Bag Capacity Analysis. or approximately 40 percent of the total number of stores that may be affected by the proposed ordinances.5. were surveyed as part of the data collection and observations conducted. 96 percent of the bags used were plastic carryout bags and 2 percent were reusable bags. Prepared for: Welsh Assembly Government.SECTION ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sapphos Environmental. Of the customers observed at these stores.0. A total of 214 stores. Of the consumers surveyed at these stores. August 2009. completed a store trial. The relative carrying capacities of plastic to paper carryout bags have been reported to be as much as 1:81 or as little as 1:1 or 1:1. This randomized study was completed to provide a representation of the general bagging practices at grocery stores in the County. to assess the bag usage habits of customers at grocery stores located throughout the County of Los Angeles (County). which type of bag would most efficiently carry a fixed number of items.

5 2. supermarkets and other grocery stores. This will assist the County in establishing what ratio would be appropriate to compare these two bag types. the following terms are defined: x Store: (as currently defined by the County) any retail establishment located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the incorporated cities or unincorporated territories of the County and that meets any of the following requirements: 1. Meet the definition of a supermarket as found in the California Public Resources Code. 2010 Sapphos Environmental.doc Page 1-1 . or reusable bags) of consumers at stores located throughout the County. Inc. The study further compared the capacity of the plastic bag to the paper bag by determining the number of plastic bags and paper bags that would be required to contain all items from the same grocery list. pharmacies and drug stores within the County Reusable bag(s): a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made of either (a) cloth or other machine-washable fabric or (b) durable plastic that is at least 2. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 1 Intro.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1. excluding a reusable bag but including a compostable plastic carryout bag.000 square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code 3. plastic carryout bags. The purpose of this study is to provide data regarding the bag usage habits of consumers at grocery stores located throughout the incorporated cities and unincorporated territories of the County.25 mils thick Paper carryout bag(s): a carryout bag made of paper that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale Plastic carryout bag(s): a bag. The County is considering extending the jurisdiction of the proposed ordinances to stores that are part of a chain of convenience food stores.2 Definitions For the purposes of this study. convenience stores.1. Are buildings that have more than 10. 1.SECTION 1. for the County of Los Angeles (County) Department of Public Works in support of the proposed Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (proposed ordinances). This data will allow the County to assess the current bag preferences (paper carryout bags.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Purpose This Bag Usage Data Collection Study was undertaken by Sapphos Environmental.1. Section 14526. that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale x x x Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Inc.

Inc. the County anticipates that fewer than 100 stores located within the unincorporated territories of the County would be subject to the proposed County ordinance (Figure 1. Methodology. the County has determined that 67 stores in unincorporated areas would be affected by the proposed ordinances. The method in which the stores were selected is described in Section 2.3-1. However. Stores Subject to Proposed Ordinances). the terms survey and observation are used interchangeably in this report 1.doc Page 1-2 . Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. This is approximately equivalent to 40 percent of the total number of stores that may be affected by the proposed ordinances.1. The number of stores in the 88 incorporated cities of the County that would be affected if all of the cities adopted comparable ordinances was determined from the infoUSA database (accessed April 29.1 The observations have been collected from randomly selected stores that represent a variety of store chains and locations and that include each of the five Supervisorial Districts within the County.000 square feet or greater. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. 1 As a result of the voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program.3 Scope The proposed ordinances may impact over 200 stores throughout both the unincorporated territories and incorporated cities of the County. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 1 Intro. The scope of this study included a review of 214 stores located within the unincorporated territories of the County or within the incorporated cities within the County. Should cities within the incorporated areas of the County adopt comparable ordinances.x Survey: an observation or the list of observations collected by the data-collecting team for this study. additional stores would be subject to these comparable proposed ordinances.1. 2010) for businesses with North American Industry Classification System code 445110 and 446110 with a gross annual sales volume of $2 million or higher and a square footage of 10.

# # # # # 5 # # # # # # # 3 # # ## # ## # # # # 1 # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # 2 4 CATEGORY 1 STORES # Large Grocery Stores Unincorporated Los Angeles County FIGURE 1.1.3-1 Stores Subject to Proposed Ordinances .

Therefore. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method.. This section of the study provides a description of the survey design.SECTION 2. Table 2. Calabasas. Marie Campbell. and one store located in Whittier Narrows). Inc. La Crescenta. if adopted by the County and all 88 incorporated cities. two stores in Valencia. East San Gabriel. It has been estimated that a maximum of 529 stores would be affected by the proposed ordinances.1 Survey area: what specific communities and cities were surveyed within the County Survey description: how the surveys were conducted Study methodology: how the surveyed stores were selected from the stores located within the County Caveats: what issues/concerns should be considered in review of the findings presented in this study SURVEY AREA The survey area consisted of stores within both the incorporated cities and unincorporated territories of the County. Inc. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. Campbell served as a research analyst at UCLA.doc Page 2-1 . who has more than 20 years of experience in project management in all aspects of environmental compliance. A total of 214 stores were surveyed. provide a list of the cities (and communities) located within the survey area and list the zip codes in which these stores are located. Ms. Survey Store Locations. from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).1-1. Campbell has both a Master of Arts degree in Geography (Geomorphology/Biogeography).1-1. In addition.1-1 SURVEY STORE LOCATIONS Number of Stores Surveyed 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Unincorporated Area? (Yes/No) No No No Yes No No No No City Alhambra Arcadia Azusa Bassett Bell Gardens Bellflower Beverly Hills Bixby Knolls Zip Code(s) 91801 and 91803 91006 and 91007 91702 91746 90201 90706 90212 and 90210 90807 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. inclusive of all five County Supervisorial Districts. The four subsections within this section describe the following: x x x x 2. with 7 of the stores located in unincorporated areas (including stores located in Bassett. president of Sapphos Environmental. along with the number of stores that were surveyed within each of these cities. and Figure 2. the sample size of 214 stores is statistically significant because it is equivalent to approximately 40 percent (or more than 1/3) of the total number of stores that may be affected by the proposed ordinances.. as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Ecosystems: Conservation of Natural Resources.0 METHODOLOGY This study was designed by Sapphos Environmental. Ms. Inc. Number of Stores Surveyed within Supervisorial Districts. TABLE 2. under the direction of Ms.

! . ! . !! ! ! ! ! . ! . ! ... . !! ! . . ! . ! . ! ... ! . . . ! . ! . ! .. ! .. ! Store Location Supervisorial District First Second Kern County Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Stores Surveyed 26 27 . ! . . . ! .. . ! ! !! . ! . ! ! . ! !! . ! ! ! ! ! .! . ! . ! . ! . ! !! . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . . . . ! . ! ! .LEGEND . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! . ... ! ! ! . ! . ! .. ! . . . ! .40 41 . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! ! !! . ! ! .. . !! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . . !! ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! ! .38 39 . ! .. ! ! . ! . ! . ! . .. .. ! ! !! . !! .. ! . . !! . ! .. ! !. . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! . .. . ! . ! !! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! .. ! !! ! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! .. ! . ! .. ! . ! . ! . ! . ! .60 Third Fourth Fifth . !! . ! ! . ! . . ! . ! . .49 50 . ! . !! . ! . ! . ! .. ! .. ! . . ! .. ! . ! . . ! ! ! ! .. ! . . . ! . ! !! . ! . ! . ! . !! . . ! . . ! . . .. !! . ! . . . ! . . . ! . ! ! . ! ! . ! . !! . ! . ! . . .. ! . !! ! ! . LA County 0 5 10 Miles 20 Q:\1012\1012-035\ArcProjects\StoreDistrict. ! . ! . ! . . !! . ! ! ! ! !! . . !! . . ! ... ! ! . ! . ! . ! tu Ven ra C ty oun . ! . ! .. !! ! . ! . !! . ! ! . !! . ! . . . ! . ! . ! . !! . !! . ! . ! . ! .mxd FIGURE 2. . .. . ! . ! . ! . . ! .. !! ! . . ! . . . ! ! . ! . ! Orange County Islands Not to Scale Paci fic O cea n o SOURCE: SEI. !! . ! . . ! .1-1 Number of Stores Surveyed within Supervisorial Districts . !! . . ! !! ! .. ! . ! . ! .

90038. 90804. 90020. 90007. Continued SURVEY STORE LOCATIONS Number of Stores Surveyed 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 6 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 11 Unincorporated Area? (Yes/No) No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No City Burbank Calabasas Carson Cerritos Chatsworth Claremont Compton Culver City Diamond Bar Downey Duarte Eagle Rock East San Gabriel El Monte El Segundo Encino Gardena Glendale Glendora Granada Hills Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Hollywood Huntington Park Inglewood La Cañada La Crescenta La Mirada Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Zip Code(s) 91502. 90041. and 93536 90260 90717 90802. 90006. and 90303 91011 91214 90638 90805 and 90713 93534. 90805. and 90815 90001. 90022. 90019. 90044. 90043. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. Inc. and 90242 91010 90041 91775 91732 90245 91316 90247 and 90249 91201.TABLE 2. 90029. 90027. and 91506 91302 90745 and 90746 90703 91311 91711 90220 90230 and 90232 91765 90240. 90031. 90037. 90032. 90008. 90024. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. 90017. 90002. 90005. and 91206 91740 91344 90716 90250 90254 90027 90255 90301. 91204. 90036. 90025. 91205. 90018. 90241.1-1. 90814. 90808. 90016. 90034. Los Angeles 36 No Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. 91505.doc Page 2-2 . 90803. 90807. 90302. 91504. 93535. 90806.

90059. Inc. 90502. 90064. and 91107 90660 91766 90275 90277 and 90278 90274 91773 91775 90732 90670 90401. 91103. and 90067 90262 90266 90270 91016 90640 91754 91324 90650 93550. and 90405 91403 and 91423 91733 90280 91030 91604 91780 91602 90501. 90047. 90049.TABLE 2. 91106. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. 90403.doc Page 2-3 . 93551. and 90505 91354 and 91355 90291 91790 91307 90038. 90046. 90048. 91104. 90063.1-1. 90504. and 90069 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 5 1 11 2 2 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 6 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. 90503. 90062. 90046. 90404. Continued SURVEY STORE LOCATIONS Number of Stores Surveyed Unincorporated Area? (Yes/No) City Lynwood Manhattan Beach Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Northridge Norwalk Palmdale Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas San Gabriel San Pedro Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Sherman Oaks South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena Studio City Temple City Toluca Lake Torrance Valencia Venice West Covina West Hills West Hollywood Zip Code(s) 90045. 91105. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. and 93552 90723 91101.

1 METHODOLOGY Survey Description The survey teams were composed of college graduate interns who conducted store surveys between August 29 and September 29. The survey times ranged from 10:00 a. Due to time restraints and in order to ensure that the data that was collected represented as large a variety of stores possible. The goal of the survey sample was to gather observations from forty (40) stores in each of the five (5) Supervisorial Districts of the County or at least 200 stores. Each team was supervised by one Sapphos Environmental. During this practice run. which was developed based upon the type of data that the team was required to collect (Appendix A. Each survey form identifies the surveyor’s name. within an 8hour period. and the total value of the purchase. and 90606 Woodland 91364 1 Hills Total Number of Stores 214 Surveyed * The store located in Whittier Narrows (zip code 90601) is within the unincorporated area. the quantity of paper carryout bags. Each team surveyed the bag use characteristics of up to 50 consumers per store in 214 stores located throughout the County. The interns and specialists were not guided to accept or reject any specific data and were not made aware of any overlying purpose or intended outcome for the collection of the data. when travel time to the stores and the flow of consumer traffic to the stores was taken into account. technical specialist familiar with the purpose of this study.TABLE 2.2.1-1. to 10:00 p. Monday through Sunday. the name and address of the store being surveyed. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. Each intern and specialist who collected data was provided instructions related to how data should be collected.m. Continued SURVEY STORE LOCATIONS Number of Stores Surveyed 3 1 1 5 Unincorporated Area? (Yes/No) No No No No* No City West Los Angeles Westchester Westlake Village Whittier Zip Code(s) 90034 and 90064 90045 91362 90601. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2.2 2. the availability of plastic carryout bags. the team determined that an average of 50 observations could be collected at each store in order to ensure that each team was able to survey between 6 to 8 stores a day. 90604. and data were collected on all seven days of the week. Inc. 2. 90602. Each survey team used a standard data collection form. the date and time the survey was conducted. plastic carryout bags. 90603.m. Sample Data Collection Form). the teams were instructed to collect data from approximately 50 observations. 90605..doc Page 2-4 . The team members were also taken to a store to make observations and to determine the best methods by which to collect the observational data prior to initiation of the study. Inc. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. and reusable bags used to bag the purchase. 2009.

aspx 10 11 Top Valu.com/ Jons Marketplace.6. Locations.7. 2009.gelsons. 2009. Los Angeles.com/Pages/default. Web site.1.12.11.4.traderjoes. Available at: http://locator. Available at: http://www.com/locations. socioeconomic. The list was compiled using information available at the respective store chain Web sites. Available at: http://www. Web site. Available at: http://losangeles. Store Sample List. Web site. the survey sample was collected from areas within all five Supervisorial Districts of the County. Available at: http://www.2. Available at: http://www.doc Page 2-5 .com/listings/losangeles/grocery_stores/56050_1713 2 Albertsons. Available at: http://www. Web site. Web site.vons. as available online. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method.8.3.albertsons. Available at: http://www. within the unincorporated territories and incorporated cities within the County.bristolfarms. Web site. 2009.2 Store Selection Sapphos Environmental. local community Web sites. 2009.ralphs. Available at: http://www. Web site.com/locations/index. compiled a list of 312 stores.wholefoodsmarket. Store Finder. 2009. as shown in Table 2. Web site. Available at: http://www.0. 2009.pdf 12 13 Vons. 2009. 2009.html Gelson’s. Find Your Store. Introduction. Locations. As previously noted. Web site.com/StoreLocatorAction. Find a Store.com/LocationsWEEKLYSPECIALS/tabid/57/Default. 2009. Find a Store.htm Ralphs.1-1). and demographic populations. Web site. includes stores representing a variety of store chains that serve diverse economic.2. Citysearch.13 The 214 stores that were surveyed as part of this study were randomly selected from the list of 312 stores within the County (Figure 2. 2. Los Angeles County. 2009.aspx# 4 5 6 7 8 9 Superior Grocers.pavilions. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. Each of these stores fit the County’s definition of a store as described in Section 1. Trader Joe’s Locations. Locations.com/IFL/Grocery/Store-Locator Payless Foods.21. Trader Joe’s.com/Attachments/SC_loc. and compiled lists of stores located in the County. 2009. The list of store chains surveyed.10. Find a Store Near You.do?action=showStoreSearch 3 1 Bristol Farms.com Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Available at: http://www.5. Locations.com/payless_locations.The survey was designed to collect data both from stores that offer plastic carryout bags as an option and from stores that do not readily provide plastic carryout bags to consumers. Web site. The observational data collected from these stores provide an overview of the consumer bag use choices in the County and the nontraditional stores offer a close representation of consumer bag use choices where plastic bags are not made readily available in the County.com/IFL/Grocery/Store-Locator Whole Foods.jonsmarketplace. Available at: http://www.paylessfoods. Locations. Los Angeles County.2. 2009. Inc.superiorgrocers.citysearch. Inc.aspx Pavilions. out of a total of approximately 529 stores.9. 2009. Los Angeles Grocery Stores.

Traditional stores. the total number of consumers using reusable bags would have been artificially inflated in that it would have shown a larger number of consumers currently using reusable bags. and.TABLE 2.doc Page 2-6 15 14 . however. Other establishments encourage the use of reusable bags by not making plastic carryout bags readily available to consumers as a first choice. typically provide plastic carryout bags as the first choice to consumers—whereby consumers are provided plastic bags as the free and primary bag type unless they specify that they would prefer another bag type. Recently. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. These stores are referred to as nontraditional for the purposes of this study. the two store classifications were separated in this study to ensure the survey results were not biased by the distinction between these store classifications.2. grouping the results of both store types would not have allowed these distinctions to be observed. It was also anticipated that nontraditional stores would have a higher number of consumers using reusable bags. these stores typically supply paper bags as the free and primary bag type. however. The appropriation of plastic and paper bags would have also been artificially shifted in such a manner. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2.2-1 STORE SAMPLE LIST Store List Albertsons Bristol Farms Food 4 Less Gelson’s Gigante Supermarket14 Jons Marketplace Pavilions Payless Foods Price Rite 101 Ralphs Superior Grocers Top Value (also spelled Valu) Trader Joe’s Vons Whole Foods Store Classification Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Traditional Nontraditional Traditional Nontraditional The stores were classified into one of two categories: traditional stores and nontraditional stores. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method.15 Team survey collection assignments were divided to include both traditional and nontraditional stores. It was anticipated that plastic bags are not as common in nontraditional stores. the stores may now operate under the name El Super. Although plastic carryout bags were not offered as the primary carryout bag in nontraditional store chains. The nontraditional stores offer a close representation of consumer bag use choices where plastic bags are not made readily available in the County. Inc. some of the Gigante Supermarket store locations have changed their store name to El Super. which include most large supermarket chains. as such. If this were in fact the case. The two-store classification system is appropriate because the two types of stores are inherently different in the usage of carryout bags. several of the nontraditional store locations did provide plastic carryout bags to consumers who requested them.

followed a strategic methodology for collecting data from the stores: 1.3 Store Selection Methodology The methodology for randomly selecting the 214 stores surveyed included the following steps: 1. the subsequent stores were assigned numbers 1 through 99. The lists included the name. The teams were directed to be as discrete as possible. Each of the six survey teams was assigned between 35 and 40 store locations to survey. All traditional stores were assigned numbers 1 through 99.2.2. “Express” lines.doc Page 2-7 .2. were avoided because many consumers in these lines do not utilize or require bags as frequently as consumers in the other lines. All stores that corresponded to the random numbers selected were listed until 130 traditional stores were generated. In addition. should surveys at any of the selected stores have failed or be cut short for any reason. The store assignments were then selected by using the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program’s random function (and multiplying the function by 100 to generate whole numbers 1 through 99). 4. 2. The alternate store locations were used to collect additional data when survey teams were requested not to survey or when an adequate number of observations were not collected. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. Two lists of stores were drafted in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: one list of traditional stores and one list of nontraditional stores.4 Data Collection Methodology Sapphos Environmental. zip code. or reusable bags utilized by each consumer in that line. Once the number 99 was reached. 3. 7. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. plastic carryout bags. 15 items or fewer). Survey teams canvassed their assigned stores to collect the bag usage data. An additional 10 store locations were included as alternatives. 5. Inc. 2. Survey teams collected up to 50 data points within each store. 3. 5. Survey team members were stationed at one or more lines and they counted the number of paper carryout bags. 2. no information related to the consumer identities was required or collected. 4. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. and telephone number for each store. Inc. informing the store manager only where necessary that the team would be collecting data for a study. Each team member collected data for all consumers in the checkout lines. 6. the remaining 130 stores surveyed were selected from the traditional stores list. No consumers were approached or questioned as part of this survey. until all stores were numbered. such as where the customer traffic was extremely limited or where teams were asked not to survey upon the commencement of data collection. 6. address. all 70 nontraditional stores identified in the list were selected as survey locations. As such. or lines with an item count limit (for example. Due to the limited number of nontraditional stores located within the County.

In such instances. and cashier. overstuffing/understuffing. a survey team may have spent more time obtaining data at certain stores. specific store. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. and as such.3.3 Bagging Technique The survey teams observed that the bagging technique [which for the purposes of this study are defined as the type of bag used / how it was used (for example. One manager at a Ralphs grocery store that was surveyed indicated that employees were informed that any carryout bag (both plastic and paper) used at the store must contain a minimum of three items (depending on the size/weight).2. they are relevant to understanding the survey process. This strategy was intended to ensure that the area (community) that had been randomly selected during the survey initiation phase was represented in the survey data. 2. 16 17 “Double bagging” means two bags instead of one are used to bag a particular set of grocery items. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. However. double bagging. as well as the number of shopping bags used to bag items] varied by item. Although these factors do not affect the findings of this survey.17 etc. the survey teams were directed to either go to the designated alternate store (if it was within the community of the primary store) or to identify an alternative store within the vicinity from which to collect data. Consumer traffic varied at each store and at various times. conversely. The store manager further noted that the weight of the items placed in carryout bags (both plastic and paper) generally averaged 5 pounds.16 combining a paper bag and plastic bag.).3.3 CAVEATS/CONSIDERATIONS Five factors were considered during the preparation of this study. “Overstuffing” means placing more items in a bag than the bag’s standard capacity.3. “understuffing” refers to placing fewer items in a bag than the bag’s standard capacity.1 Consumer Traffic The survey teams visited store sites on various days and times throughout the course of the study. 2. the amount spent by the consumers had no correlation to the store chain’s grocery item costs or savings.18 2.2 Cost Factor Although cost observations were made and recorded as part of the study.doc Page 2-8 18 . it was noted that while some cashiers double bag all items. consumer preference/request.3. The number and types of items purchased varied greatly by consumer. As a result. For example. 2.4 Rejection In certain instances. or may have limited the number of surveys conducted at certain stores in order to move to alternate store locations with higher consumer traffic to complete the surveys. some stores moderate this practice by implementing a policy for the number of items / weight of items placed in each bag used by an employee. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. the survey teams were requested not to complete surveys or were asked to remove themselves from the store premises. the information in this report has no comparative value regarding store cost comparisons. others in the same store only use single bags unless requested by the customer to do otherwise. Inc.

doc Page 2-9 .2. The surveys were conducted in an unbiased manner. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 2 Method. The study was limited to the resources (financial and survey personnel available) and methodology indicated above. and stores were selected at random to avoid biases to specific areas or types of stores within the County. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2.5 Statistical Application The surveys conducted are an attempt to gather observational data currently not available.3. Inc.

bags that were double-bagged were counted as two (2) bags. The number of reusable bags observed in use during the study represented 24 percent of the total bags observed at nontraditional stores and 2 percent of that observed at traditional stores. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Furthermore. the corresponding dollar amount spent is shown in bold text in Appendix B and the average dollar amount spent per bag type is placed in the column of only one of the bag types represented (Appendix B). In fact. plastic. where bags that were triple-bagged three (3) bags were counted. or reusable) – identifies the number of each bag type used by the observed consumer Dollar amount spent on the total purchase (rounded to the nearest whole dollar) – documents the amount spent by each consumer should it be anticipated that there was a correlation between the amount of bags used and the amount spent by a consumer Average dollar amount spent per bag by bag type (paper. Survey Results).0 BAG USAGE ANALYSIS A total of 5.1 the use of reusable bags at surveyed stores varied throughout the County. Customers of traditional stores used significantly more plastic carryout bags than did customers of nontraditional stores. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 3 Usage. The survey results illustrate how the availability of plastic carryout bags as an option affects customer behavior. These observations are described in detail below. customers use considerably more of these than of other types of bags.109 plastic carryout bags used by customers at traditional stores. namely the more affluent consumers or those consumers who shop at nontraditional stores. or reusable) – documents the average amount spent by consumer per bag type x If an observation included more than one bag type. reusable bags represented up to 9 percent of the bags used at one traditional store located in the 1 Nontraditional stores were located in or adjacent to all five Supervisorial Districts of the County. The results of these observations are separated by surveys conducted at traditional stores and those conducted at nontraditional stores (Appendix B.doc Page 3-1 . customers observed at traditional stores used only 18 percent of the paper carryout bags used by customers at nontraditional stores. 141 included the use of more than one bag type (including 90 observations at traditional stores and 51 observations at nontraditional stores). Opponents of reusable bags have argued that reusable bags are traditionally used by a select portion of the consumer population. Customers at nontraditional stores were observed to use only 85 plastic carryout bags compared to 17. Inc. and provide the following information gathered during the surveys: x x x Observation number – denotes the total number of observations made at the stores Number of bags used by bag type (paper.SECTION 3. The results of the bag usage surveys conducted at traditional stores indicated that when plastic carryout bags are available.120 observations were made at the 214 stores surveyed throughout the County. plastic. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. and so on. Each bag was observed and counted separately. These observations are described in detail below. Of the observations recorded. Surveyors noted that although a majority of the nontraditional stores were located within the western portion of the County (primarily in the Third Supervisorial District).

and reusable bags were $9.south-eastern portion of the County.07. Inclusion of the amount spent by the consumer in this study also demonstrates the variance in the consumers surveyed. plastic bags were $2. Traditional Stores Summary.doc Page 3-2 . and 410 reusable bags.109 plastic carryout bags. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. customers used 272 paper carryout bags. 3. The amount spent by the consumers was used to calculate an estimated cost of groceries per bag type. This finding would indicate that the assumption that more affluent populations or those segments of the population that have access to or shop at nontraditional stores are the only consumers that use reusable bags is not the case throughout all areas of the County.281 customers were surveyed at traditional stores. a much larger study could be performed to determine the correlation between the amount of money spent and the number of bags used. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 3 Usage. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. 2 The average amount spent by the consumers who were observed at the two store types did not vary greatly. Based upon the qualitative observations of the surveyors (specialists and interns) that conducted the observations. The amount consumers spent towards each bag (cost per bag) for traditional stores were summarized as: approximately $6. However. the number of bags used did not directly correlate to the number of items purchased by the consumers or the number or type of bags used.00 at these stores. 3 The cost per bag was found by removing observations that included more than one bag type and assessing the remaining costs associated with each bag type divided by the total number of that particular bag type used. Inc. who spent an average of approximately $35. 17.05 for paper bags.1-1. provides a general summary of the findings of surveys at traditional stores.3 Table 3.81.2 In total.1 TRADITIONAL STORES A total of 4.

the customers observed did not use a particular bag type. Number of Bags Used per Total Amount Spent at Traditional Stores by Bag Type. the range is the lowest and highest number of a particular bag type that was observed. approximately 2 percent (272) were paper. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 3 Usage.1 2. Customers spent an average of approximately $35. where all amounts were rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount.1-1 TRADITIONAL STORES SUMMARY Summary Number of customers observed Average dollar amount spent (rounded to nearest dollar)1 Median Range Total observed amount spent Bag Summary Number of paper carryout bags used Paper median Paper range Number of plastic carryout bags used Plastic median Plastic range Number of reusable bags used Reusable median Reusable range Total bags used during study periods Cost of Transaction Per Paper Bag $6. and these observations were recorded and Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. For this study. Rounded to nearest thousandth (0.0230) 4. N/A = not applicable Of the 17. Inc. 2010 Sapphos Environmental.81 NOTES: 1. compares the number of bags used with the total amount of money spent during each observation. Rounded to nearest thousandth (0. The amount spent has been rounded to the nearest dollar for all observations.791 bags used at traditional stores.05 Finding 4.914.3 100 Cost of Transaction Per Reusable Bag $9.doc Page 3-3 .1-2.00 to $445.109 3 0 to 42 4103 2 0 to 11 17.791 Cost of Transaction Per Plastic Bag $2. In some instances.00 to $445. The range is the lowest and highest numbers of a particular set of data. The histograms present a general overview of the types of bags utilized by the customers observed. The term average (for the dollar amount) is the sum of the dollar amount spent for each observation divided by the total number of observations. The median is the middle number when all of the values are arranged from the lowest to the highest number.00.5 Percentage N/A N/A 96. 2.00 $151.109) were plastic.07 1. Figure 3.00 $24. and approximately 2 percent (410) were reusable (Figure 3. with a spending range of approximately $1. It was anticipated that the dollar amount spent by consumers would have a correlation to the number of bags used.32 2722 1 0 to 10 17.281 $35. The number of bags used compared with the dollar amount spent by a customer during each observation is represented in Appendix B.00 at traditional stores. Percentage of Bag Types Used at Traditional Stores and Nontraditional Stores). approximately 96 percent (17.00 $1.TABLE 3.1-1.0152) 3.

1-1 Percentage of Bag Types Used at Traditional Stores and Nontraditional Stores .LEGEND Paper Plastic Reusable Bag Types Used at Traditional Stores 2% 2% 96% Bag Types Used at Nontraditional Stores 18% 4% 78% FIGURE 3.

00 $200.00 $225.00 $150.Paper Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent 12 10 Number of Paper Bags 8 6 4 2 0 $$25.00 $500.00 $100.00 $250.00 Total Amount Spent FIGURE 3.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $75.00 $200.00 $175.00 $400.00 $175.00 $250.00 $300.00 Total Amount Spent Plastic Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent 45 40 35 30 N um ber of P la stic B a g s 25 20 15 10 5 0 $$50.00 $225.00 $125.00 $275.00 $100.00 $450.00 Reusable Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent 12 N u m b er o f R eu sab le B ags 10 8 6 4 2 0 $$25.00 $50.00 $350.00 $275.00 $300.00 Total Amount Spent $300.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.1-2 Number of Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent at Traditional Stores by Bag Type .00 $150.00 $125.

61 4 78 Percentage N/A N/A 18 100 Cost Per Bag Reusable $13.00 to $283. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 3 Usage. with a spending range of approximately $1. The cost per bag was found by removing observations that included more than one bag type and assessing the remaining costs associated with each bag type divided by the total number of that particular bag type used. 3.00 $1. and reusable bags were $13. N/A = not applicable 4 As a result.00 to approximately $283. The average the sum of the dollar amount spent for each observation divided by the total number of observations collected.61.00 and only used plastic bags.86. 2. In total. plastic bags were $3. provides a summary of findings at nontraditional stores.2-1 NONTRADITIONAL STORES SUMMARY Summary Number of consumers observed Average1 whole dollar amount spent Median Range Total observed amount spent Bag Summary Number of paper carryout bags used Paper median Paper range Number of plastic carryout bags used Plastic median Plastic range Number of reusable bags used Reusable median Reusable range Total bags used during study periods Cost Per Bag Paper $7.1-2 depicts data of observations during which consumers used no bags of a certain type or used multiple bag types.479 paper carryout bags.doc Page 3-4 5 .13 for paper bags.645. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. TABLE 3.479 2 0 to 12 85 1 0 to 8 342 1 0 to 6 1. The average amount spent in these stores was approximately $38. 85 plastic carryout bags. there are zero bags shown for particular values. The cost per bag for nontraditional stores was summarized as: approximately $7. 2010 Sapphos Environmental.00 $32.86 NOTES: 1.00 $29. Inc. Nontraditional Stores Summary.are represented in the tables.00 1. The amount spent has been rounded to the nearest dollar for all observations.00.5 Table 3.2-1. if a customer spent $40. the bag count may be zero in the histogram depicting paper bags usage and would be accounted for in the histogram depicting plastic bag usage.13 Finding 839 $38. For example. customers of nontraditional stores used 1. which disproportionately show zero values within the histograms.906 Cost Per Bag Plastic $3. and 342 reusable bags.2 NONTRADITIONAL STORES A total of 839 consumers were surveyed at nontraditional stores surveyed.4 Figure 3.00.

with a spending range of approximately $1. 6 As a result.2-1.2-1 and would be accounted for in the plastic bag histogram in Figure 3.00 and only used plastic bags.1-1).doc Page 3-5 .2-1.00 to approximately $283. In some instances. there are zero bags shown for particular values which disproportionately show zero values within the histograms. The dispersion of the results of the number of bags used in relation to the amount spent during each observation is represented in Appendix B. the three histograms present a general overview of the types of bags used by customers observed at nontraditional stores during the study. For example.2-1. the bag count may be zero in the paper bags histogram of Figure 3.00. The histograms in Figure 3. and approximately 4 percent (85) were plastic (Figure 3.906 total bags used by customers surveyed at nontraditional stores. collectively. As with traditional stores. if a customer spent $40.00. and these observations were recorded and are represented in Figure 3.6 The histograms present the observations of consumers that used no bags of a certain type or multiple bags types. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 3 Usage. depict the number of bags observed compared with the total amount of money spent during each observation. the customers observed did not use a particular bag type. where all amounts were rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount. The average amount that customers spent at nontraditional stores was approximately $38. Inc. approximately 78 percent (1.Of the 1. 2010 Sapphos Environmental.479) of the bags were paper. approximately 18 percent (342) were reusable. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Number of Bags Used per Total Amount Spent at Nontraditional Stores by Bag Type.

00 Total Amount Spent Reusable Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent 7 6 Number of Reusable Bags 5 4 3 2 1 0 $$25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250 Total Amount Spent FIGURE 3.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.Paper Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent 14 12 Number of Paper Bags 10 8 6 4 2 0 $$25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250 Total Amount Spent 9 8 7 Number of Plastic Bags 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 $$25.00 $225.00 Plastic Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent $50.00 $75.00 $250.00 $175.00 $125.2-1 Number of Bags Used Per Total Amount Spent at Nontraditional Stores by Bag Type .

the store trial focused on the grocery items. For the purposes of this study.org.org/ultimatest 5 Family shopping lists are typically larger and more standard than the shopping lists that might be associated with single individuals.5. Biodegradable. 3 Use-Less-Stuff. staff compiled a standard grocery list from a Web site dedicated to compiling shopping lists. August 2009. Compostable. Single Use Bag Study. Inc. Rochester. and the volume of grocery items is generally more standard in size and packaging in comparison to other merchandise such as household items and electrical appliances.doc Page 4-1 . Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2.1 STORE TRIAL The relative carrying capacities of plastic to paper bags have been reported to be as much as 1:81 or as little as 1:1 or 1:1. staff conducted a store trial and purchased identical items from a standard shopping list to assess the relationship between the two types of bags. Prairie Village. KS. Final report prepared for the Welsh Assembly Government.1-1.SECTION 4.2.4 The grocery list selected from the Web site is referred to as the “Ultimate Shopping List.” which provides a comprehensive list of items that represent a variety of standard grocery items consumed by the typical American family (Appendix C. Ltd. Available at: http://www. Inc. a list that would be common of a family was selected. The Ultimate Shopping List is divided into 27 subcategories of foodstuffs and household items consumed by American families. Accessed 29 October 2009. 28 March 2008. for easier size comparison. 1990. In order replicate the average potential capacity of the bags used. staff members selected random grocery items from 17 of the subcategories that would represent items regularly purchased by families and. Inc. Sapphos Environmental. Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable.5 The selected items are shown in Table 4. Store Trial Shopping List. The Ultimate Grocery List. 1 AEA Technology. 4 Grocerylists. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. a store trial was conducted to evaluate the carrying capacities of paper carryout bags and plastic carryout bags.grocerylists. a container of mushrooms is the same size if purchasing 8 ounces). Prior to visiting the store. Sapphos Environmental. whose packaging would be standard (for example..0 BAG CAPACITY ANALYSIS 4. Standard Grocery List). and Reusable Bags.3 As an independent check. Web site. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 4 Capacity. It is understood that the stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances would be grocery stores. 2 Franklin Associates. MI. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. 2009.

3. 1. large) 1.25-oz box 2. 2. One 16-oz container 2. 4. Mushrooms 1. One 70-count container 1. 1. 2. Lettuce 2.doc Page 4-2 . One 20-oz bottle 3. One 10. 2. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 4 Capacity. One 18-oz bottle 2. 3. One 16. and the items were bagged by the same store bagger. 2. One 1-lb bag 1. Each staff member purchased the items from the same cashier. The sum of the items purchased Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. One cluster [approximately four bananas. One 10-oz package 2. 1. One dozen (12 count. One 16-oz package 2.1-1 STORE TRIAL SHOPPING LIST Subcategory Fresh vegetables Item(s) Purchased 1. One 26-oz container 3. 3. 1.25-oz boxes 3. 2. 1. 2. Staff members did not provide the store bagger any additional instructions as to how the items should be bagged. One 1 gallon jug 1. One staff member asked the items to be bagged in single plastic carryout bags. One 18-oz container 4.2-oz container 3. One 8-ounce (oz) container 1.5 to15. 1. 1. One head 2.TABLE 4. 1. 2. One bag (5 count) 2. 2. individual slices 1. 2. 3. frozen 1. All items were single bagged using both bag types. 1. 1. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. One 12. One bag 1.70-ounce. One 64–fluid oz bottle 2.3-oz jar 1. One 4-lb bag 1. 2. One-half gallon 3. One 32-oz jar 1. One box Fresh fruit Refrigerated items Frozen Condiments/sauces Various groceries Canned foods Spices and herbs Dairy Cheese Meat Beverages Baked goods Baking Snacks Baby stuff Pets Two sets of the 44 items listed above were purchased at the same store by two staff members. 2. One 16. One 32-oz frozen bag 2. Two 5-oz cans 2. One 5-lb bag 4. One 18. Two 7.25 ozs) 1. 1. Two 2-liter bottles 1. 1. 1. One 25. 3.5-oz box 2. One loaf 1.23-oz package. Inc. Bananas Oranges Bagels Eggs Tater tots Ice cream Pizza Barbecue sauce Ketchup Mayonnaise Cereal Macaroni and cheese Peanut butter Tuna Vegetables Black pepper Salt Vanilla extract Butter Milk Cottage cheese Sandwich slices Bacon Hot dogs Juice Soda pop Sliced bread Cake mix Cake icing Flour Sugar Cookies Nuts Oatmeal Corn chips Wipes Cat treats Dog treats Quantity 1.7-oz container 2. One 24 oz package 2. and the other staff member requested that the items be bagged in single paper carryout bags. 1. 1. 4. One 1. 3. One 1 fluid oz bottle 1. Two cans (14. 2. One 12-oz package 1. 2. 2 pounds (lbs)] 2. One 16-oz jar 3. 2. One bag 2.

KS. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. as the weight of the bananas resulted in a 9-cent difference (Appendix D. 7 Ecobilan.6.1 Result The 44 items listed above were bagged in 8 paper carryout bags and 14 plastic carryout bags. Compostable. the 1:1. As such.5 ratio is a reasonable representation of the relationship between paper carryout bags to plastic carryout bags.. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic. Ltd. 1990. Inc. several other studies have noted similar conclusions regarding bag size.8 6 Franklin Associates. In-store Trial Receipts). Although a larger sample size would have been preferred. Paper. Prairie Village. and Biodegradable Material. Recyclable Paper. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks.13. respectively. 2007.totaled $84 (specifically $84. February 2004. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Alliance. Report prepared for: Carrefour Group. 4. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 4 Capacity.04 and $84. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. Biodegradable Plastic. 8 Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. and Recycled.1. The number of plastic carryout bags used was nearly double the amount of paper carryout bags used.doc Page 4-3 . Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic.7.

and reusable) at the nontraditional and traditional stores surveyed. This section provides a summary of each bag type (plastic.194 plastic bags used at both nontraditional and traditional stores.1. 5.1-1 PLASTIC BAG USAGE SUMMARY Summary Plastic bags observed (count) Plastic bags observed (percentage of total bags observed at store) Percentage of all plastic bags Total plastic bags observed (all stores) 5.doc Page 5-1 . Of the total number of plastic bags (17. 2 percent of the bags used were paper.1.1-1.1 5. whereas 96 percent of the bags used at the traditional stores were plastic.194) observed at both store types.479) and 16 percent (272) at traditional stores (Table 5. Plastic Bag Usage Summary).5 percent 17. paper.751 paper bags used at both the nontraditional and traditional stores. the paper bags used at nontraditional stores accounted for 84 percent (1. TABLE 5. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 5 Conclusion. Inc.5 percent (85) and those used at traditional accounted for 99. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. Of the total number of paper bags observed at both store types. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. the plastic bags used at nontraditional stores accounted for 0.1 BAGS BY TYPE Plastic Bags The data collected through direct observations demonstrate generally 4 percent of the bags used at nontraditional stores were plastic.2-1.1. The study observed a combined total of 17.2 Paper Bags Nontraditional Stores 85 4 percent 0. Paper Bag Usage Summary). Researchers observed a total of 1.0 CONCLUSION The findings of this study represent a sampling of stores within the County. whereas at traditional stores surveyed. In addition.194 Traditional Stores 17.1.5 percent The findings of this study represent a sampling of the stores within the County.109) (Table 5. generally 78 percent were paper. The data collected through direct observation demonstrate that of the bags used at nontraditional stores. the resulting comparison of the carrying capacity of plastic bags and paper bags is also provided in this section.1.109 96 percent 99.SECTION 5.5 percent (17.

The study observed a combined total of 752 reusable bags used at both traditional and nontraditional stores. The data collected through direct observation demonstrate that of the bags used at nontraditional stores.1. the reusable bags used at nontraditional stores accounted for 45 percent (342) and 55 percent (410) at traditional stores (Table 5. TABLE 5.1. The findings in this study suggest that there are a number of consumers currently using reusable bags in lieu of either paper bags or plastic bags. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 5 Conclusion.doc Page 5-2 .3-1.2-1 PAPER BAG USAGE SUMMARY Summary Paper bags observed (count) Paper bags observed (percentage of total bags observed at store) Percentage of all paper bags Total paper bags observed 5.3 Reusable Bags Nontraditional Stores 1. whereas at the traditional stores surveyed. 2 percent of the bags used were reusable. Of the total amount of reusable bags observed at both store types. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. 1 There were nontraditional stores located in or adjacent to all five Supervisorial Districts.1. The survey team noted that. Reusable Bag Usage Summary). the number of reusable bags varied greatly over the observations conducted.3-1 REUSABLE BAG USAGE SUMMARY Summary Reusable bags observed (count) Reusable bags observed (percentage of total bags observed at store) Percentage of all reusable bags Total reusable bags observed Nontraditional Stores 342 18 percent 45 percent 752 Traditional Stores 410 2 percent 55 percent However. reusable bags represented up to 9 percent of the bags used at one store located in the southeast portion of the County. Inc.1.TABLE 5.1 the number of reusable bags used within the surveyed stores varied throughout the County. In fact.479 78 percent 84 percent 1. as the proposed ordinances will ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and will include an environmental awareness campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags. The 18 percent of reusable bags used by nontraditional store customers could be indicative of the approximate percentage of consumers that might be expected to shift to the use of reusable bags should the proposed ordinances be implemented in the County.751 Traditional Stores 272 2 percent 16 percent The findings of this study represent a sampling of stores within the County. generally 18 percent were reusable. although a majority of the nontraditional stores were located within the western portion of the County (primarily in the Third Supervisorial District). Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2.

Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Bag Usage Data Collection Study June 2. multiple iterations of this trial would be required before a more definitive ratio can be determined. 5. 2. The 18 percent of reusable bags used by nontraditional store customers could be indicative of the approximate number of consumers that might be expected to shift to the use of reusable bags should the proposed ordinances be implemented in the County. However. Inc. as the proposed ordinances would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and would include an environmental awareness campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags. whereas 96 percent of the bags used at the traditional stores were plastic. 2010 Sapphos Environmental. Currently.5 is a reasonable representation of the relationship between paper carryout bags to plastic carryout bags in terms of use and carrying capacity. The data collected through direct observations demonstrate generally 4 percent of the bags used at nontraditional stores were plastic. determined that a ratio of 1:1. 4.2 BAG SIZE COMPARISON The store trial described in Section 4.5. 3. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Bag Usage Data Collection Study\Bag Survey_Sec 5 Conclusion. paper is the most commonly used bag type at nontraditional stores.5 is a reasonable representation of the relationship between paper carryout bags to plastic carryout bags in terms of use and carrying capacity. Currently. The ratio of 1:1. whereas at traditional stores surveyed 2 percent of the bags used were paper.3 CONCLUSIONS The major conclusions of this study are as follows: 1.doc Page 5-3 . Bag Capacity Analysis. The data collected through direct observation demonstrate that of the bags used at nontraditional stores. generally 78 percent were paper. plastic is the most commonly used bag type at traditional stores.

APPENDIX B COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BIODEGRADABLE AND COMPOSTABLE BAGS FACT SHEET .

and disposal. which is equivalent to approximately 1.asp?pubid 1097 6 Note: Plastics make up approximately 9.4 The County of Los Angeles Flood Control District alone spent more than 18 million in 2008 for prevention.4 percent for plastic carryout bags related to grocery and other merchandise.7 percent for non-bag commercial and industrial packaging film.4 percent of the waste stream.6 but up to 7 to 30 American Standards for Testing and Materials.epa. 1 HOA.2004 City of Los Angeles . EPA Official Website: http://www. p. 2003. (2010.04 Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics. Biodegradable Plastic a degradable plastic in which the degradation results from the action of naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria. Table ES-3: Composition of California s Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type. Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics . and enforcement efforts to reduce litter. Retrieved April 5. March 24). 2003 5 California Environmental Protection Agency. clean up.600 bags per household per year. including 0. Public agencies in California spend over 375 million each year for litter prevention. (2004). clean up. which requires meeting the current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard specifications for compostability.699332. from U. Produced by: Cascadia Consulting Group. 2 Environmental Protection Agency. December 2004. 6.S.ciwmb.5 percent of California s waste stream by weight. Berkeley. (b) is certified and labeled as meeting the ASTM standard by a recognized verification entity such as the Biodegradable Product Institute.2 4 Quoted from Stephanie Barger of the Earth Resource Foundation in Too Much Stuff . Definitions: These definitions were selected through careful research of current state and national standards as well as industry and consumer preference. p. June 6.gov/Publications/default.3 of The Laguna Beach Independent. Inc.5.ca. Integrated Waste Management Board. each year approximately 6 billion plastic carryout bags are consumed in the County. Available at: http://www. The proposed ordinances to ban plastic bags aim to reduce the litter and blight caused by littered plastic bags in marine and inland environments.Characterization of Urban Litter. D6400 .1 . 0. and 1 percent for plastic trash bags. CA.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/organics/reduce.). Contractor s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study.htm 3 June 18. of which plastic carryout bags are a component.3 According to the County of Los Angeles. p. Plastic grocery and other merchandise bags make up only 0. fungi and algae1 Compostable Plastic Carryout Bag a plastic carryout bag that (a) conforms to California labeling law (Public Resources Code Section 42355 et seq.BIODEGRADEABLE AND COMPOSTABLE BAGS The purpose of this technical paper is to discuss and establish the definition of compostable and biodegradable plastic carryout bags that may be subject to the proposed ordinances to ban single use plastic carryout bags in Los Angeles County. and (c) displays the word compostable in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag2 Background It is estimated that litter from plastic carryout bags accounts for as much as 25 percent of the litter captured within storm drains. 2010.

July 7. V197.e.pdf 8 7 HOA. Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable Food Service Ware Final Report . Issue1.1 . 10 Chiellini. Page 169-178. The biodegradation of the PCL/starch material was far greater than the aliphatic/aromatic polyester. starch). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared to support proposed ordinances to ban single use plastic carryout bags distributed by stores in Los Angeles County. Loughborough University. thereby spreading and infiltrating into the marine and inland environments quicker. Andrea Corti. which was far greater than the polyethylene/pro-oxidant blend. Andrea Corti. V15. The Department for Environment.. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle. E.12 Synthetic plastics with oxo-biodegradable additives break the plastic into smaller pieces.calrecycle. Food. and street sweeping. Springer Netherlands. Salvatore D Antone.. Salvatore D Antone. Journal of Polymer and the Environment. Mounia Jamal. Ludovic Benguigui.699332. p. and all of its negative environmental impacts. 2007.. Page 349-355. Dr Jane Clarke. and polyethylene blended with a pro-oxidant additive.ca. 11 Chiellini. E. and the other type is made from synthetic polymers with an additive that causes the product to degrade faster. Number 4.10. Sandra Lefaux. Microbial biomass yield and turnover in soil biodegradation tests: carbon substrate effects. Journal of Polymer and the Environment. Degradation of Polyethylene Designed for Agricultural Purposes. Number 3. remain in the environment for undetermined periods of time. Andrea Corti. October. Oxo-biodegradable Full Carbon Backbone Plymers Biodegradation behavior of Thermally Oxidized Polyethylene in an Aqueous Medium. One type is made from organic polymers (i. 2007. Isabelle Pillin. while the synthetic plastic with the additive will physically break apart into smaller pieces of inorganic material that may or may not degrade over time. Dr Noreen. aliphatic/aromatic polyester. but it should be noted that the plastic. The main difference is that the organic plastics can degrade into naturally occurring nutrients (as defined by ASTM D6400). Norman C.2004 City of Los Angeles . Billingham. Guy C sar.8 Some studies have found that degradation of biodegradable plastic bags can occur over long periods of time with initial exposure of thermal conditioning of 55 C or above. United Kingdom.9. 2003. with no weight or gaseous measurements to show molecular break down. Biodegradable and Compostable Plastic Bags There are two main types of plastic bags that claim to be biodegradable. with the exception of the Agricultural Soil Test which relied on visual assessment of the soil after 11 months. and Rural Affairs. The plastic breaks apart into smaller pieces. Loughborough.13 The time needed and extent to which these synthetic plastic June 18. Polymer Degradation and Stability. Chico Research Foundation. V92. (2010). E.percent by mass of the litter found on highways. 12 17 Feuilloley. V13. Yves Grohens. Hilaire Bewa.gov/Publications/Plastics/43208001. Macromolecular Symposia.Page 381-396. catch basins. the LA River. Springer Netherlands. A simple method suitable to test the ultimate biodegradability of environmentally degradable polymers. http://www. 2005..7 Reducing the number of single use plastic carryout bags entering the litter stream is the main objective of the proposed ordinances. August 27. Page 1378-1383. 13 California State University.3 Thomas.Characterization of Urban Litter. Dr Andrew McLauchlin. including PCL/starch based. Mr Stuart Patrick.11 Another study also conducted ten standard tests for biodegradability on three different kinds of biodegradable plastic bags. March 18. June 2007. 9 Chiellini. P.

Earth911. Food.org/research/rapidresDocs/biobags. (2010).com . Retrieved 2010.04 Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics.699332. L. United Kingdom. Loughborough University. and when mixed with normal plastics in a traditional recycling plant.files. Dr Noreen. 16 American Standards for Testing and Materials. Evaluation of the Impact of Biodegradable Bags on the Recycling of Traditional Plastic Bags (http://www. Food. United Kingdom.19 A study released in January 2010 by DEFRA concluded that the time for oxo-degradable plastic to degrade is unclear.gov. is only applicable for comparison between plastics and refers to ASTM D6400 for determining compostability or biodegradation during composting. Loughborough.21 California public code prohibits manufacturers from selling plastic bags with biodegradable. the oxo-additives will cause weaknesses in the reclaimed product. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle.fragments will degrade is unclear. 15 The ASTM has developed standard D6400-0416 as the standard for determining whether a plastic is compostable plastic. Dr Andrew McLauchlin. These conditions are found at industrial composting facilities and not in backyard composting piles.14 Oxo-biodegradable plastic also diminishes the recycling stream because the oxo-additive continues to degrade throughout its lifespan. inclusion of oxo-degradable plastics in the recycling stream is detrimental to the recycling stream. and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2010. (2004). conducted for the Department for Environment. Plastics made from PLA require heat (140 F / 60 C ). and Rural Affairs. and Rural Affairs. and Cote. humidity (90 ). which has been referenced by additive manufacturers. Dr Andrew McLauchlin. oxo-degradable plastics do not degrade in anaerobic environments. from http://spi. pp. 2007. (2004). 15 14 HOA. 18 Grenier. J. http://earth911. degradable.. Dr Noreen.pprc. 21 Berry. February 8). D6400 . Dr Jane Clarke. making compostable plastic bags impractical without a separate collection system. The Department for Environment. Postition Paper on Oxo-Biodegradables and Other Degradable Additives.20 Most compostable plastics are made from organic material. and that the best end-of-life solution for oxo-degradable plastics is incineration followed by landfill.1 . Mr Stuart Patrick. (2010). D6954 . 17 American Standards for Testing and Materials. (2010). D. Loughborough University. Loughborough. Food.com/news/2010/02/08/what-bio-reallymeans/.17 A study by the California Integrated Waste Management Board found that no degradation occurred for the oxo-biodegradable plastics under ASTM D6400. The EuPR indicates that the use of oxo-additives will not help the litter problem and will decrease recycling percentages and energy reclamation due to contamination of the recycling stream.uk/ Thomas.04 Standard Guide for Exposing and Testing Plastics that Degrade in the Environment by a Combination of Oxidation and Biodegradation.pdf 20 Thomas. or decomposable printed in any way on the bag http://www.cmsplus. as explained in the Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle study.pdf) 19 Society of the Plastics Industry Bioplastics Council.com/about/BPC/SPI 20Bioplastic 20Council 20Bioplastics 20Position 20Paper 20on 20OXOBiodegradable 20Plastic-FINAL. such as polylactic acid (PLA) which is made from corn starch or sugarcane. ASTM standard D6954. The Department for Environment. and microorganisms to biodegrade. What "Bio" Really Means. Mr Stuart Patrick.18 The European Plastic Recyclers Association (EuPR) warned that oxo-biodegradable plastics might do more harm than good to the environment. Dr Jane Clarke.defra. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle.

22 There are other ASTM standards that rank the degradation of plastic products (i. etc.pdf 23 California Integrated Waste Management Board.ca.leginfo. ASTM D6340.26 Compostable plastics are not compatible with current recycling practices and if mixed with traditional plastic bags targeted for recycling. moisture. the use of compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags would not alleviate the litter problem or reduce the potential harm to marine wildlife.reusablebags. 2008.ca. the environment into which the bags is released is unpredictable.html . (2010). 1972. 26 Merkx. Brussels. 24 American Chemistry Council. http://www.eu/uploads/media/eupr/HowIncreaseRecycling/EUPR How To Increase Plastics Recycling FINAL low. Sacramento. Furthermore. Compostable Plastics.Available at: http://www. Compostable Plastics. persistent in the marine environment. (2009). September 27.24. including a core temperature above 130 F / 54 C.plasticsrecyclers.27 Contamination of the composting stream with non-compostable plastics may cause compost material to be toxic or unusable and be discarded. Sacramento. There are methods of separating out the compostable from the recyclable but it is costly and/or labor intensive.pdf 27 California Integrated Waste Management Board. and could lead to the increased litter related issues associated with plastic bags.php?id 8. Conclusions Compostable plastic requires environments only found in commercial composting facilities.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab 1951-2000/ab 1972 bill 20080927 chaptered.1 . B.pdf. Additionally. (n. due to the lack of local commercial composting facilities willing to process such bags. (2009).com. Belgium: European Plastics Recyclers Association. which could result in more litter and pollution of our marine and inland environments. This false sense of compostability could also cause consumers to become more careless with their plastic bags.calrecycle. Separation and collection systems are required for the disposal of compostable plastic bags to produce quality compost material and not contaminate recycling processes. (2009). Available at: http://www. and would require regulations to be developed to confirm conventional use by facilities.gov/Publications/Plastics/2009001. and oxygen (not found in modern landfills).). What About Biodegradable Bags? Available at: http://www.calrecycle. Bio-based or compostable bags are not recyclable and need to be separated from the recycle stream to avoid contamination. but none are meant to verify that bags will completely and cleanly degrade within a composting facility or marine environment.Available at: http://www. CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). from http://www.). ASTM 5988). 2010. without a collection system and commercial composting facilities. Chapter 436.e.ca.23. ASTM D6954. How to Increase the Mechanical Recycling of Post-Consumer Plastics. Using compostable carryout plastic bags in Los Angeles County is not practical at this time. HOA. CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).pdf. the presence of compostable or biodegradable plastic in the recycle stream could 22 California Assembly Bill No. Legislative Counsel s Digest.org. since both types of plastic bags have the same general characteristics of conventional plastic carryout bags (lightweight. and restricts the distribution of bags labeled as compostable unless ASTM D6400 is met or as marine degradable unless ASTM D7081 is met.org/plasticbag/s01 consumers.gov/Publications/Plastics/2009001.d. will cause the entire batch to be discarded.plasticbagrecycling.implying that the bag will break down. 25 Reusablebags. plasticbagrecycling.25.com/facts.699332. Therefore.. Retrieved March 24.

compostable. Therefore. while other biodegradable plastics are made from very different polymers that look and feel similar to conventional carryout plastic bags but would have very detrimental effects if mixed into the current recycling stream. or biodegradable plastic bags. compostable and biodegradable plastic bags should be considered for inclusion in the definition of plastic carryout bags that will be banned in the proposed ordinances. and could introduce more harmful chemicals from plastic fragments into the environment and the food chain. Contamination of the recycling stream could ultimately result in batches of recyclable plastic products or materials being landfilled. Current state law does not require grocery stores to supply different containers for recyclable.699332.potentially jeopardize the plastic recycling systems and would significantly reduce the quality of the recycled resin. HOA. so called.1 . a decrease in recycling and recycled material quality. Some. Allowing the use of biodegradable plastic bags without a separate collection system could cause an increase in litter. biodegradable plastics are made of the same plastic polymers as conventional carryout plastic bags.

APPENDIX C CALCULATION DATA .

Included in this industry are delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food. non-food stores) Background The proposed ordinances to ban plastic bags aim to reduce the litter and blight caused by littered plastic bags in marine and inland environments.This industry comprises establishments known as convenience stores or food marts (except those with fuel pumps) primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of goods that generally includes milk.com/ HOA. and snacks.1 . such as canned and frozen foods. and publication of statistical data related to the business economy of the United States. and adopted in 1997 to replace the old Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and grocery stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food. soda. fresh fruits and vegetables.STORES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT The purpose of this technical paper is to establish the definition of stores that may be subject to the proposed ordinances to ban single use plastic carryout bags in Los Angeles County. 1 http://www. NAICS was developed under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget. except Convenience) . and fresh and prepared meats.naics. bread. Restaurants would not be included within the definition of “stores” in the proposed ordinances or alternatives.This industry comprises establishments known as pharmacies and drug stores engaged in retailing prescription or nonprescription drugs and medicines. analysis. County Voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction & Recycling Program Category 1 – (AB 2449) stores – supermarkets & large drugstores Category 2 – convenience food stores greater than 10. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared to support proposed ordinances to ban single use plastic carryout bags distributed by stores in Los Angeles County. 445120 (Convenience Stores) . Definitions: North American Industry Classification System Codes The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was developed as the standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the collection. fish. and poultry.1 445110 (Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores.699287. Reducing the number of single use plastic carryout bags entering the litter stream is the main objective of the proposed ordinances. 446110 (Pharmacies and Drug Stores) .000 square feet Category 3 – stores that are not Category 1 or 2 that provide plastic carryout bags (small food stores & drugstores.

Category 1) Alternative 3 (A3) – Ban all plastic at all supermarkets and other grocery stores. 2 NAICS 445110 446110. and is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 445120. 445120. Category 1) Alternative 2 (A2) – Ban all plastic and fee on paper at all supermarkets grossing at least $2 million annually and (NAICS 445110 & 446110.2 Project Alternatives The Draft EIR also evaluated the following alternatives: x x x x No Project Alternative .The proposed County ordinance would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags by 1) supermarkets with minimum gross annual sales of $2 million and 2) retail stores that have over 10. drug stores.091 *Based on County verification Conclusions 462 462 462 5. and convenience stores with no limits on square footage or sales volumes (NAICS 445110.175 6.084 Alternative 4 is anticipated to result in the greatest reduction in use of both plastic and paper carryout bags.175 x Project 67* A1 67* A2 67* A3 1. 446110) Number of Stores Potentially Affected by Project & Alternatives (Based on infoUSA database unless otherwise noted) Ordinance Version Unincorporated Areas Incorporated Cities Countywide (unincorporated and incorporated areas) 529 529 529 6.Status Quo Alternative 1 (A1) – Ban all plastic and paper at all supermarkets grossing at least $2 million annually and large pharmacies(NAICS 445110 & 446110. Category 1 HOA. drug stores. pharmacies.084 5.699287.091 A4 1. pharmacies. and convenience stores with no limits on square footage or sales volumes (NAICS 445110. 446110) Alternative 4 (A4) – Ban all plastic and paper at all supermarkets and other grocery stores.1 .000 square feet of retail space with a licensed pharmacy.

Data Regarding Approximate Number of Plastic Bags Used per Store per Day Chain # 1 2 3 4 Average Average Number of Bags/Store/Day* 4850 4665 34416 6448 10391 *Note: Due to the proprietary nature of this data. Based on these values. an approximate number of 10. . which represent a total of 12 stores out of the 67 stores identified in the unincorporated County areas.000 bags per store per day was used within this EIR. store names and the number of stores per chain are not disclosed.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Page: 1 5/21/2010 5:10:06 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.9 Total VMT 53.04 0.20 53.04 NOX 0.0 15. unmitigated) Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.20 ROG 0.00 0.51 65.7 2.00 PM10 0.51 .00 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Percent Type 0.02 0.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Data\Air\Deliveries_67.urb924 Project Name: Deliveries to 67 Stores Project Location: Los Angeles County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.9 Catalyst 99. Units 1.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Supermarket Acreage Trip Rate 4.00 Total Trips 4.00 Unit Type 1000 sq ft No.50 0.2 2.2 Diesel 0.02 CO2 65.8 Non-Catalyst 0.1 94.09 0.50 SO2 0. Unmitigated) Source Supermarket TOTALS (lbs/day.00 4.08 0.09 PM25 0.2.08 CO 0.

0 32.0 12.Page: 2 5/21/2010 5:10:06 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10.0 65.2 0.7 17.0 22.0 Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips .0 .6 30.001-33.4 30.0 0.3 9.8 100.0 49.000 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 10.000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14.2 3.1 2.0 0.9 Home-Shop 7.0 0.2 0.000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Percent Type 53.0 100.0 0.1 23.Residential 12.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 0.3 12.001-60.5 1.1 1.5 14.0 100.0 18.0 Commercial Non-Work 13.Commercial (by land use) Supermarket 2.0 86.6 30.5 Diesel 0.0 77.7 60.0 100.3 15.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 Customer 13.0 0.0 0.1 30.6 30.001-14.6 99.1 Commute 13.3 40.8 0.4 1.0 0.9 30.0 Non-Catalyst 0.0 Catalyst 99.0 0.0 13.0 34.0 Home-Other 9.0 0.0 12.5 % of Trips .2 0.000 lbs