Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2024 Quad Cities Action Plan on Plastic WasteQUAD CITIES ACTION PLAN on Plastic Waste January 10, 2024 Page 1 of 21 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Current status of plastic waste in the Quad Cities 3 Local Action Plan Workshops and Surveys 6 Focus Areas and Measures 10 I. Plastic Waste Prevention – Avoid, Reduce, Reuse 10 II. Plastic Waste Collection and Recycling 14 III. Plastic Litter in Waterways 17 IV. Other focus areas and measures 18 Key Considerations 19 Compiled and generated by: Jennifer Wendt, MRCTI, Plastic Waste Reduction Manager Local Action Plan development supported by: Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Reduction of Marine Litter project Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the opinions, decisions, or the stated policies of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, municipalities, the participating organizations, or of any of the other project partners. Key Considerations Report Summary Grid 21 Created: 2024 Page 2 of 21 Current status of plastic waste in the Quad Cities To establish a snapshot of the plastic waste found in the environment, litter data was collected through a variety of methodologies: •October 2021: The Mississippi River Plastic Pollution Initiative (MRPPI) launch in the Quad Cities delivered community science through data collection utilizing the Marine Debris Tracker, an open source data app developed by the NOAA Marine Debris Program and the University of Georgia College of Engineering. The MRPPI is a collaborative effort between Mississippi River Cities & Towns Initiative (MRCTI), United Nations Environment Programme, and the University of Georgia (Jambeck Research Group). •September 2021 – October 2022: Steve Gustafson with Partners of Scott County Watersheds collected and analyzed litter data on a reach of Duck Creek from 18th to 23rd Street in Bettendorf. A full year's worth of detailed data was collected including litter data, stream condition, discharge, and river stage information. Litter data was collected utilizing the Marine Debris Tracker. •July – October 2022: As part of a Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) pilot project, litter traps were installed by Osprey Initiative in Duck Creek, Silver Creek, and Goose Creek in Davenport, Iowa, to intercept floating litter and prevent it from flowing downstream to the Mississippi River and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico. Davenport was selected for installation in the USA, with additional locations in Canada and Mexico. Data was collected utilizing the Escaped Trash Assessment Protocol (ETAP), developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Trash Free Waters program, a quantitative survey tool which provides a standard method for collecting and assessing litter data. •October 2022: Litter data was collected during a ‘Last Stop: The Ocean’ community science event. The community science data was collected utilizing the Marine Debris Tracker. This event was a collaborative effort from Xstream Cleanup, the CEC, and MRCTI. The results of the aforementioned litter assessments revealed the top litter items logged in the Quad Cities on land were cigarette butts, food wrappers, paper/cardboard, film and hard plastic fragments, plastic bags, and plastic beverage bottles. The top littered items found in waterways include Styrofoam, beverage bottles and water bottles, plastic bags, and plastic fragments. In both land and waterways, 70% or greater of the litter is some form of plastic. The data analysis of litter collected is summarized for each assessment below. Created: 2024 Page 3 of 21 October 2021, MRPPI Data Collection Summary: September 2021 – October 2022 Partners of Scott County Watersheds Duck Creek Data Collection Summary: Created: 2024 Page 4 of 21 July – October 2022 Duck Creek, Silver Creek, and Goose Creek Capture Device Data: October 2022 Last Stop: The Ocean Community Science Litter Data: Created: 2024 Page 5 of 21 Local Action Plan Workshops and Surveys A Steering Committee was created to formulate configuration of local action plan workshops, a community survey, and provide guidance for awareness materials and community messaging regarding plastic litter. The steering committee was made up of local environmental and community leaders consisting of the following individuals: Name Organization Robbin Dunn City of Davenport, IA Denice Enfield City of Bettendorf, IA Andy Parer City of Moline, IL Erica Williams City of East Moline, IL Steve Gustafson Partners of Scott County Watersheds Kelsi Massengale Partners of Scott County Watersheds Kathy Morris Waste Commission of Scott County Rachel Evans Waste Commission of Scott County Megan Fox Waste Commission of Scott County Gena McCullough Bi-State Regional / Rock Island County Waste Management Lori McCollum Progressive Action for the Common Good Glenda Guster NAACP Laura McCreery Davenport North High Aaron Maurer STEM Lead, MBAEA Dan Breidenstein Living Lands and Waters Andrew Tysma City of Rock Island, IL Dawn Temple Rock Island County Soil & Water Conservation District Created: 2024 Page 6 of 21 Six (6) Local Action Plan Workshops were held: Participants were provided the litter data, awareness campaign materials, and example actions that could be taken, followed by discussion and suggestions. A survey was distributed on the invitation which was hand- delivered and advertised through various social media and websites. A second “passive” survey was promoted at the Mississippi Valley Fair to get additional input. Approximately 70 people attended the workshops and 350 Quad Cities residents completed the surveys. It is noteworthy to mention the total number of survey takers was 5,177, but at close evaluation, only 340 had Quad Cities zip codes. Other responses came from all over the world, including China, Germany, Australia, and other far off places. Below is a summary of the survey results and the following sections provide a deeper dive into potential actions for reducing plastic waste. Created: 2024 Page 7 of 21 Survey results (multiple choice): Created: 2024 Page 8 of 21 Survey results (text suggestions that have 4 or more analogous responses): It is important to note that because these results are from both Illinois and Iowa, some suggestions are location specific regarding Deposit Return Systems and Recycling. It is also important to note a shift in views from the previous focus on general litter reduction (downstream) to a focus on plastic use reduction, reuse, and recycling (upstream). Encourage reduction/Reduce the use of plastic products (use of metal or glass mentioned) Reduce and advocate reduction of (single-use) plastic packaging (bottles and straws mentioned), Use renewable degradable alternatives such as wood glass and other materials; encourage the use of recyclable or reusable alternatives Promote sustainable packaging (mention of biodegradable plastics or alternatives, cardboard boxes) businesses and residents Education: Carry out environmental protection publicity and education activities (Schools, community organizations to organize lectures, workshops, awareness campaign): reduce single-use plastic use, where materials end up, how plastics harm the environment); radio, TV, public service announcements, schools, churches, senior citizens 39 Encourage/use reusable bags instead of plastic bags (some suggestions to offer free reusable bags)32 Public recycling alongside trash containers (parks, river front, event areas, golf course, etc.)27 Establish recycling facilities and facilitate recycling systems (Illinois) (comment - Rock Island has no recycling) also awareness and incentives to recycle.25 Ban on plastic bags 20 Garbage and Recycling sorting stations 11 Create incentives for people to pick up litter, enforce fines for littering (may need additional enforcement personnel)11 Add more trash containers (one example - bus stops and high walking areas)(example The corner of Bridge and 12th near the bus stop could use one.)9 Advocate reuse, for example bringing your own cutlery, bottles, cups 9 Encourage businesses to provide sustainable alternatives such as paper packaging, biodegradable garbage bags, and eco-friendly utensils, adopt reuse and circular economy models to minimize plastic waste generation and consumption. Governments can offer supportive policies and funding to facilitate the development of a circular economy.Government can collaborate with enterprises and retailers to promote eco-friendly products and provide incentives, grant funding. Support collaborative buying. 9 More drinking fountains that could fill up reusable water bottles. (filling stations) example: have stores and gas stations with refill areas to refill REAL water bottles (promote the use of reusable in conjunction)7 Support plastic bottle recycling.7 Support research and development of biodegradable, bio-based plastics, sustainable alternatives, and degradable plastic 7 Promote plastic and other recycling and garbage classification and education (education)6 Fees for plastic bags at store 5 Eliminate plastic bottles (water bottles mentioned).5 Classify plastic products for recycling and reuse 4 Buy more food in bulk 4 Limiting takeout containers at restaurants, incentives for bringing own cups, encouraging restaurants to make utensils and packets available on demand rather than automatically. 4 Prohibit/limit use of disposable plastic packaging (specific mentions of cutlery) POLICY ordinance 4 Promote environmental awareness 4 Strengthen plastic waste management and treatment facilities.4 Strengthen regulation of plastic production and distribution.4 88 What do you think could be done in the Quad Cities to reduce plastic litter?# of responses Created: 2024 Page 9 of 21 Focus Areas and Measures The following focus areas and measures are separated into three categories: prevention, collection, and reuse/recycling. The suggestions from the survey results fall into these categories and are combined below. Each section provides information on the What, Who, and How to accomplish these goals, as well as policy implications. I. Plastic Waste Prevention – Avoid, Reduce, Reuse Waste prevention depends fundamentally on changes in the attitudes and behavior of our citizens and businesses, as well as a transformative shift in industrial processes and product design. Waste prevention refers to practical actions that reduce the quantity of materials prior to them becoming waste. Employing waste prevention strategies can effectively reduce the volume of waste that must be managed, placing less strain on local waste collection and management programs. Waste prevention includes: - Avoidance – eliminating the need for a product or material; - Source Reduction – eliminating waste and pollution at source through process changes; and - Direct Re-use/Prolonging Use – extending a product’s life, serving as a diversion of waste flows. Changing attitudes and behaviors requires a comprehensive strategy that educates, motivates and mandates, when necessary. 1. Promote and catalyze alternative materials/sustainable packaging • Educate through public awareness efforts to encourage behavioral change. Creating awareness among the general public as well as the business community is fundamental to changing behavior and attitudes about the way people consume resources and generate waste. Sharing practical information and guiding tools about how individuals or companies can prevent and reduce waste in their daily lives is a critical first step. This effort is recommended for the bi-state region, and therefore it would be most effectively led by an organization that services the entire region or partnering organizations from both states, with support from local government and influential city-specific organizations. This educational piece would be three-pronged for businesses with a focus on restaurants, and through schools, and events. Developing an eye-catching but brief “starter kit” with examples and pricing could encourage interest. It is critical that the group implementing the education on sustainable packaging has in-depth knowledge on the topic. Many products exist that boast their sustainability, many of which may be not applicable with existing waste management infrastructure (e.g. compostable plastic), and many more that apply “green-washing” tactics in their advertising. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition is a trusted resource for this knowledge base. Created: 2024 Page 10 of 21 o Restaurants Sustainable restaurant programs exist in other cities such as the Green Dining Alliance in St. Louis and Project Green Fork program in Memphis. Utilizing these existing programs as templates could be used as starting blocks for information and resource sharing to Quad Cities restaurants (these programs should also encourage reuse). Collaboration with the Food Rescue Partnership and regional health departments could be an avenue to connecting with restaurants. Sustainable packaging is often higher priced than traditional polystyrene or single-use plastic. Bulk purchasing of sustainable packaging and to-go containers can reduce the cost burden. Securing a central space for storing the materials should be an initiating task for a bulk-buy program. Outreach to food and packaging distributors, such as Sysco, US Foods, Performance Foodservice, etc. to research options and pricing could lead to optimal solutions. o Community/Schools Through existing programs in schools, such as Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency in Iowa, curriculum can be taught through schools around reducing the use of single-use plastics. A program around this topic has already begun in schools through the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency. General curriculum on plastics also exists through National Geographic, as well as toolkits with action lessons specific to reducing plastics in schools through a program called Cafeteria Culture. A program through #BreakFreeFromPlastic called Plastic-free Campuses & Education provides manuals for existing practices and tools to map out school’s policies and journey towards a Plastic-Free Campus. Beginning at school and empowering students to lead impactful changes progresses to changes at home and in the community. o Events For events that do not have a recycling program, distributing beverage in aluminum and collaboration with a local metals recycler for collection can result in profit from material sales or cost avoidance for waste removal. This also stimulates local circularity of materials. • Funding and resources are typical roadblocks for implementing education and awareness programs. Multiple grant opportunities through the EPA’s Pollution Prevention (P2) grant program are typically offered every two years through EPA regions; because Iowa and Illinois are separate regions, grant applications can be submitted to each region for funding on both sides of the river. Plastic Solutions Fund offers funding for plastic reduction initiatives, as does the NOAA Marine Debris Program. By applying for grants collaboratively, cities can share grant match requirements, as well as grant-writing and grant design. Collaborative grants are typically perceived as higher priority for awards by agencies. • Policy and regulation regarding packaging is possible, but is not recommended until a thorough education and awareness campaign has been established. Created: 2024 Page 11 of 21 2. Promote Avoidance and Reuse Single-use disposables add costs to consumers and businesses to buy single-use products and pay for waste hauling. They also add costs to city governments for managing the waste. Reuse stops waste before it starts and reduces costs for businesses and local governments to manage all the waste. The consumer often has limited choices of product packaging, but some products regularly purchased and used by consumers, e.g. single-use plastic water bottles and single-use plastic bags, are easily avoidable by the consumer. While many paths to reducing waste are possible, below are a few applicable to consumers, businesses, and events. This effort is recommended for the bi-state region, and therefore it would be most effectively led by an organization that services the entire region or partnering organizations from both states, with support from local government and influential city-specific organizations. • Promote Reusable shopping bags. Americans use 5 trillion plastic bags a year, which is an average of 365 plastic bags per person per year. Plastic bags are easily avoidable but have become a social normality since their debut in 1982. Promoting a reusable bag campaign can begin a small but collaborative effort of business, local government, and community. Advocating reusable bag use through a voluntary effort removes the stigma and community perception and avoids resistance to forced change. With support by local government, influential organizations, and a diverse set of endorsers (including not only those with environmental protection focus), buy-in from the community will be an easier lift. An example of this can consist of a single day or week long “Bring Your Own Bag” event. Gaining support of retailers and encouraging an incentive for customers to participate can include distribution of reusable bags at the retailer, a nominal discount for customers using a reusable bag, a coupon for a discount at their next visit, or a gift card drawing for participating customers. Incentive programs can benefit the retailer by securing return customers and avoiding the cost of plastic bags. This type of incentive program could be put into place permanently. This type of program is a high value/low-cost action, particularly with partners supplying reusable bags and promoting the initiative. • Increase the use of reusable water bottles. Widespread use of the single-use plastic water bottle began in the early 1990s. With a focus on the fear of public water systems and the convenience of use, single-use water bottles became a normality in American life. With more awareness around the burdens of the use of single-use plastic water bottles regarding health and environment, reducing the use becomes a critical issue. Installation of water filling stations combined with an educational campaign can have a significant impact. Beginning this campaign at schools is an effective model for a targeted approach with existing infrastructure. Filling stations installed at sports fields, event venues, and other large gatherings can also be an effective way to have large-scale effects. Promoting the use of reusable bottles can begin without the purchase of filling stations at minimal cost. Grant programs for purchasing filling stations are regularly available, such as through the Iowa Department of Education or Iowa American Water, Illinois American Water, or Illinois Children’s Healthcare Created: 2024 Page 12 of 21 Foundation. This effort could be led by individual or grouped municipalities, school districts, conservation organizations, or environmental organizations. • Decrease unnecessary plastics provided by restaurants. Similar to single-use plastic bags, items such as plastic utensils, sauce packets, straws, and other items are a cost to the business and create unnecessary waste. A campaign including support from restaurants, multiple organizations, local government, and community members, such as Nicolina’s Turtle Co.’s Skip the Plastic! Campaign can gain traction by developing an implementation plan that includes canvassing restaurants, providing cost avoidance information, and gaining buy-in by modeling the implementation plan based on restaurant recommendation. This voluntary effort is a way to make progress reducing plastic waste as well as providing awareness to the community. Collaboration with the Food Rescue Partnership and regional health departments could be an avenue to connecting with restaurants. • Implement Reuse programs. Reuse programs are most cost effective when implemented at scale. Large scale reuse programs include many logistics, however there are programs to assist implementation. Perpetual, a reuse platform, partners with cities, reuse service providers, and other stakeholders to implement immersive reuse systems that eliminate single-use disposables, starting with foodware. Another example enterprise, r.cup, designs and builds reuse systems for live events, including cups, plates, and serveware. Reuse programs must be well planned, designed, and financially considered before implementing. • Funding and resources for the above actions would likely be a blend of funding through business donations (reusable bags), grants (water filling stations, programming needs), and local government (staff-time for support, funding public filling stations, programming assistance). Grant programs as mentioned in section 1 are applicable to these programs as well. • Policy and Regulation: Through the survey and local action workshops, policy and regulatory actions were suggested regarding plastic bag bans/fees. Policy change is arduous but possible and should begin with education, awareness, and voluntary programs including community and business engagement, outreach, and input. o Iowa: At this time, the state of Iowa prohibits any county or city in the state from enacting any type of bag ordinance. If plastic bag policy is palatable for Iowans, focus on overturning the preemptive law must come first. The state of Colorado has reversed its stance by repealing the state preemption and shifting first to a fee-based system before a full ban on single-use plastic bags (and expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam). o Illinois: The state of Illinois allows plastic bag legislation. Currently Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, Woodstock, and Edwardsville have passed laws designed to curb the use of plastic bags. Other communities are considering legislation, as is the State of Illinois. If policy is considered for Illinois cities, a collaborative approach including multiple municipalities is recommended. Created: 2024 Page 13 of 21 II. Plastic Waste Collection and Recycling Municipal solid waste (i.e., trash, recyclables, and compostables) collection rates are ultimately dependent on local factors – governance, geography, population density, consumption patterns, public awareness, amongst others. Collection of recyclables via curbside roll-cart delivered to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF or Recycling Plant) for separation or at recycling drop-off centers are both effective at recovering valuable materials for use in other product manufacturing. While each have pros and cons, they both are dependent on consistent education and awareness for success. A well designed MRF is designed to attract high volumes of plastic material. Source separation at drop-off centers reduces cross-contamination and reduces the pressure on the downstream operations in the value chain. Combined with effective behavior change communications and manual and/or mechanical sorting, it contributes directly to obtaining high quality secondary materials for recycling processes. Assuring both the reduction of plastic litter and the recovery of marketable plastics includes actions at collection and at recycling facilities. 1. Reduce On-the-Go Plastic Waste • Public space recycling was recommended frequently through the survey and workshops. Theoretically this is an excellent avenue to recovery of recyclable materials, but in practice it is typically not practical. Public space recycling receptacles, even when placed adjacent to trash receptacles, are prone to contamination of recyclables with non-recyclables like food, liquid, and other substances resulting in unvalued contents. In addition, collection requires a separate route that organizations often lack staff to complete. • Additional trash receptacles were also frequently recommended to reduce litter. Additional public space trash receptacles typically do reduce litter. At least one study has shown the distance to the receptacle was positively predictive of littering. Placement of additional trash receptacles can be determined by surveying the areas or by using the litter data collected using the Marine Debris Tracker. This requires a caveat that the receptacles be emptied prior to overfilling. Encouraging private businesses to install receptacles is a way to share the responsibility, particularly for businesses that sell single-use items or provide take-out containers. This requires a caveat of the businesses being held responsible for emptying the receptacle prior to it overfilling. • Reducing littering is an integral part of reducing pollution. Implementing anti-litter campaigns through signage and social media can be an effective method for reducing litter. The city of Toronto, Canada utilizes an edgy campaign using clever arrangements of litter. Cigarette butts are a commonly littered item that can be reduced by educational material, particularly because people often do not know the cigarette butt is made of plastic. The Last Stop: The Ocean website provides information on marine litter, its journey, and solutions. The Last Stop: The Ocean toolkit not only includes well- received cigarette butt awareness material, but the website also provides valuable information about marine litter and its journey. Created: 2024 Page 14 of 21 Xstream Cleanup is an effective initiative in the Quad Cities that provides assistance, promotion, and supplies for cleanup events. Xstream also highlights citizen/community scientist action and provides current statistics of trash collected during cleanup events. • Installing cigarette butt receptacles is an effective way to capture the materials before it hits the ground. Terracycle offers a cigarette butt recycling program. This program is effective but requires substantial oversight to collect, package, and mail. Receptacles for collecting and disposal are also effective avenues and less labor intensive, and can be cleverly implemented as an influential way to raise awareness of cigarette litter. • Existing “adoption” programs offer local groups recognition and supplies for adopting a location, street, or highway to care for. The iLivehere “Make it Yours” initiative is an example specific to Davenport and Bettendorf. The Scott County Adopt-A-Road Program is available for Scott County communities, River Action’s Adopt-A-Path program is available for the Quad Cities area. Other city specific programs exist, such as Moline’s Adopt-A-Street Program, and Rock Island “Adopt-A-Park Program. • Leave No Trace: An alternative or addition to increasing receptacles is utilizing the "Pack it in, pack it out" philosophy which has become a famous mantra in parks and natural areas around the United States. The message is simple: whatever you bring in, you are responsible for bringing out. “Leave No Trace” is a principle held by Boy and Girl Scouts of America, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service promoting conservation of the outdoors. Promoting these conservation-based philosophies through schools, signage, social and traditional media is an effective way to reduce plastic litter and ultimately disposing of the materials properly at home. • Funding and resources for the above actions would likely be a blend of Xstream Cleanup (adoption programs, litter cleanup events), local government (public space trash and cigarette butt receptacles, anti-litter campaigns, outreach), businesses and institutions (trash and cigarette butt receptacles, signage, adoption programs), schools (through curriculum), and youth organizations (boy and girl scout badge programs). The Keep America Beautiful Community Grants program is a possible funding mechanism. These actions can also be part of an overarching program led by an organization that services the entire region or partnering organizations from both states, or with support from local government and influential city-specific organizations. • Policy and Regulation around policing receptacles (and litterers) is often a tedious task for local government due to lack of funding for staff, developing rules, policy and tracking. However, municipal code and policy can include and more easily enforce requirements for private property owners to keep receptacles available and emptied, as well as upkeep and litter removal on their property. Including and articulating this responsibility in occupancy permitting is an option that can be implemented throughout the Quad Cities. Created: 2024 Page 15 of 21 2. Recycling Programs There is a distinct difference between the Iowa Quad Cities and the Illinois Quad Cities. • Illinois: Input from Illinois residents indicated a need to improve recycling programs. Recycling programs in Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline vary from regular curbside roll-cart collection (Moline) to drop-off recycling locations (East Moline). Standardizing programs within the Quad Cities would increase recovery of valuable materials, reduction in landfill tipping fees, and potential litter reduction. Collaboration between municipalities can reduce costs and improve education sharing for the region. Rock Island offers an opt-in recycling service; this could be expanded to include all residents. Rock Island notably offers curbside recycling service to businesses at the same cost rate, which is a benefit that is not often offered. The option for businesses to obtain recycling services can be promoted for increased recovery of valuable materials and decreased landfill costs. Adding recycling drop-off locations is an option that is more economically feasible to municipalities grappling with curbside single-stream recycling programs. Replenysh, an enterprise circularity program, offers recycling drop-off programs with transparency and profit-sharing incentives, as well as managing the commodity market value and buying and selling to producers. Funding for recycling programs is available through The Recycling Partnership, Closed Loop Funds, and EPA regional and national grants. Collaborative grant applications are more likely to be awarded and share responsibilities of the grant easing the burden of each municipality. • Iowa: The Waste Commission of Scott County’s MRF is a state-of-the art facility with national accolades. The existing education program provides routine and effective material for residents. As with all recycling programs, an educational focus should continue around reducing contamination. A look into the Iowa Waste Exchange may be an option for recycling large quantities of hard-to- recycle items. Additionally, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Alternatives Program (SWAP) provides financial assistance in the form of forgivable loans, zero interest loans, and 3% interest loans. • Funding and resources for the above actions are recommended through local government budgeting for sustained and consistent results. Non-profit or for-profit organizations can take responsibility of managing recycling programs. EPA and state funding mentioned in section 1 can supplement the development and implementation of recycling programs. • Policy and Regulation regarding recycling programs can exist on several topics: o Requirements for lidded recycling carts, dumpsters, and trucks to reduce leakage during collection, transfer and disposal. o Requirements for materials tracking data by haulers and buyers to verify materials are ending up at appropriate location. While materials that are disposed at the landfill have regulated accountability mechanisms to their final destination, recyclables often do not have this same Created: 2024 Page 16 of 21 requirement. This leads to community mistrust and the potential for improper disposal of solid waste. o Requirements for distributors of consumables to contribute to the disposal of the products that are sold may also be implemented in institutions, government property, and commercial establishments. 3. Deposit Return Schemes (or Recycling Refund Programs) Studies regarding Deposit Return Schemes (DRS), like the Keep America Beautiful 2020 National Litter Study, have shown to decrease litter by at least a 2:1 ratio. While not all of the participants in the value chain of a DRS view the system positively, DRS are an effective way to reduce litter and increase the material value. Iowa’s DRS is an example that can be used as a starting point for other midwestern states, like Illinois, to build from. When building a new DRS model, success is most likely when all effected organizations are at the table, including the manufacturer, distributor, redemption locations, and the MRF to limit the impacts of changes in the value chain. DRS can only be implemented at the state or national level, but can be advocated for by local governments and organizations. III. Plastic Litter in Waterways Data collected in Duck Creek, Silver Creek, and Goose Creek illustrates the potential usefulness of litter capture devices for stormwater quality management. Because these tributaries lead to the Mississippi River, litter can easily travel to the ocean, breaking down into microplastics on their way. While a capture device should not be seen as a solution, it can be a stop-gap measure in the transboundary nature of plastics. Measures must be in place for effective and consistent maintenance. Examples can be seen on the EPA Trash Free Waters website. 1. Open Water Trash Capture Technologies Litter booms, traps, and skimmers can be used to capture floatable trash in waterways. These are floatation structures with suspended curtains designed to capture buoyant materials and can also be designed to absorb oils and grease. They are typically anchored to a shoreline and the bottom downstream of one or more outfalls. These are custom-sized based upon the expected volume of floatables that can be released during a storm event. After a storm, material captured in the boom can be removed manually, with an excavator, or by a skimmer vessel. These are the most effective and least disruptive technologies. 2. Storm Drain Inlet Trash Capture Technologies Inlet capture devices may be installed at street level to prevent litter from entering the system, but have the potential to disrupt flow of stormwater. Devices can be installed in the storm drain and designed in a way to not disrupt the flow of stormwater. These technologies can be effective but can be cost prohibitive due to labor and equipment costs. Depending on the model, booms are custom-sized based upon the expected volume of floatables that can be released during a storm event. Created: 2024 Page 17 of 21 3. In-Line and End of Pipe Trash Capture Technologies Hydrodynamic Separators and netting systems are examples of in-line and end-of-pipe devices. As with open water and inlet devices, these can be cost prohibitive due to labor costs. Netting technologies can potentially cause back-ups due to the amount of organic debris that is captured. • Funding and resources for the above actions are recommended through local government budgeting for sustained and consistent results. Non-profit or for-profit organizations can take responsibility of the open water devices through adoption or voluntary programs, or funded through local government. Storm drain, in-line, and end of pipe devices are recommended to be the responsibility of the local government they reside, either through staff or through a reputable contractor. Funding may be obtained through the EPA or other environmental agencies. It is recommended that a cost analysis be completed to determine the financial implications of these devices. IV. Other focus areas and measures While local government is limited in large scale actions around production of plastics and the transboundary movement of plastics through wind and waterways, advocating for comprehensive changes can help the economics of waste management locally. MRCTI mayors have made a statement indicating necessity of local government’s inclusion in the national and international discussions around plastic waste. Below is an excerpt from this statement: As mayors of Mississippi River cities, we are asserting our commitment and reaffirming the crucial role of the local level in holistically addressing the plastic pollution crisis through a circular economy approach by a blended responsibility of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and public sector actors. Currently, the brunt of the responsibility lies with the local government and taxpayers; this is an unbalanced and unsustainable approach. Local governments can lead the way toward new, larger partnerships that broaden responsibility, enlist more expertise, rely on new policy and technology, and ultimately reduce the reliance and concentration of plastic waste throughout our society and economy. It is critical for local, regional, national, and international goals and commitments to include: • Collaboration between manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and government with an apportioned fiscal responsibility for sustained reduction of plastic pollution; • Empowerment of local governments, at the frontlines of the plastics crisis, to be an integral part of local, regional, national, and international strategies for plastic pollution; • Source reduction of single-use plastics through education, awareness, and incentives; • Prevention of plastic litter by improved solid waste management and infrastructure; • Expanded circularity with an emphasis on local benefits; • Incentives to spur and grow markets for post-consumer waste materials; • Common sense policies focused on decreasing the use and distribution of single-use plastics, strengthening litter reduction and prevention, and implementation of consistent reporting and tracking of waste diversion to ensure accountability and build trust in solid waste management systems. Created: 2024 Page 18 of 21 Key Considerations The Quad Cities region has many conservation champions. Compared to many other regions along the Mississippi River, the Quad Cities has personnel and framework in place to augment its robust cleanup activities and recycling capacity (Iowa) with reduction and reuse efforts. Notably, the survey results focused more on reducing and reusing than anti-litter campaigns, signaling a shift in plastic waste reduction viewpoints. A Stakeholder meeting was held on November 14, 2023 to review the draft Quad Cities Plastic Pollution Action Plan. The following participants attended: Name Organization Mayor Bob Gallagher City of Bettendorf, IA Mayor Mike Thoms City of Rock Island, IL Mayor Anthony Heddlesten City of Riverdale, IA Mayor Barbara Cray City of Port Byron, IL Robbin Dunn City of Davenport, IA Andy Parer City of Moline, IL Dawn Temple City of Moline, IL Erica Williams City of East Moline, IL Sandra Reich City of East Moline, IL Kathy Morris Waste Commission of Scott County Megan Fox Waste Commission of Scott County Bryce Stalcup Waste Commission of Scott County Gena McCullough Bi-State Regional / Rock Island County Waste Management Nicolina Papas Nicolina’s Turtle Co, Beyond Plastics Lori Pappas Guardian of Nicolina Papas Key Considerations for implementation of the Local Action Plan from this meeting have been included in this document as well as the attached grid of action items. Below are notable contributions and discussions: • In order to carry out a successful regional campaign, a partnership between the Bi-State Regional Commission, Waste Commission of Scott County, and Rock Island County Waste Management was suggested as framework for leadership of regional plastic waste reduction actions. Additional partners, particularly municipalities, would benefit the overall goal by supporting the actions within the cities. Created: 2024 Page 19 of 21 • Funding opportunities and applications should be approached with staffing in mind; funds must be budgeted and requested for personnel to carry out grant and project management. • Reach out to food/packaging distributors to determine optimal sustainable packaging that can be stocked for quick-ordering, bulk ordering, and quantity pricing. • Connect with Food Rescue Partnership, health departments, Visit Quad Cities, and the QC Lodging Association for distribution of educational material, sustainable packaging options, and to determine restaurants that have potential for reducing Styrofoam and single use plastics. • Local policy, ordinance, and permit requirement modifications as well as contract verbiage could bolster plastic waste reduction by requiring haulers and transfer stations to report recycling tonnage, requiring vendors to provide sustainable options for facilities they service, requiring businesses to have trash receptacles and to keep them from overfilling, etc. • Bolster promotion of “Adoption” programs such as the iLivehere “Make it Yours” program, Scott County Adopt-A-Road Program, River Action’s Adopt-A-Path program is available for the Quad Cities area. Other city specific programs exist, such as Moline’s Adopt-A-Street Program, and Rock Island “Adopt-A-Park Program. Attached is a summary grid of the opportunities in this report. Created: 2024 Page 20 of 21 Focus Area Recommendation Examples Who How Policy Implications Promote and catalyze alternative Materials/Sustainable Packaging: Restaurants, schools, community/events Education in schools, involve students, work with restaurants and events. Developing an eye-catching but brief “starter kit” with examples and pricing would encourage interest. Led by regional Quad Cities NGO(s) or partnered IL & IA NGOs, educational agencies, municipal government (support). Collaboration with Food Rescue Partnership, Health Departments, could be helpful connecting with the restaurants. Outreach to Food/packaging distributors, e.g., Sysco, US Foods, Performance Foodservice for alternatives and pricing options. Additional collaborators could include Mississppi Valley Restaurant Association, Quad Cities Lodging Association, Culinary Arts Center, etc. Grant funding, shared funding from cities. Requested funding should include staff costs for oversight of initiative. Promote Avoidance and Reuse: decrease single use plastic bags, water bottles, unnecessary restaurant items, and other items. Developing an eye- catching but brief “starter kit” with examples and pricing would encourage interest. BYOBag Campaign, water filling stations Led by regional Quad Cities NGO(s) or partnered IL & IA NGOs, Collaboration of organizations, retailers and cities. Downtown partnerships can host BYOBag campaigns. Iowa Department of Education Rethink Your Drink grant program, Illionis Children's Healthcare Foundation H2O on The Go grant program, Funding from partner businesses, shared funding from cities, grant funding for filling stations. Cities can budget public space filling stations. Requested funding should include staff costs for oversight of initiative. Plastic bag bans/fees Systemic Reuse Programs: Events, large venues Reusable cup program at concerts, sports venues Led by regional Quad Cities NGO(s) or partnered IL & IA NGOs, Collaboration of organizations, retailers and cities. Start with pilot, Partner with Reuse provider, grant or pooled funding Reduce on-the-go plastic waste "Leave no Trace" initiative, adding trash receptacles (public space and at businesses), cigarette butt receptacles, Promote adoption programs. The Last Stop: The Ocean website includes educational material on marine litter as well as solutions that could be used as part of the "education/public awareness" actions Boy and Girl Scouts, local government, businesses, XStream Cleanup Through existing programs Occupancy Permit requirements for waste receptacles and litter on property Improve Recycling Programs Replenysh circularity program, The Recycling Partnership, Closed Loop Fund, Iowa Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Alternatives program (SWAP) Local Government and/or NGO, Iowa Waste Exchange could be a resource for recovering hard to recycle materials. Local Government Budget, Grant funding for initiation Lidded carts and dumpsters, tracking of recyclables for improved accountability Deposit Return Systems Iowa State Government State Government State Government Plastic in Waterways Capture Device Installation Litter booms Local Government, water NGOs Grants, blend of local government funding Other Local Government Input on decision making of plastic policy Support for common sense extended producer responsibility, streamlining materials for better recyclability Mayors, MRCTI No funding needed Manufacturer support for national policy Prevention - Avoid, Reduce, Reuse Plastic waste collection and recycling Quad Cities Action Plan on Plastic Waste - Summary Grid of Actions Created: 2024 Page 21 of 21