28
San Diego Bay Debris Study Presentation at the Trash Amendment Monitoring Workshop April 18, 2017 Ted Von Bitner, Associate Scientist Amec Foster Wheeler
San Diego Bay Debris Study Presentation at the Trash Amendment Monitoring Workshop
April 18, 2017
Ted Von Bitner, Associate Scientist
Amec Foster Wheeler
Presentation Outline
1) Project Review
2) Results
3) Lessons Learned
2
Study Goals
3
► Complete first comprehensive survey of bay and watershed receiving waters
► (Apr 2014 to Oct 2016)
► Establish a baseline to assess against future changes
► Assist municipalities in prioritizing locations for future trash controls
4
Stakeholder Workgroup
Dr. Sherry Lippiatt California Regional Coordinator at
NOAA Marine Debris Program
Dr. Brock Bernstein Independent Consultant
Program Design and Evaluation
Shelly Moore, M.S. Bight ‘13 Marine Debris
Lead Scientist
Technical Advisors
5
Study Implementation Framework
6
San Diego Regional Board, Practical Vision 2013
Water-Body Oriented Monitoring and Assessment Metrics (M)
Condition and Assessment
(M1) • Are habitats and ecosystem
healthy?
Stressor Identification
(M2)
Source Identification
(M3)
BMP Performance Monitoring
(M4)
Study Questions
1) (Status) How do the quantities and types of debris in different habitats vary during dry and wet season?
2) (Transport) What types of riverine debris do wet weather flows transport to the bay?
3) (Fate) What species caught in the bay has ingested plastic pieces?
7
Study Design
► Probabilistic and targeted based sites within key habitats of interest
► Pre- and post-storm surveys in open water, intertidal, and riverine habitats
► Continuous collection in bay to record seasonal variations
8
Methods
► Standard methods from:
► (Riverine) SWAMP Rapid Trash Assessment
► (Shoreline) NOAA Marine Debris Program
► (Marina) Automated trash skimmers
► (Open Water) So Cal Bight Program Trawls
► Trash type (e.g. plastic bags), count, and volume
► Debris sizes
► macro-plastics(>25 cm),
► meso-plastic (25 cm – 5 mm),
► micro-plastic ( 5 mm – 0.35 mm)
► Tested alternative methods in small number of habitats
9
Study Locations
10
Paradise Marsh
Conditions Monitoring (M1): Bay
11
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-storm Post-storm
% A
rea
Entire Bay (Pre-Storm) Entire Bay (Post-Storm)
Percent Bay Area Covered by One or More Plastic Pieces
Trash Characterization within the Bay
13
Trash Characterization along Intertidal
Highest debris amounts located along wrack line
14
Count Rain (in.)
0
2
4
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
Southern skimmer
(5mm – 25cm) mean count
Trash Characterization at Skimmers
Count
Rain (in.)
0
2
4
6
0
25
50
75
100
Northern skimmer
(5mm – 25cm) mean count
15
Trash Characterization on Open Water
>4.75 mm
2.00 mm 1.00 mm
710 mm 500 mm 355 mm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
South bay Mid-bay North bay Ocean
Pie
ce
s p
er
Tra
wl (a
ve
rag
e)
Micro-debris (<5mm) in Every Trawl
Condition Monitoring (M1): Riverine
Chollas Creek
16
17
Chollas Creek
Sweetwater River
Otay River
Trash characterization and hot spot identification
Trash Characterization in Chollas Creek
18
0
500
1000
A B C DSW
AM
P R
TA
M
ean
Co
un
ts
Visual Survey Score
30 sites 28 miles
Quantitative Survey Qualitative Survey
19
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5P
re-S
torm
Post-
Sto
rm
Pre
-Sto
rm
Post-
Sto
rm
Pre
-Sto
rm
Post-
Sto
rm
Chollas Otay Sweetwater
Liters
/mete
r2
(>25 cm) Volume
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Pre
-Sto
rm
Post-
Sto
rm
Pre
-Sto
rm
Post-
Sto
rm
Pre
-Sto
rm
Post-
Sto
rm
Chollas Otay Sweetwater
Liters
/mete
r2
(5mm – 25 cm) Volume
Stressor Identification Monitoring (M2)
20
Stressor Identification Monitoring (M2)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PolystyreneFoam Pieces,
Pellets, &Cups
PersistentPlastics (hard
and softplastic pieces)
Wrappers(Food and
Other)
CigaretteButts
Bags (single-use)
% o
f P
las
tic
De
bri
s
River Intertidal Marina
21
Lessons Learned
Lesson Learned 1. Need to manage complexities of current methods and design tiered approaches for different end users.
22
23
Lesson Learned 2. Labor intensive methods makes surveys challenging and volunteers less likely to return
24
Standard Method
Rapid Method (4x more)
Lesson Learned 3. Rapid methods could improve representativeness and increase survey efficiency
Lesson Learned 4. Qualitative survey improved assessments and increased management options
25
Green
(Clean)
3.85 miles (14.1%)
Yellow
(Few Pieces)
13.21 miles (48.5 %)
Orange
(Small to Moderate)
6.75 miles (24.8 %)
Red
(Moderate to High)
3.43 miles (12.6 %)
Illegal Dumping
Other Pathways
26
Lesson Learned 5. Quantitative survey methods should be limited to countable key trash items
Degraded polystyrene
pieces were often too
numerous to count
Project Scientists
Terra Miller-Cassman, Amec Foster Wheeler
Dr. Theresa Talley, California Sea Grant
Travis Pritchard, San Diego Coastkeeper
Chad Loflen, San Diego RWQCB
Heather Krish, City of San Diego
Christiana Boerger, US Navy
Project Management, SWAMP
Dr. Betty Fetscher
Dr. Lilian Busse
27
Questions
Contact Information
Ted Von Bitner
Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment and Infrastructure
9177 Sky Park Court, San Diego CA, 92672
(858) 514-6401
28
