Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.106 2014-2016 Margaret Wille -"qs;,: Phone No. Hilo: (808)961-8027 Council Member gip;. .'• Phone No. Waimea: (808)887-2043 �io District 9-North and South Kohala Fax No.: (808)887-2072 ���:•t E-Mail: mwille@co.hawaii.hi.us -.over � 4 Mee )% . HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai`i Hawaii County Building Holomua Center West Hawaii Civic Center Bldg.A 25 Aupuni Street 64-1067 Mamalahoa Highway,Suite C-5 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Waimea, Hawaii 96743 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,96740 TO: Dru Mamo Kanuha, Council Chair and Members of the Hawai`i County Council FROM: Margaret Wille, Council Member CD DATE: May 31, 2016 SUBJECT: UH—Hilo Student Study Information for Bill No. 140, Draft 2 Discussion Please find attached the study from University of Hawaii —Hilo student Taylor Stokesbary for reference during the Bill No. 140, Draft 2 discussion on June 3, 2016. Thank you. MW/dh att Comm. No. 10(p Ref. To• Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Ref. Date JUN 0 3 2016 Hawai`i County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer What's for dinner? The relationship between seabirds, food sources, and humanity. Taylor Stokesbary Marine Science Department University of Hawaii at Hilo MARE 495 Advisor—Karla McDermid Marine Science Department University of Hawaii at Hilo Senior Seminar 2016 Abstract In the 1950's with the world's increasing population, more advanced ways of supplying seafood were implemented (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Gregory 2009). This included changing the material used in making gill nets. Gill nets went from being constructed from a biodegradable product(plant based) to a plastic based product (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Gregory 2009). As the nylon nets fragmented or were tossed into the sea, marine organism began to inadvertently consume the plastic pieces as prey. Over the last 50 years, scientists have been documenting the consumption of user plastics defined as Styrofoam®, bottle caps, and toys (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Sileo et al. 1990, Blight and Burger 1997) by seabirds. From 1960 to 1990, the consumption of plastic by seabirds increased from 74% to 98% (Vlietstra and Parga 2002). The projection for 2050 is 99% of all seabirds will have consumed plastic (McCauley 2016). Currently, there is 5.3 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean (McCauley 2016) and Hawaii contributes to that total. Each day Hawaiians throw away 50,000 lbs of Styrofoam® or polystyrene (McCauley 2016) making the state the highest user of polystyrene per captia (McCauley 2016). To protect our seabirds and other marine life, many states are implementing bans on plastic and polystyrene. Washington, Oregon, California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, and District of Columbia have cities and/or counties that have banned plastic and/or polystyrene (Ryan 2014). Hawaii has proposed many bills to ban polystyrene, however, to date no bills have become law. Recently, President Obama has signed into law the Microbead Free-Waters Act of 2015 (whitehouse.gov 2015), and other concerned individuals are looking for ways to reduce the plastic products that enter our waterways, and eventually our oceans. The scientific literature reviewed contains quantitative data that supports efforts to educate and create awareness about the seriousness of the ocean's health and the ecosystems it supports. Keywords: Seabirds, Styrofoam®,polystyrene,plastic,oceans,Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015, Hawaii Plastic, a chemical compound made from fossil fuel products, was invented in 1905 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2016) and entered into everyday life in the 1950's. It was a wonder product: lightweight, flexible, moldable, relatively inert, and long-lasting. Everything began to be made of plastic: plates, forks, cups, bags, wrappers, food containers, toys, and fishing line. In the 1950's gillnets began being constructed from nylon or monofilament, which is a type of plastic. Switching from a plant based product to a non-biodegradable product, meant gillnets could be used longer. However, because plastic is made from synthetic polymers, when the monofilament gillnets began to break, many plastic bits began entering our oceans. More than 25 years later, Alaska reported the Bering Sea accumulates 145,000 fragments of nylon gillnets each year and also states gillnet floats are the most abundant plastic litter found on their beaches (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987). The relationship between the origin of the nylon gillnets and the Alaskan coastline is believed to be connected by ocean currents bringing the debris from Japan to Alaska(Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987). However, nylon netting originating from Japan and being transported to the coastal shores of Alaska is not the only component of our oceans impacted by plastic debris. In 1982, more than 8 million pieces of plastic debris were entering our oceans (Gregory 2008). The non-biodegradable plastic products polluting our oceans are disguised and marketed as convenient consumer products. Plastic bags, Styrofoam® (polystyrene) to-go containers, bottle caps, and lighters are just a few bits of the plastic trash that circulate alongside nylon fishing nets (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Sileo et al. 1990). The technological advancements that lead to cheaper, more convenient, and longer lasting user plastic products are impacting numerous species of marine life. Ten years after commercial fishing nets began using a plastic- based product, a discovery of plastic being ingested by two seabirds off the coast of New Zealand was made (Sileo et al. 1990, Vlietstra and Parga 2002). Since this discovery, numerous studies have been conducted documenting the correlation between the increase in plastic ingestion by seabirds and global plastic production (Sileo et al. 1987, Blight and Burger 1997, Vlietstra and Parga 2002). The steady increase in global plastic production has been documented in Vlietstra and Parga's 2002 study. The annual plastic production worldwide increased from 30 million metric tons in 1970 to 150 million metric tons in 2000 and a change occurred in percentages of plastic that seabirds are ingesting (Vlietstra and Parga 2002). In the Pacific Ocean, Laysan albatross chicks, inhabiting the Midway Atoll, Hawaii, showed an increased from 74% of ingested plastic in 1960s to 98% in 1990s (Vlietstra and Parga 2002). Further, several studies also report seabirds, in the order Procellariiformes (Laysan albatross and shearwaters) showed the greatest amount of user-plastic ingestion compared to other seabirds (Silo et al. 1990, Vlietstra and Parga 2002). This higher plastic ingestion by Procellariiformes compared to other species of seabirds may be due to foraging habits, as well as morphology (Vlietstra and Parga 2002). Most studies indicate that user-plastics, which include bottle caps, toys, polystyrene, and other fragmented pieces of plastic, are the most common forms of plastic being ingested (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Sileo et al. 1990, Blight and Burger 1997). The fragmented pieces are often mistaken for squid,jellyfish, fish eggs, or zooplankton (Sileo at al. 1990, Blight and Burger 1997, Vlietstra and Parga 2002, Ryan 2008). The harmful effects to seabirds go beyond a lack of nutrition. Plastic with sharp edges can lead to vital organs being punctured (Ridgley 2016). Additionally, the fragmented pieces of plastic, varying in shape and size, become lodged in the narrow esophagus passageway, which prevents regurgitation in some seabirds (Vlietstra and Parga 2002). However, in other species of seabirds, the plastic remains in the stomach inducing satiation, which leads to the seabird succumbing to starvation(Young et al. 2009). Yet, the impacts of a harmful plastic diet are not only observed in adult seabirds, but also in the seabird chicks (Sileo et al. 1990, Young et al. 2009). Seabird offspring are fed through the process of regurgitation and many studies have quantified the amount of plastic found in the boluses (regurgitate non-digested material) of seabird chicks (Sileo 1990, Young et al. 2009). In Laysan albatross chicks inhabiting Kure Atoll, the average volume of plastic found in a bolus was over 53.00 mL, which averaged—70 pieces of plastic (Young et al. 2009). Compared to the average volume of food contained in the bolus (30.00 mL), it is understandable how seabirds only offspring quickly loses the battle to reach maturity(Young et al. 2009). Whether the user plastic pieces are from plastic bags, Styrofoam®, gillnets, toys, or bottle caps, the impacts to seabirds and their offspring are threatening the continued existence of these unique species (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, Blight and Burger 1997, Vlietstra and Parga 2002, Choy and Drazen 2013, Ridgley 2016). While some studies indicate that the implementation of the 1988 MARPOL Annex V may be contributing to significant differences in plastic ingestion, other studies conducted in 2010 and earlier argue that banning garbage dumping at sea is not enough(Henderson 2001, Ryan 2008). Concerned individuals like Boyan Slat are trying to reverse the amount of plastic circulating in the ocean. Slat's idea is to build a device that mimics a manta ray. The triangular shape structure would collect plastic at the surface and after five years, Slat predicts the oceans will be cleaned of plastic. However, the flaw in Slat's design, as indicated by researcher and discoverer of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Charles Moore, is that the manta ray cleaners, need to be anchored to the seafloor. With an average depth of 2 miles, anchoring 5 devices to the sea floors is a costly and unrealistic goal (Moore personal communication 2016). Instead, Moore suggests a more viable solution would be to anchor Slat's design at the mouths of rivers to collect garbage before it enters into our oceans. In a study conducted in South Wales, United Kingdom, 80% of the plastic found along the beaches were from rivers (Williams and Simmons 1996). A more recent study stated that plastic pollution, in coastal areas, can be linked to rivers as the source (Possatto et al. 2011). Anchoring a device like Slat's near rivers may save not only billions of dollars in beach clean-up efforts, but hundreds of species of seabirds and other marine organisms (William and Simmons 1996, Moore 2008, Possatto et al. 2011). However, some countries are going beyond beach clean-ups and are implementing laws against the use of certain plastics. The United States of America is one of the countries that has banned the use of some plastics. Along the east coast of the USA, five states and the District of Columbia have banned the use of Styrofoam® to-go containers (Ryan 2014). While this effort may seem small, a recent study found a reduction in the amount of plastic pellets being ingested by seabirds. Ryan et al. 2009, reported a 79% reduction in plastic ingested by seabirds inhabiting the Atlantic coastal waters. Canada and the western states of the USA also have implemented bans against plastic and foam to-go containers (Ryan 2014). The San Francisco Bay was one of nine USA test sites selected to test for plastic pollution, specifically microplastic pollution (Stanek et al. 2015). The surface waters in the bay were sampled and found that out of the 7 million microplastic particles released daily via wastewater into the bay, 8% was foam (Stanek et al. 2015). The city took additional measures and included beauty products containing microbeads in the foam ban. The ban against microbead beauty products will go into effect in 2020 (Stanek et al. 2015). San Francisco's ban against microbeads came before President Obama signed into law the Microbead Free-Waters Act of 2015 (whitehouse.gov 2015). In 2014, Hawaii introduced Bill 40 to ban the use of Styrofoam® to-go containers but it did not pass. In 2016, Bill 140 was introduced in Hawaii County to ban the use of Styrofoam® to-go containers (Lauer 2016). The argument against banning polystyrene to-go containers is cost and inconvenience. One business owner reported that using a biodegradable product will cost 30 cents more per container (Lauer 2016). Another business owner stated the types of foods served in Hawaii tend to have high amounts of liquid or steam, which would cause biodegradable products to give way (Matthews 2014). The reality is, if Hawaii continues to ignore the fact that they are the highest per capita users of polystyrene, throwing away 50,000 lbs of polystyrene each day, the cost of soggy food will no longer be an issue (McCauley 2016). The marine ecosystems that drive the tourism industry for Hawaii will be gone. To date, not many studies have been conducted on the impacts polystyrene has on seabirds. Moore suggests one possible explanation may be due to the molecular composition of polystyrene. As it comes in contact with water, it expands and cracks sinking before it reaches the open oceans, or gyres (Moore personal communication 2016). Scientists may be looking too far in the open ocean for polystyrene; and therefore would be excluding important scientific data (Moore personal communication 2016). Instead, scientists need to conduct studies nearshore to establish correlations between seabirds and polystyrene ingestion rates (Moore personal communication 2016). Considering that in our oceans almost every piece of polystyrene every made is still floating in our waters (McCauley 2016), efforts should be made to prevent additional polystyrene containers from going down the throats of our seabirds. Reviewing the years of scientific data collected on seabirds and the user plastic they ingest, it seems the longevity of the 350 species of seabirds (Birdlife International 2012) depends on concerned individuals writing their congressmen/women urging them to implement a ban against plastic and polystyrene. If we continue to do nothing, then in 34 years our price for steamy lau lau will be a moot point. By 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish and nearly all the seabirds will have eaten plastic (McCauley 2016). Whether the user plastic, being ingested are from plastic bags, gillnets, Styrofoam®, toys, or bottle caps, we have the ability and technology to reverse our tangled mess. Definitely implementing a Styrofoam® bans would eliminate another 5.3 trillion pieces of plastic (McCauley 2016) becoming part of the seabirds and other marine organisms diet. References Azzarello MY, Van Vleet ES (1987) Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37:295-303 Birdlife International (2012) Case studies (State of world's birds) spotlight on seabirds. www.birdslife.org(accessed 07 March 2016) Blight LK, Burger AE (1997) Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern north pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 34:323-325 Choy CA, Drazen JC (2013) Plastic for dinner? Observation of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central north pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 485:155-163 Encyclopedia Britannica (2016) Leo Hendrik Baekeland: American chemist. www.britannica.com (accessed 05 May 2016) Gregory MR(2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingesting, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking, and alien invasions. Phil. Trans. Soc. B 364:1-13 Henderson JR(2001) A pre- and post-MARPOL annex V summary of hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the northwestern hawaiian islands, 1982-1998. Mar Pollut Bull 42:584-589 Lauer NC (2016) Willie: foam to-go containers must go. www.hawaiitribuneherald.com (accessed 24 April 2016) Matthews K (2014) Styrofoam food containers may be banned in near future. www.khon2.com (accessed 24 April 2016) McCauley DJ (2016) Plastic pollution, our oceans, our future. Youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGBpHYLNtRA (accessed 07 March 2016). Moore CJ (2008) Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing long-term threat. Env Research 108:131-139 Possatto FE, Barletta M, Costa MF, Ivar do Sul JA, Dantas DV (2011) Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact. Mar Pollut Bull 62:1098-1102 Ridgley H (2016) Wild matters just one word: plastics. Defenders magazine winter 2016 pg. 6 Ryan K (2014) Map: which cities have banned plastic foam? www.groundswell.org/map-which- cities-have-banned-plastic-foam (accessed 07 March 2016) Ryan PG (2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic litter and south-western Indian Oceans. Mar Pollut Bul 56:1406-1409 Sileo L, Sievert PR, Samuel MD (1990) Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by Hawaiian seabirds. Proc 2°d international conference on marine debris. NOAA-tm-nmfs-swfsc- 154 Stanek SK, Sutton R, Mason SA, Willis-Norton E, Wren IF, Box C (2015) Microplastic contamination in the san francisco bay. Presented in the State of the Estuary Conference 6271 Vlietstra LS, Parga JA (2002) Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern. Bering sea. Mar Pollut Bull 44:945-955 Whitehouse.gov (2015) Statement by the press secretary on H.R. 1321, S. 2425. www.whitehouse.gov (accessed 24 April 2016) Williams AT, Simmons SL (1996) The degradation of plastic litter in rivers: implications for beaches. J of Coastal Conserv 2:63-72 Young LC, Vanderlip C, Duffy DC, Afanasyev V, Shaffer SA (2009) Bringing home the trash: do colony-based differences in foraging distribution lead to increased plastic ingestion in laysan albatross? Plos one DOI:10.137/journal-pone.0007623 Annotated bibliography Azzarello, MY, Van Vleet, ES (1987) Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37:295-303. This article is a review and gives good background information on how much plastic was being discarded into the oceans in 1975. The amount was 4.5X104 metric tons each year. This number was reported by the National Academy of Science. This review also names surface currents as the culprit for dispersal and accumulation of plastics and a detailed example from Wong et al. 1974 is given. It gives specific examples of gill nets (which can remain in the ocean for 50 years (Wehle & Coleman 1983)) coming from Japan and reaching the shores of Alaska. There is a table listing marine birds common name and scientific name on page 298 which will be useful. On page 296 details are given why plastic is a problem. This review also references Day et al. 1985 review when making key points regarding sea bird ecology and plastic. (2015) Why New York banned polystyrene foam. bbc.com. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33334994 (accessed 07 March 2016) This article supplies reasons why polystyrene has been banned. The article explains the chemical processes for creating and recycling polystyrene. It also explains the harmful effects of polystyrene when it is leached into marine environments. The article gives comparison percentages among US and Hong Kong. In America polystyrene waste and use is compared to plastic bag use. In Hong Kong the amount and percent of polystyrene that is thrown away and ends up in the landfills is supplied in this article. This article also provided a source that conducted a study on plastics in Waimea, HI. Blight, LK, Burger AE (1997) Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern north pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 34:323-325. This article would be a good reference source to find additional articles and studies on seabirds and plastic. It would also be a useful source in defining the two different types of plastics (user and industrial) that are found most often in seabirds. This article could also be used to compare how many and what type of seabirds (surface or diving) were impacted by user plastic (70.5%) in this 1997 study compared to a more recent study. Also, this may be a useful article if plastic in birds by percent as a function of time would be used to create a graph possible showing how plastic ingestion has increased/decreased or remained unchanged overtime. Choy, CA (2013) Plastic for dinner? Observation of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central north pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 485:155-163. This article may support the argument that plastic does not stay at the surface by is strung throughout the water column. It may also support that seabirds may be consuming plastic indirectly (through the fish they catch) and not just when they forage at the surface. The article also supplies new references which may prove to be useful. City of Palo Alto (2016) Ordinance No. 5371. www.cityofpaloalto.or2. (accessed on 09 Feb 2016) This ordinance was passed and states that the sale and distribution of Styrofoam containers is unlawful. Within the ordinance are, defined by the EPA and FDA, suspects (benzene and styrene) which are believed to be carcinogens and neurotoxins that leach from polystyrene. This source will be a positive connection point of what some cities are doing to combat the increasing amount of plastic being dumped into the oceans as a result of anthropogenic activity. The ordinance provides valid arguments as to why the decision was made to outlaw Styrofoam containers (i.e. not cost effective and problematic to recycle Styrofoam containers). Gan, V (2015) How the war against polystyrene foam containers is being won. www.citylab.com http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/01/how-the-war-against-polystyrene-foam-containers-is- being-won/384393/ (accessed 07 March 2016) This source lists cities that have banned the use of polystyrene. By researching some of the cities listed, hopefully there is legislation that will be useful in establishing why coastal cities believe banning polystyrene is a benefit to marine life. This article also led to another source which provided a map that displays the US cities that have banned polystyrene. Gregory, MR(2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingesting, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking, and alien invasions. Phil. Trans. Soc. B 364:1-13. This review has a lot of repetitive information, however, it lists references to Derraik 2002 and Ryan et al. 2008. According to Gregory, Darraik 2002 is a reference for dangerous impacts of plastic on marine environment. Ryan et al. 2009 references that the amount of plastic seabirds ingested is being reduced. This would be interesting to compare by what amount, which species, and in which ocean Ryan et al. 2009 collected the data. Gregory's review also extends beyond seabirds and lists other organisms that are impacted by the plastic pollution in the oceans. Gregory also discusses ghost net fishing and provides a source to explain what changes were made to fishing nets that has led to ghost fishing. Gregory also provides a table listing seabirds that ingested plastic from a 1958-1977 study. Gregory's review goes beyond seabird ingesting plastic and discusses other locations besides the at the surface plastic pollution is causing damage to marine life. The review provides adequate references in the discussion regarding plastic sinking to the seafloor and causing more damage to ecosystems. McCauley, DJ (2016) Plastic pollution, our oceans, our future. Youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGBpHYLNtRA (accessed 07 March 2016) This short video provides visual support to the plastic and polystyrene debris being washed up on HI beaches. It further provides statistics on how much polystyrene Hawaiians dispose of each day. The film was made as a result of students, from Waimea, HI, asking how plastic debris is transforming our oceans. This video may also provide additional sources as several individuals are named in the film. Moore, CJ, Moore, SL, Leecaster, MK, Weisberg, SB (2001) A comparison of plastic and plankton in the north pacific central gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 42:1297-1300. This study compares pelagic filter feeders mass to plastic abundance in the same location. The study site is the North Pacific central gyre because it is an area with high atmospheric pressure and with clockwise currents that pushes debris to a central area where winds and currents are not found. There were two possibilities offered for the results of over 330,000 pieces km2 of plastic: more plastic being input into the system or the sample site provided a large accumulation of plastic in a single area. This study also updates the number of marine organisms that die each year from plastic to 100,000 just in the North Pacific Ocean. It also provides an explanation as to why seabirds are most often studied with regards to plastic ingestion-easiest to collect ingested plastic due to regurgitation. This study may prove to be helpful in providing updated impacts on seabirds as well as more recent references. Ryan, K(2016) Which cities have banned plastic foam? http://groundswell.org/map-which- cities-have-banned-plastic-loam/ (accessed 07 March 2016) The map provided by this online story may be a good graph to support how many coastal US cities and US states are banning or considering to ban polystyrene. This graph would be used to support legislation regarding the banning of Styrofoam. It would also be used in conjunction with Gan, V source. Vlietstra, LS, Parga, JA (2002) Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern. Bering sea. Mar Pollut Bull 44:945-955. This study compares plastic ingestion by short-tailed shearwaters from a 1970-1978 study to their study done in 1997-1999. Interestingly, the amount of plastic has not significantly changed, however, the type of plastic found in the 1997-1999 study has changed compared to the 1970's study. This study provides good background information on the amount of plastic that has steadily accumulated and been deposited in our oceans. Vlietstra reported, 30 million metric tons in the 70's to 85 million metric tons in the late 80's to 150 million metric tons in 2000 demonstrating the increase in plastic pollution in our oceans. This was the first study or review that mentioned the MARPOL Annex V (garbage regulation at sea), which may prove to be helpful in establishing an argument about seabirds and their"new" diet(i.e. plastic).