Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Modeling Tools topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

EPA Region 9 tool models 'escaped trash' density; group requests more documentation and validation

California Water Quality Monitoring Council · October 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An EPA Region 9 representative introduced a new national mapping tool — the 'escaped trash risk map' — developed with the University of Georgia. Participants praised the model’s potential but asked for technical documentation, on‑the‑ground validation and a webinar to explain methods and assumptions.

An EPA Region 9 participant identified as Bridal described a new mapping tool developed with the University of Georgia that models estimated escaped‑trash density across the United States. "It displays modeled estimate of escape trash density across The US," Bridal said.

Participants noted the model uses Bayesian mixed models and predictors such as human development indices and high‑density land uses. Several attendees welcomed the modeling approach as a way to extend limited monitoring data spatially, but they stressed the need for technical documentation and validation against local observations before managers use the output for operational decisions.

Nut graf: Modeling can prioritize monitoring and cleanup by highlighting likely hotspots where trash escapes waste systems, but the dataset’s cell size, predictive inputs and hydrologic linkage to receiving waters affect how ‘actionable’ the maps are for local programs.

Attendees proposed practical next steps: publish the model’s technical methods, host a user webinar, and invite the tool’s developer to present to the trash‑monitoring work group so cities can assess fit with local monitoring and permit reporting needs.

Ending: EPA staff and participants agreed to pursue further outreach and potential collaboration; several attendees offered to compare the model’s outputs with local observational datasets to test predictive performance.