Plastics in the ocean more than a litter problem

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

P L A S T I C S I N T H E

OCEAN: M 0 R E T H A N A

L I T T E R P R 0 B L E M

Feb 1987

GC
1085 COASTAL ZONE
.043 INFORMATION
1987

PLASTICS IRTHE OCEAN,
.MORE THAN A LITTER PROBLEM

lit

Prepared by
Center for Environmental Education

February 1987

n the cover: sea lion with Publication of this report was
six-pack connector ring made possible by a grant from
,round its neck. Waste Management, Inc.

FOREWORD

This report was prepared by the Center for Environmental Education for
the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-4228. The
original title was USE AND DISPOSAL OF NOM17 UUMBLE PLASTICS IN THE
MARIM. AND GREW LAKES MVDUWHNM.

Natasha Atkins directed the efforts by the Center for Environmental
Education. Principal authors were Kathryn J. O'Hara,and Suzanne Iudicello.

Please note that this reprint of the report does not contain copies of
statutes applicable to marine debris and entanglement, which are referenced
in the text as Appendix III.

During the preparation of this report several bills were introduced
into the 99th session of Congress that dealt with aspects of the problem
of plastic debris in the marine environment. while it is beyond the scope
of the contract to summarize the content of these bills individually, we
believe the following points.are of interest:

plastic rings used for carrying beverages ("six-pack" rings) are
presently required to be degradable in eleven states, and Senate
Bill 2596 requires that all such rings nationwide to be degradable;

S. 2596 also calls for the Environmental Protection Agency to head
an interagency review, together with industry, of the plastic debris
problem and to make recommendations as to how these problems can be
mitigated;

another bill introduced in the Senate (S. 2611) calls for a bounty
system to be established to encourage domestic fishermen to retrieve
lost or discarded fishing nets;

port facilities in the United States and abroad are presently
inadequate for handling shipboard 'wastes and should be improved
if Annex V of the MARPOL Treaty is ratified; and

the Coast Guard has indicated that the U.S. is very near
ratification of Annex V of the MARPOL Treaty.

For additional information on the problems concerning use and disposal
of plastic debris in the marine environment, we refer the reader to the
Congressional Record of 12 August 1986. We also would like to note that
since the completion of this report in 1986 several more pieces of legis-
lation have been introduced into the 100th Congress, which, due to time
constraints, could not be listed in the report.

sawym

since its invention more than 40 years ago, plastic has become such an
integral part of life that it is difficult to survey one's surroundings
without finding plastic items in use: . packaging and containers, household
goods, furnishings, equipment and machines. But what happens to plastic
that falls into disuse? Unfortunately, the durable characteristics that
have made plastic so convenient for packaging, household products, and
commercial equipment also make it a continuing, nondegradable and
persistent presence in the environment. A growing body of evidence
indicates that when discharged, lost or abandoned in the marine
environment, plastic debris adversely affects the oceans and their
inhabitants in a multitude of ways.

Environmental impacts arise from entanglement of marine animals in
plastic debris and from ingestion of plastics by marine organisms. Plastic
debris can cause potential threats to humans when divers become entangled
or vessels- become fouled in debris. The depletion of fishery resources,
vessel damage, and aesthetic degradation resulting in lost tourism revenues
or costly cleanup procedures all contribute to significant economic impacts
caused by plastic debris.

Even though concern about marine pollution in general has been
expressed since the 701s, the issue of plastic debris in the marine
environment is a relatively new concern, and sources of hard data are
meager. No central data collection source exists to document what types of
plastic are out there, where it comes from, what it does, or who controls
it. What legal authorities do exist to address ocean pollution are not
plastic-specific, and have not been used to focus on the particular problem
of entanglement of marine animals in plastic debris. only one federal
program exists that targets the problem directly. While federal wildlife
managers and those engaged in management of the nation's refuges and
seashores are aware of the magnitude of the problem posed by plastic
debris, conservation agencies in coastal states seem unfamiliar with the
issue, and are generally doing little or nothing to combat the tons of
plastic litter that line their beaches. In a recently released plan
setting out priorities for ocean research for the next five years, plastic
debris and associated entanglement and ingestion by marine animals ranked
among the last four items of a 50-issue list, and were categorized only as
"low priority" national issues. It is against this backdrop that the
authors have attempted to address the tasks posed by the scope of work:
describe the types, sources, and impacts of nondegradable plastics in the
marine environment and discuss the authorities -relevant to the issue. In
order to answer the questions raised, it was necessary to consult primary
sources in addition to a literature search of what few authorities are
available. our review took us to lake beaches and seashores, to fishery
supply houses and boat dealers, to uncompiled records of lost fishing gear
and bags of beach litter. The picture, while anecdotal and incomplete, is
of a growing problem that has,yet to be tackled by natural resource
managers at either the national or local level.

Environmental Impacts

Frequent reports of the mortality of marine mammals, sea turtles,
seabirds and fish attributed to plastic debris have concerned scientists,
conservationists, fishermen and others in recent years. Plastic in the
marine environment may be a problem not only for individual animals, but
may ultimately affect entire marine ecosystems*

While plastic debris has been shown to affect individual species, very
little is known about the broader impacts on marine populations,
communities or ecosystems. To date, extensive research has only been
carried out on northern fur seal populations. But among those species that
appear to have the greaiest degree of interaction with marine plastic
debris, many are endangered or threatened species namely, the Hawaiian monk
seal, brown pelican, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, green and olive
ridley sea turtles. The effects of plastic debris on these endangered and
threatened species therefore should be closely monitored.

Among the species of marine mammals reported to become entangled,
seals and sea lions appear to most affected, which is often attribufed to
their tendency to investigate floating debris. The most common items found
on entangled pinnipeds are fragments of nets, and plastic strapping bands
which are used to bind packages. For many pinnipeds the effects of
entanglement on species survival are generally unknown. But for the
northern fur seals of the Pribilof Islands in Alaska, recent studies
indicate that this population is declining at an annual rate of 4 to 8
percent per year, largely due to entanglement. Types of fishing gear are
also the most common plastic items found on entangled sea turtles, whereas
birds have been reported to become entangled primarily in monofilament
fishing line and six-pack connectors used to carry beverage cans.

Another major problem tied to plastic debris has been the issue of
ghost fishing, or the ability of lost or discarded fishing gear to continue
to catch finfish and shellfish indefinitely. Free-floating gill nets have
been reported to catch large numbers of commercially valuable species of
finfish and shellfish years after they have been lost. Estimates of this
type of plastic debris from New England's Atlantic gillnet fisheries range
from 30 miles of lost nets in 1985 to more than 18 miles lost thus far in
1986. Lost trawl webbing turned up on Alaskan beaches in 1974 in -
quantities of 272 kilograms per kilometer of beach, an amount that dropped
to 172 kilograms 10 years later, but only after a significant decrease in
the area's trawl fishery. In various fisheries that utilize traps
constructed either partially or entirely of plastic, ghost fishing also
poses a serious threat to fishery stocks. In New England, it is estimated
that 20 percent of 2.5 million lobster pots are lost annually. Off Florida
in the Gulf of Mexico, 25 percent of 96,000 stone crab traps were lost in
1984. It is estimated that more than 30,000 crab traps have been lost in
Alaskan waters since 1960, at a rate of 10 percent per year of those set.
Each of these pots and traps continues to capture fish and shellfish,
resulting in a continuing cycle of baiting and capturing valuable
commercial species that are never retrieved.

Along with the increasing reports of plastic debris in the marine
environment there has been an increase in the documentation of plastic
-ingestion by marine animals. Certain animals may ingest plastics
nonselectively while feeding on other organisms, while others mistake
floating plastic for authentic food items. The ingestion of plastic bags
and sheeting by sea turtles has become highly popularized and is attributed
to deliberate. consumption by turtles who mistake these items for jellyfish.
To date, 50 species of seabirds have also been known to ingest plastic
debris, most commonly raw polyethylene pellets, which are the raw form of
plastic after it has been synthesized from petrochemicals.

Economics and Safety

In addition to the ecological impacts caused by plastic debris, there
are also economic problems. Probably one of the most costly but least
known impacts to fishermen is the loss of synthetic fishing gear. Since
U.S. fishermen are not required to report fishing gear losses there is no
way to assess this. Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear could be severely
depleting fishery stocks, but quantitative data on this problem are also
limited.

Plastic debris has also been reported to interfere with vessel
operations, the most common instances involving plastic items that foul
propellors and clog cooling water intake systems. The types of plastic
debris involved in these incidents range from entire gill nets to garbage
bags, sheeting and monofilament fishing line. Although this appears to be
a problem nationwide, there is no source of documentation to determine the
frequency of this occurrence. The fact that some boating supply companies
have built devices on propellors to combat this problem, however, may give
some indication that it is not merely a random occurrence.

Plastic debris may also pose a threat to human safety in the marine
environment. occasionally divers have become entangled in monofilament
fishing line, but.more frequently encounters involve gill nets. The
disablement of vessels caused by plastic debris may also endanger human
safety when power or steering control is lost; some have attributed
fatalities at sea to vessel disablement during storms, whereas disabled
vessels near inshore structures face the risk of collision. Research and
military submarines have had similar near fatal encounters with lost gill
nets.,

Many coastal communities incur the costs of routine cleanup of debris,
while others employ enforcement officers to patrol and control litter
deposited by beachgoers. In certain areas, the deposition of large amounts
of debris is coming from distant land-based or offshore sources. At Padre
Island National Seashore in Texas, 90 percent of beach debris comes from
the Gulf of Mexico and consists largely of plastic items associated with
merchant shipping and oil industry activities, such as large pieces of
plastic sheeting and domestic wastes in quantities and container-sizes
suggestive of commercial activities. While this problem is costly in terms
of cleanup, 'it may have an even greater impact on the coastal tourist
industry. The economic impact suffered by coastal businesses as a result
of marine debris was clearly demonstrated by the "floatable episode" of
June 1976, when unusually large amounts of materials, primarily plastics,
washed up on beaches in Wng Island. The total cost of the cleanup was

$100 thousand, but an even greater economic loss was suffered by the
coastal recreational industry due to the aesthetic degradation of beach
areas.

Types and Quantities of Plastic Debris

The types of plastic debris described in this report are generally
categorized in literature as either manufactured plastic articles or raw
plastic particles. manufactured plastic articles include those items that
have been fabricated into consumer products such as fishing gear, packaging
materials, bags, bottles and many other items. Raw plastic particles are
typically in the form of small spherules or beads and are used to
manufacture plastic products. Although there is enough available
information in literature to draw some general conclusions about the
primary types of plastic debris found in the marine environment,
quantitative data are insufficient for estimating total amounts of
particular debris in any major geographic area. Most of the quantitative
estimates of debris reported in literature provide information on isolated
concentrations in relatively localized areas. The lack of information on
total quantities of specific debris in the marine environment points
towards the need for future studies to address this aspect of the plastic
debris problem.

Until recently the amount of lost or discarded fish netting was highly
speculative, largely because gear losses are almost never reported.
Although this subject is still in the beginning stages of analysis, various
methods have been used in recent years to assess the types and quantities
of lost or discarded netting including: estimation of the total amount of
fishing net gear used in various fisheries and their relative probabilities
of becoming lost; direct observations of net losses from fishing vessels;
observations of derelict fishing nets at sea; and tabulation of
accumulation rates of fishing gear on beaches. Each of these methods of
analysis has provided some insight into the types and quantities of lost or
discarded fishing nets in the marine and, to A lesser extent, Great Lakes
environments.

Information on the types and quantities of lost commercial fishing
gear that has not yet been reported in literature is found in the files
compiled by the National marine Fisheries Service under the Fishing vessel
and Gear Damage Compensation Fund of the Fishermen's Protection Act, and
the "fishermen's contingency fund" established under the outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act. Both of these funds compensate fishermen for gear losse 's
in federal waters of the United States. There is presently only one state
program that maintains records and provides compensation for gear losses
that occur in state waters.

Among the types of fishing gear that are known to affect the marine
environment, gill and trawl nets appear to be of utmost concern. Some have
concluded that gill nets are the most likely net type to become lost or
damaged and discarded during fishing operations, principally because the
amount of gill net used in the North Pacific far exceeds the amount of net
used in all other fisheries analyzed: 170,466 km, or, if strung end to
end, 4.2 times the length of the equator. Trawl nets, which are bag-shaped
nets towed behind a vessel, are considered to be the second most likely net

type to become lost. There are an estimated 5,500 km of trawl net used by
12 major foreign and domestic, trawl fisheries in the North Pacific.

synthetic netting materials are also used in the construction of side
panels for wood and metal traps employed in the various trap fisheries of
the United States. Consequently, gear losses by these fisheries could well
be contributing to the plastic debris problem in the marine environment.
Furthermore, @ there appears to be a growing demand for plastic and plastic-
coated wire traps in the U.S. commercial trap fisheries, since these traps
are not only impervious to wood-boring organisms, but they also offer
additional conveniences to fishermen.

There has been little attempt to quantify the amount of plastic buoys
or rope lost by commercial fisheries operating in the marine environment.
This may be because buoys and ropes are used in a variety of combinations.
Although it is impossible to estimate the total number-of buoys or amount
of rope lost in North American waters, files kept by the Fishermen's Vessel
and Gear Damage Compensation Fund suggest that total amounts are
staggering. The following example is indicative: 295,000 floats lost per
year in the North Pacific drift net fishery from 1978-1981. Similarly,
lost or discarded monofilament fishing line is becoming an increasing
problem, but the total amount of this plastic debris is unknown.

Two plastic items of debris which are associated with cargo shipping
activities and are known to affect the marine environment as debris are
plastic strapping bands and large pieces of plastic sheeting. Plastic
strapping bands are used to bind items for shipping and are thought to be
commonly removed off one end of a package without cutting them, and
subsequently cast off a ship. Large sheets of plastic, used in cargo
shipments to cover items during transportation, are also frequently
reported as debris. Although there is no available documentation of the
amount of this material generated as debris, plastic sheeting has been
reported to be the most abundant litter item found on Padre Island National
Seashore in Texas.

The most diverse category of plastic debris found in the marine
environment includes plastic packaging materials, bags, containers and a
multitude of other items used for domestic purposes. Plastic domestic
articles most commonly reported as marine debris include the following:
bags, sheets, six-pack connectors used for carrying canned beverages,
containers, bottles, tampon applicators and pieces of styrofoam.

The occurrence of small plastic particles in marine areas has been
documented repeatedly in the past decade. Plastic pellets are the raw form
of plastic after it has been synthesized from petrochemicals. These
pellets are then transported in bulk to manufacturing sites, where they are
melted down and fabricated into a multitude of plastic consumer goods. It
is suspected that volumes of these pellets are discharged into rivers with
the wastewater from plastic manufacturing processes,- and eventually find
their way into the marine environment. Plastic fragments, which are also
of concern primarily because they are ingested by marine animals, result
from the breakdown of larger manufactured plastic articles.

Sou rces of Plastic Debris

Although plastic debris may be generated both on land and at sea, it
is generally believed that most of the debris in the marine environment
comes from ocean sources. The amount of debris generated worldwide by
ocean sources in the early 1970's was estimated to be about 6.4 million
metric tons per year. While accidental loss of plastic items from ocean
sources contributes to the problem of debris, deliberate disposal at sea is
a greater problem. Deliberate disposal of such enormous quantities of
waste may be explained in part by several factors. For example,
alternative means of handling shipboard wastes such as grinders, compactors
and incinerators are not only costly, but under certain circumstances
highly undesirable. Furthermore, vessels that store garbage on board
require adequate facilities on shore for disposal, but many ports both in
the United States and abroad are ill-equipped for handling these wastes.

Commercial fishing operations are a major ocean source of domestic
wastes and plastic fishing gear. Fishing gear may become lost accidentally
due to gear failure caused by normal wear and tear, operational mistakes on
the part of a fisherman, and storms. Gear conflicts among fishermen where
both fixed and towed fishing gear are used in the same areas may also
contribute to the accidental and, in some instances, deliberate loss of
fishing gear. During gear mending procedures pieces of fishing gear are
discarded, whereas entire nets, in particular gill nets, may be
deliberately discarded when the total catch is too great to be hauled in.
There are also reports of foreign fishermen cutting loose their nets when
the U.S. Coast Guard has spotted them fishing in an illegal manner or
location. However, extensive documentation of such deliberate gear losses
is lacking.

In 1984, there were 24,000 commercial fishing vessels over 5 gross
tons registered in the United States. According to the most recent (1977)
regional breakdown, more than half operate in the North Pacific and a large
portion of the remaining vessels operated in the Gulf of Mexico.
The,refore, the amount of plastic debris generated by this source has been
found to be greatest in the North Pacific, and would also be expected to be
significant in the Gulf of Mexico.

The worldwide rate of disposal of domestic litter from merchant ships
has been estimated at 110,000 metric tons, 0.7 percent of which is plastic.
The amount of cargo-associated wastes including dunnage, shoring, pallets,
wires and covers is estimated at 5.6 million metric tons per year.
Merchant ships may also be a significant source of plastic pellets tha:t
have been reported in the marine environment. These pellets, used in
packaging around larger objects in a ships hold or to reduce friction on a
ship's deck during cargo transport, may escape during transit or unloading
at port.

Other ocean-based sources of plastic debris include U.S. naval and
research vessels, passenger vessels and, most importantly, privately owned
recreational vessels. In 1984, 9.4 million recreational vessels were
registered in the United States with the highest concentrations of these
vessels in southern New England, the middle Atlantic, Chesapeake Bay and
the Great Lakes.

vii

Although the disposal of wastes from oil rigs and drilling platforms
is strictly regulated, these structures are reportedly a major ocean source
of plastic debris. The heaviest concentrations of these structures are off
the Louisiana coast and offshore areas of Texas. In addition to the
plastic debris generated by crew members on offshore structures in the
Gulf, there are more than 1,000 vessels associated with exploration,
development, serving, production and product transmission. All of these
activities result in the generation of floatable or semi-buoyant trash and
debris.

Land-based sources of plastic debris that are of particular concern
include industries that synthesize plastic and manufacture plastic
articles. Sediment samples from'rivers, taken below outlet pipes of
plastic factories, have contained concentrations of plastic pellets in the
order of approximately 2,000 pellets per 2.5 cubic centimeters thus
suggesting that plastic pellets are directly discharged into the-river
system by these industries.

In metropolitan areas, primarily along,the North Atlantic coast, sewer
systems that are combined with storm runoff systems generate large amounts
of plastic debris via outfalls in marine areas during times of excess
rainfall. Municipal wastewater treatment plants may directly discharge
plastic debris from both primary and secondary sewage treatment plants. In
the spring of 1976, an estimated 2,200 to 13,000 cubic feet per day of
floatable materials had been dumped into the New York Bight area from raw
discharges. Sewage sludge dumping in the ocean is also a potential source
of plastic debris. Although plastic floatables in municipal sewage plants
are routinely skimmed during treatment processes, approximately 5 percent
escape screening and are dumped by barge along with treated sewage sludge.
In the late 1970's an estimated 1,000 plastic tampon applicators were
dumped with sewage sludge in the New York Bight every day.

other land-based sources of plastic debris which have been identified
include municipal solid waste disposal practices, docks and marinas, and
littering by the public.

Regional Analysis

much of the literature pertaining to the problems, types, and sources
associated with plastic debris in North America focuses on the North
Pacific where the National Marine Fisheries Service has directed its major
Entanglement Program efforts. The subject of plastic debris has been
documented to a much lesser degree for most other areas within the United
States. In the Great Lakes region, for example, this issue has received
very little attention. For purposes of identifying specific plastic debris
problems and discovering possibly unique local solutions not documented in
the literature, the research effort divided the United States into 10
coastal regions and the Great Lakes. Reports from federal wildlife refuge
and seashore managers as well as discussions with other experts point out
that plastic debris is clearly a nationwide problem. overall, the most
common types of problems being reported are the aesthetic degradation of
coastal areas and the entanglement of wildlife. of the various sources and
types of plastic debris that cause entanglements, the two most commonly
reported to cause problems of entanglement nationwide are monofilament
fishing line and, plastic six-pack connectors.

viii

Although the occurrence of plastic debris is nationwide, and
entanglements and beach degradation are reported from coast to coast, four
coastal regions were identified to be of particular concern: Alaska,
Massachusetts, the New York Bight, and Texas. As discussed above, fishing
vessels in the North Pacific are a major source of plastic debris, and in
keeping with this, experts in Alaska report that wildlife entanglement due
to plastic debris items generated by ocean sources is a severe problem. On
the other hand, the other three regions have severe problems with
degradation of the aesthetic quality of their coastal areas. The types and
sources of debris in these areas, however, differ. In Massachusetts,
plastic items are generated by combined sewer outfalls in the Boston area.
In the New York Bight plastic debris is coming predominantly from land-
based sources. In Texas, large quantities of plastic debris come from
offshore oil and merhant shipping activities.

Legal Authorities

There is a myriad of legal authority pertaining to ocean dumping and
disposal of hazardous wastes, and regulating the taking of marine mammals
and fish. Much of it may be applicable to controlling the kind of plastic
debris that results in entanglement of marine organisms, but none of it
addresses the issue specifically. This body of law can be divided into
three types: laws that govern ocean dumping, including dumping of
plastics; pollution laws that govern disposal of hazardous wastes and
regulate water quality; fish and wildlife conservation laws that regulate
how fish and marine animals may be taken by humans.

International authorities relevant include the London Dumping
Convention, the MARPOL Protocol, the U.N. Regional Seas Program, the United
Nations Law of the Sea, and other agreements similar in pattern to these
major conventions. Each of these authorities is aimed at controlling
dumping in the oceans. Certain substances are prohibited expressly, and
others are permitted to be dumped under a regulatory scheme adopted by each
of the nations party to the agreements. The major concern in relating
these agreements to the entanglement issue is whether or not dumping of
plastics is covered under the prohibitions. The key issue in using the
London Dumping Convention to control dumping of nets is whether or not a
net is discarded purposefully, or incidentally in the course of normal
fishing operations. The MARPOL Protocol, on the other hand, does expressly
-denote fishing nets among prohibited disposals, and additionally covers
accidental disposals. However, Annex V, which contains the language
relevant to plastics, must be ratified by at least 15 nations whose fleets
jointly constitute 50 percent of the gross tonnage of the world's shipping.
To date, 14 nations have ratified the Annex, but their combined tonnage
falls short of the requirement. The U.S. has not ratified the optional
Annex V. A major concern with all these agreements is that enforcement is
difficult and left to the discretion of each signatory naticn.

. U.S. domestic legis lation governing ocean or inland dumping is
typified by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), and the Clean Water Act. In addition to these major authorities,
there are several other laws which may be applicable in narrow
circumstances. Pertinent considerations in determining whether these laws

are applicable to entanglement include the extent of. their jurisdiction,
and whether or not plastics are covered substances under the definitions of
each law. The major authority is the MPRSA or "Ocean Dumping Act."
However, its applicability may be limited in that it regulates
transportation for the purpose of dumping, rather than dumping itself. The
second type of authority, aimed at land-based disposals, can be found in
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates disposal of
solid waste and prohibits dumping of hazardous waste. The key question
with regard to plastics and entanglements is whether netting and other
plastic debris can be defined as "hazardous" under the law. The final
group of U.S. authorities examined is wildlife conservation law. under
these laws, such as the Marine mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the F@ishery Conservation
and Management Act, it is the taking of marine mammals and birds that is
prohibited, rather than the disposal of materials that lead to
entanglement. Under each of these authorities, entanglement would
constitute a violation as an illegal "taking." As with other legislation,
enforcement is difficult, since the prohibited activity takes place at sea.

Programs

There are very few existing programs that address, or have the
potential to address, the problems of plastic marine debris, even in areas
where the problems are significant. The only federal agency that has a
program specifically relating to entanglement is the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Some existing federal programs, such as the National
Sea Grant College Program, and the Chesapeake Bay program which resulted
from a 5-year EPA study, are potentially relevant to the problem of plastic
marine debris. Some states have programs that relate directly to
legislation, for example beach cleanup programs and recycling programs.. A
limited number of private entities, including corporate and non-profit
organizations, have specific programs relating to entanglement or other
aspects of marine debris.

Conclusion

Evidence is emerging that the disposal of plastic debris in the marine
environment is a serious problem for a number of species and for
communities and user groups that depend on the marine environment. Even
when the information is anecdotal, as it is in many cases, a synthesis of
such anecdotal reports suggests that the biological and economic
impacts may be significant.

Unfortunately, there have been few directed studies concentrating on
particular regions or particular populations of animals. There are two
areas of special concern in which further research is needed: endangered
and threatened species for which entanglement has been documented, and
regional areas where high concentrations of plastic debris have been
reported.

Management agencies, at the federal, state and local levels, are not
yet fully aware of the magnitude of this issue, and have not directed their
efforts toward investigating the biological and economic impacts associated
with marine plastic debris in a systematic manner.

The major sources of plastic debris in the marine environment have
been identified. However, because of legal interpretation, enforcement
problems, and the need for public education, effective means to control the
use and disposal of plastics have yet to be implemented.

TABLE CP CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

List-of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xvii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I Types and Quantities of Plastic Debris 3

Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Nets . ... . . . 3
Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Buoys and Ropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Monofilament Fishing Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Cargo-Associated Wastes, . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Domestic Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Plastic Pellets and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

PART 11 Sources of Plastic Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Ocean Sources . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Commercial Fishing Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Merchant Shipping Industry . . . . . . *22
United States Navy . . . . . . .23
Passenger Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recreational Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Petroleum Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Land-based Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Plastic Manufacturing and Processing Activities . . . . . . 28
Sewage Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 28
Solid Waste Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Degradation of Docks and marinas . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 29
Littering . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . 29

PART III Impacts of Plastic Debris . . . . . . . . . 30

Entanglement of Wildlife in Plastic Debris . . . . . . . . . . 30

Marine mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Sea Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Fish and Crustaceans . . . . . . 6 0 0 0 * * . 0 . . . 34
Land mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Xii

PART III (Continued)

ingestion of Plastic Debris by Wildlife ... . . . . . . . . . . 39

Mar ine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Sea Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Birds . * * ' * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 * . 43
Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Impacts on Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

value of Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . 45
Impacts on Fishery Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Damage to Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Costs to Coastal Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Potential Threats to Human Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

PART IV Regicnal, Analysis of Plastic Debris . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Northern New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 54

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Southern New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 57

New York Bight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Chesapeake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 59
South Atlantic . . . . . . . . .. * . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60

Eastern Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Texas. *. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 62

Pacific Coast . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Lake Erie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Lake Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

xiii

PART V legal Authorities Pertaining to the Disposal
of Plastics in the Marine Environment . . . . . . . 71

international Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

London Dumping Convention ......... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 72
MARPOL Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Caribbean Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . 78
Oslo Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Antarctic Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
U.N. Regional Seas Program . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .82
other International Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Foreign Domestic Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

U.S. Federal Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

The Refuse Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Deepwater Port Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
outer Continental Shelf Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Intervention on the High Seas Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Ocean Pollution Planning Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act . . . . . 89
Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .92
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Toxic Substances Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
marine Mammal Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Migratory Bird Treaty Act . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . l03
Fishery Conservation and Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

State Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Personal Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119

xiv

Appendices

Appendix 1 National Marine Fisheries Service
Entanglement Research Programf FY86 and FY85 .125

Appendix 2 Programs Related to Entanglement . . . . . . . . .128

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Cases f iled under the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear 7
Damage Compensation Fund 1983 through February 1986.
Table 2. Cases reported to the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear 8
Damage Compensation Fund involving gill net losses
in New England for 1985 through March 1986.
Table 3. Cases examined of traps and buoys lost in the 12
states of Oregon and Washington for 1985 reported
to the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage
Compensation Fund.

Table 4. Cases examined for stone crab traps lost in 1985 as 13
reported to the Fishermen's vessel and Gear Damage
Compensation Fund.

Table 5. Regional distribution of U.S. commercial fishing 21
vessels for 1977.

Table 6. Number of U.S. recreational vessels registered by 24
state for 1983 and 1984.

Table 7. Records of cetaceans with plastic bags in stomach. 41

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Advertisement of plastic traps that could pose a 10
threat to fishery resources due to "ghost fishing."

Figure 2. Plastic strapping band found in Alaska. 15

Figure 3. Raw plastic pellets. 17

Figure 4. Density of recreational vessels in the United 25
States by state for 1984.

Figure 5. Northern fur seal entangled in synthetic trawl 33
net in the Pribolof Islands, Alaska.

Figure 6. Canada goose entangled in plastic six-pack ring 35
on Lake Erie in Ohio.

Figure 7. Submerged groundfish gill net "ghost fishing" one 37
year after being lost in New England.

Figure 8. Derelict Dungeness crab trap found with crabs as 38
result of Rghost fishing."

Figure 9. Plastic debris ingested by a sea turtle. 42

Figure 10. Raw plastic pellets in stomach of seabird. 44

Figure 11. Photomicrograph showing plastic pellet with 46
encrusting organism.

Figure 12. Device used on propellers to cut monofilament fishing 49
line and other debris.

Figure 13. Aesthetic degradation caused by plastic debris at 51
Padre Island National Seashore, Padre Island, Texas.

Figure 14. Sculpture made of plastic tampon applicators to 56
draw attention to the problem of plastic debris
in Massachusetts.

xvii

INTFODOCrION

While the U.S. plastics industry has been in existence for over a
century, the commercial development of today's major plastic materials
first came about,in the period of 1930-1940. Shortages of rubber and other
materials during World War II brought plastics into great demand. Newer
plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene proved to be excellent
substitutes for traditional materials such as wood, paper, metal and glass.
When large scale plastic production commenced, reduced costs set the stage
for a whole new era. By 1960, aproximately 6.3 billion pounds of plastic
resin were produced in the United States. The early 1970's saw more than a
three-fold increase in plastics production with over 20 billion pounds.
In subsequent years plastic production continued to increase to the present
value of over 47.9 billion pounds. In terms of volume, plastics are now
one of the most important materials used in America today (The Society of
the Plastics Industry 1986).

But even more notable is the growth in applications of plastic
materials in the United States. In 1985 more plastics were produced than
metal, glass, paper and leather while the use of plastics has surpassed
that of these and other popular materials. In comparison to the value of
shipments of other major industries, "miscellaenous plastic products" now
ranks among the top ten biggest manufacturing industries in the country
along with petroleum, automotives, electronics and industrial chemicals
(The Society of the Plastics Industry 1986). Major markets for plastics
now include transportation, packaging, building and construction,
electrical and electronic goods, furniture and furnishings, consumer and
institutional supplies, industry and machinery. In essence, plastics have
become incorporated into virtually every industrial and commercial sector
of America.

But what of the plastics that fall into disuse? The presence of
plastic items that have been lost or disposed of in the marine environment
has become of increasing concern among scientists, fishermen,
conservationists and others. Unfortunately, one of the major
characteristics of plastic that has made it so successful has been the
basis for this concern-plastic is nonbiodegradable.

In recent years, there has been a growing body of evidence that
nonbiodegradable plastic materials, as -debris, are adversely affecting
marine ecosystems in a multitude of ways. This report analyzes the issue
of theuse and disposal of nonbiodegradable plastics in the marine and
Great Lakes environments of the United States. For the purposes of this
report, the term "marine" encompasses the waters of the Great Lakes.

Part I of this report details information available in literature on
the types and quanities of plastic debris found in the marine environment.
The sources of these items of plastic debris are discussed in Part II.
Part III examines the environmental and economic impacts and problems for
human safety attributable to plastic debris and Part IV analyzes the
problem caused by plastic debris on a regional basis.

Part V examines international, federal, and state authorities relevant
to the disposal of plastics in the marine environment, focusing on the
particular issues of entanglement of marine species in discarded plastic
materials, or ingestion by marine biota of plastic debris. For purposes of
the analysis, each law is examined as to its purpose; its authority,
including responsible party or agency, provisions, and jurisdiction; its
application to entanglement, including express provisions, constructions
and interpretation by the courts, and possible new interpretations; its
relationship to other laws; and its limitations, including further issues
.for review.

PAM I

TnYM AND J22i CP PLASTIC EEBRIS

Plastic items that affect the marine environment as debris are
generally categorized in literature as either manufactured plastic articles
or raw plastic particles (Coleman and Wehle 1984). Manufactured plastic
articles include those items that have been fabricated into consumer
products such as fishing gear, packaging materials, bags, bottles and many
other items. Raw plastic particles are typically in the form of small
spherules or beads from which plastic products are manufactured. For
purposes of this report types-of manufactured plastic are further
categorized as either fishing gear, cargo- associated wastes from merchant
ships, and a wide variety of plastic items available for domestic purposes.

Although there is enough available information in literature to draw
some general conclusions about the types of plastic debris found in the
marine environment, quantitative data are insufficient for estimating total
amounts of particular debris in any major geographic area (e.g. North
American coastal waters or the Great Lakes). Most of the quantitative
estimates of debris reported in literature provide information on only
isolated concentrations in relatively localized areas. These distinct
concentrations of plastics are subject to a multitude of controlling
factors including tides, winds and currents (Wong, et al 1974, Shaw and
Mapes 1979, Van Dolah et al 1980, Galt 1985, Merrell 1985, Reed and
Schumacher 1985). Mor;3@e-r, the types, as well as the quantities of
plastic debris found in an area may be closely related to the identity and
proximity of potential sources of debris. For instance, in areas of Alaska
adjacent to major fishing grounds, the majority of reported debris items
have been pieces of lost or discarded fishing gear (Merrell 1980, 1984,
1985). In heavily populated metropolitan areas such as New York, however,
domestic wastes generated from land based sources are most prevalent
(Swanson et al 1978).

. Therefore, the quantitative information presented in this section is
intended to indicate only localized concentrations of plastic debris. The
lack of information on total quantities of specific debris in the marine
and Great Lakes environments points towards the need for future studies to
address this aspect of the plastic debris problem.

Fishing Gear

Nets

The introduction of synthetic fibers for manufacturing fishing gear is
considered to have been one of the most important technological advances
for the modern fishing industry (Kristjonsson 1959). Not only are plastic
nets and lines lighter and more bouyant, but they are also stronger, more
durable and ultimately cheaper than the formerly,used natural fibers such
as hemp, linen, cotton, manila and sisal (Uchida 1985). While nylon was
the first of these plastics to be developed in Japan in 1949, the success
with which it was received by the fishing industry stimulated the
introduction of additional synthetics (Japan Chemical Fibers Association
1971). Subsequently, a spectrum of synthetic fibers, such as vinylon,

vinylidine, vinyl chloride, polyethylene, polyester, and polypropylene was
developed. According to the Japan Chemical Fibers Association there are
also over 10 different combinations of mixed fiber twines each of which may
consist of up to four distinct materials.

The development of synthetic fibers was met with such success by the
fishing industry that by 1964 almost all fishing nets were made entirely of
synthetic fibers. By 1968, the Japanese production of synthetic fiber
fishing nets was 18,000 tons, 5,600 tons of which were exported. Today,
the majority of netting and ropes available from U.S. fishing supply
companies are advertised as either nylon, polypropylene, or polyethylene.

Until recently, the amount of lost or discarded fish netting was
highly speculative, largely because gear losses are almost never reported
(Uchida 1985). Presently, this subject is still in the beginning stages
of analysis. But various methods have been used in attempting to assess
the typps and quantities of lost or discarded netting including: estimation
of the total amount of fishing net gear used in various fisheries and their
relative probabilities of becoming lost (Uchida 1985); direct observation
of net losses from fishing vessels (Low et. al. 1985); observation of
derelict fishing nets at sea (Jones and ie-rre-ro 1985, Carr et al 1985); and
tabulation of accumulation rates of fishing gear on beache:;,-(9e'--rrell 1980,
1984, 1985).

A study conducted by Uchida (1985) was directed at the major net
fisheries operating in the North Pacific Ocean. By calculating the amount
of net gear available to these fisheries, this analysis provided an idea of
the extent to which derelict fishing gear may become a component of marine
debris. The gill net, which is essentially a wall of netting designed to
entangle fish or other taxa such as crustaceans and mollusks, was concluded
to be the most likely net type to become lost or damaged and discarded
during fishing operations. This conclusion was based, in part, on the fact
that the amount of gill net used in the North Pacific far exceeds the amount
of net used in the other fisheries analyzed. The total length of all gill
nets used by the 15 major North Pacific gill net fisheries is 170,466 km:
when strung end to end this amount of gill net would extend a distance 4.2
times the length of the earth's equator.

The most extensive gill net fishing operations in the North Pacific
are the drift gill net fisheries of Japan, Taiwan and Korea which primarily
target species of squid, salmon and billfish. Every night during the
fishing season each vessel operating within these fleets sets a drift gill
net extending from 9 to 27 km in length (Eisenbud 1985), which is allowed
to drift at sea and is recovered the next day. The combined distance of
all nets set each night for these fisheries is estimated to be about 3-3,00D
km (20,503 miles), for a total of 1,714,725 km (1,065,510 miles) each year.

In U.S. territorial waters, drift gill nets are used by the Japanese
salmon mothership fishery. Each of the 172 catcher boats operates a drift
gill net, 12 to 15 km long (Uchida 1985). The total length of these gill
nets set in this fishery is 2,580 kilometers per day.

Trawl nets, which are bag-shaped nets towed behind a vessel, are
considered to be the second most likely net type to be lost primarily
because they are prone to snagging on the bottom (Uchida 1985). There are

an estimated 5,500 km of trawl net used by 12 major foreign and domestic
trawl fisheries in the North Pacific.

Direct observation of net losses from fishing vessels has been carried
out off Alaska where the most dominant fisheries are foreign and domestic
trawl fisheries for groundfish species. In 1984, an estimated 322 trawlers
were operating off Alaska, 93 of which were of U.S. origin (Low et al
1985). Based on observer reports from foreign vessels it was es ated
that 65 nets or portions of net were lost in one year. The amount of
netting material per trawl in the foreign fisheries ranges between 1,400 to
4,900 square meters but there is no reliable estimate of the total quantity
of trawl gear damaged or lost.

Sighting net debris at sea is even more difficult. Net fragments are
often undetectable from a ship if weather conditions are poor or if
distance from a ship is-great (Jones and Ferrero 1985). Since gill nets in
particular are designed to be transparent in water, it is almost impossible
to spot these items unless corks or buoys are attached. Gill nets without
markers have only been recorded when they have been retrieved during active
fishing operations. Therefore, it is believed that sightings of net debris
are underestimations of the true amount of this debris present in an area.
During 973.2 hours of searching covering 8,759 nmi in a major fishing area
of the North Pacific where sightings of gill nets were expected there were
only 3 sightings of trawl net fragments and 9 sightings of gill net
fragments. The trawl net pieces were each about 2 m and the gill net
fragments ranged from 0.5 to 150 m in size. Observations along two
shipboard transects in the North Pacific between Alaska to Honolulu, Hawaii
and then on to Japan found only 3 pieces of gill net, 1 trawl fragment and
an unidentified piece of netting (Dalhberg and Day 1985).

Although the net debris described above consists primarily of
sightings of fragments, larger pieces or entire nets have been found at
sea. DeGange and Newby (1980), aboard, a salmon research vessel, observed a
3,000 m lost gill net in the Western North Pacific. The crew of this
vessel managed to retrieve 1500 m of this net, leaving the remainder
afloat. Off Agattu Island, a vessel retrieved an abandoned gill net which
measured approximately 15 km (Jones and Ferrero 1985).

Some fisheries, such as the New England groundfish gill net fishery,
anchor nets from 900 to about 1,100 meters in length on the bottom to catch
demersal species. once lost,.these anchored nets stay submerged.
Therefore a more appropriate technique for at-@-sea observations is from a
submersible vessel. In 1984 the submersible Johnson Sea-Link II made 13
dives to survey prime fishing sites in the Gulf of Maine for lost gill nets
(Carr et al 1985). More than 100 acres of major gill net fishing grounds
were covir-ed by the submersible and 10 lost gill nets were sighted. in
1985, 14 more dives were made in this area covering over 173 acres; only
one lost gill net was found (Carr 1986).

The only real standardized beach study of net debris was conducted in
Alaska (Merrell 1980, 1984, 1985). During the 4 years of surveys on
Amchitka Island, trawl net fragments were found to be the most common item,
constituting 76-85% of the weight'of all plastic litter collected. In
1974, 272 kg of trawl web was found per kilometer of beach. Merrell also
demonstrated that the amount of net debris on a beach can be reduced if

disposal is minimized: in 1982, the weight of trawl web decreased to
172 kg/km and this was attributed to a decrease in trawling activity in
this area.

Fragments of lost or discarded fishing gear have also been analyzed
on islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago in areas of critical habitat for the
endangered Hawaiian monk seal. on Lisinaki Island, 73 net fragments which
were large enough to entangle Hawaiian monk seals were counted on the
beaches during a 6-month period (Henderson 1984). Many fragments of
netting and other types of fishing gear are thought to foul on the 100 m
wide reefs ranging from small pieces less than 1 square meter to entire
nets weighing over 100 kg.

Information on the types and quantites of lost commercial fishing nets
that has not yet been reported in literature is found in the files
compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Fishing
vessel -and Gear Damage Compensation Fund of the Fishermen's Protection Act.
This fund provides monetary compensation to U.S. fishermen engaged in a
fishery subject to U.S. management,, while in the Fishery Conservation Zone.
originally, the fund was intended to compensate fishermen for vessel and
gear losses incurred by foreign fishing activities. In reality, however,
fishermen may receive compensation for such losses caused by any vessel and
for any damage even if the actual causal factor is unknown (Bean 1984).
The fund is financed by fees imposed on foreign fishing vessels permitted
to fish in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone.

Fisherman who file for, compensation under this fund must -include a
full inventory of all property involved in the casuality, including the
number and description of all components lost, damaged or destroyed.
During the past three years, from 1983 to February 1986, a total of 329
individual cases have received compensation under the Fishing Vessel and
Gear Damage Compensation Fund (Table 1). Of the case 's involving nets, most
were reports of lost or damaged gill nets by fishermen in New England.

In order to obtain information on the quantity of fishing gear
reported lost to the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund,
files for fiscal year 1985 to present (March 1986) were examined. In 1985,
136 cases were available for review. Twenty-one cases involved gill net
losses reported by fishermen engaged in the'groundfish gill net fishery in
New England (Table 2). A total of 525 gill net units were reported lost,
each measuring 91 meters in length. Therefore a total of 48 km (157,500
feet or 30 miles) of gill net were lost in one year. An additional 15
cases were reported by groundfish gill net fishermen in 1986 (Table 2).
The total amount of gill net units for this period was 320, totalling over
29 kilometers (96,000 feet or 18.18 miles).

There is presently only one state program that maintains records and
provides compensation for gear losses that occur in state waters: the
Fishermen's Gear Compensation Fund administered by the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands. From 1979 to date, over
3,200 claims for lost or damaged equipment have been received, the majority
of which are for shrimp trawls which utiliize nets varying in length from
ten to seventy feet (Wagner pers. Comm). Estimates of the amount of lost
as opposed to damaged gear were unavailable.

Table 1. Cases f iled under the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage
Compensation Fund for 1983 through February 1986.

jWgion Gear Type Number of Cases Mount Paid

Alaska pot/trap (fixed) 24 226520.18

Northeast. gill net (fixed) 57 138134.73
(ME to MD) long line (mobile) 2 9175.50
pot/trap (fixed) 2 615511.17
trawl (mobile) 124 10546.63

No rthwest pot/trap (fixed) 49 424046.03
(WA to OR) trawl (mobile) 2 16317.06

Puerto Rico pot/trap (fixed) 1 3291.96

Southeast gill nets (fixed) 2 1121.32
WA to TX) longline (mobile) 3 891.21
pot/trap (fixed) 57 219749.23
tiawl (mobile) 2 2312.19

Southwest gill net (fixed) 2 -8216.07
(CA) pot/trap (fixed) 1 0.0

TOtal. 329 1675833.27

Table 2. Cases reported to the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage
Compensation Fund involving gill net losses in New England for
1985 through March 1986.

1985

Case No. Wmtion Number of Net AMKxjnt Paid
Units Lost*

2 Chatham, MA 11 2,224.97
4 S. Portland, ME 27 4,462.00
9 Chatham, MA 15 2,775.00
10 Chatham, MA 11 1,969.00
11 Chatham, MA 14 2,776.00
16 Chatham, MA 15 3,034.05
20 N. Hampton, NH 20 3,511.65
30 Chatham, MA 9 1,820.43
31 Kennebunk, ME 12 2,113.80
32 Gloucester, MA 40 5,910.00
38 Scituate, MA 28 4,383.00
39 Gloucester, MA 66 11,322.60
70 Amesbury, MA 33 4,558.50
71 N. Hane, NH 13 2,319.29
75 Portland, ME 8 1,302.97
107 Portsmouth, NH 63 13,104.00
120 N. Hane, NH 22 3,745.29
122 Newburg, MA 35 5,433.75
125 Essex, MA 39 7,200.00
127 Brewster, MA 24 5,803.14
134 Scituate, MA 21 3,912.55

Tbta]L 525 95,695.80

1986

12 unknown 18 3,344.90
6 Chatham, MA 7 1,912.50
5 unknown 15 unknown
33 N. Hampton, NH 22 4,207.86
3 Portland, ME 15 2,887.90
30 unknown 12 3,282.00
48 Nashua, NH 45 .6,068.26
26 W. Yarmouth, MA 33 6,696.50
25 -N. Chatham, MA 9 1,185.00
21 Chatham, ME 12 4,840.00
40 Gloucester, MA 32 6,005.00
38 Scituate, MA 17 3,655.00
49 E. Hardwich, MA 10 2,374.36
32 Matsfield, b% 30 5,198.25
17 Hampton, NH 31 5,688.79

Total 246 47,881.06

I unit of net equals 500 feet.

Traps
Synthetic netting materials are also used in the construction of side
panels for wood.and metal traps employed in the various trap fisheries of
the United States (SmOlowitz 1978b, High and Worlund 1979). wooden traps
used in the New England lobster fishery, for example, have synthetic panels
typically of nylon or polpropylene (Blackmore pers. comm.). According to
Ketcham Trapsp a supplier of lobster trap building materials in New
Bedford, Massachusettes, an average of 4 square feet of netting is required
for a standard size (36"x2l"x12") wood trap (Purtell pers. comm.). In
1984, a reported 2.5 million traps were used in. the New England lobster
fishery (Fogarty pers. comm.). It is estimated that 20% or more of these
traps are lost each year (Smolowitz pers. comm.).

King crab traps are also constructed of synthetic webbing or plastic-
coated wire (Smolowitz 1978b, High and Worlund 1979). King crab fishermen
in Alaska report losing approximately 10% of their pots each year and more
than 30,000 king crab traps have been estimated to have been lost since
1960 (High and Worlund 1979). Consequently gear losses by these fisheries
could well be contributing to the plastic debris problem in the marine
environment.

Furthermore, there appears to be a growing demand for plastic and
plastic-coated wire traps in U.S. commercial trap fisheries. These traps
are not only impervious to wood-boring organisms, but they also offer
additional conveniences to fishermen (Smolowitz 1978b). Plastic-coated and
wire traps are lighter and easier to handle out of water than wood traps,
and are heavier and more reliable in water. Some plastic traps are made to
be collapsible and easily stacked, therefore conserving vessel deck space.
In addition, coatings on wire traps minimize corrosion and may extend "trap
life" beyond 10 years and plastic traps never corrode. Lobster fishermen
report that plastic-coated traps are as efficient as other types and the
trend to use these traps, at least in this fishery, is well underway.

Another example is the stone crab trap fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
Although traps used in this fishery have traditionally been made of wood
many commercial fishing supply companies now advertise plastic stone crab
traps (Figure 1). In the 1979-80 stone crab fishing season an estimated
297,600 traps were used by crab fishermen (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Mangement
Council, 1981). At the same time only 5 to 10 percent of all traps were
reported to- be metal or plastic (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Mangement Council,
1979). However, the number of traps in this fishery has been increasing
(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1981) and major trap losses are
known to occur in this fishery every year. In one area of this fishery
along the west coast of Florida 25 percent of the 96,000 traps in use were
reported lost (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1984b).
Therefore, if plastic traps come into widespread use, this fishery may also
contribute to the plastic debris problem.

Plastic Buoys and Popes

There has been little attempt to quantify the amount of buoys or rope
lost by commercial fisheries operating in the marine environment. This is
possibly attributable to the complex nature in which these items are used.
For example, more than 2.5 million gill net floats are used in North

Figure 1. Advertisement of plastic traps that could pose a threat to
fishery resources due to "ghost fishing."

PLASTIC TRAPS
LOBSTER TRAPS
(KNOCKED DOWN)
ADJUSTABLE THROAT

Size.
312'x24'x17"
Lj

TRAP WITH WOOD LATH LID ...... $36.75 each
TRAP WITHOUT WOOD LATH LID ... $34.75 each
WOOD LATH LID ................ $ 2.00 each

THE LOBSTER TRAPS ARE SOLD 'KNOCKED DOWN' FOR LOWER SHIPPING CHARGES TO YOU.

gill, PLASTIC CRAB TRAPS
(KNOCKED DOWN)

I These new plastic traps have been designed
for the commercial fishing industry. The
traps are virtually maintenance free and
feature removable bait boxes.
TRAP w/REMOVABLE BAIT BOX.... $ 24.00 each

THE CRAB TRAPS ARE SOLD 'KNOCKED DOWN' FOR
LOWER SHIPPING CHARGES TO YOU.

Size:
20'06'02 3/4,
tvo*

@1 MING SUPPLY
591 S.W. eth Umet * MwMi. 111wido
13 N SUMT COUP.
brs@913-w- @81=-=- 33130
10

Pacific fisheries each year (Merrell 1984). In 1982, Japanese salmon
catcher boats used 15,000 floats on each of their 172 drift gill nets which
were fished every day. During 1978-81 an average of 296 km of gill net was lost
annually along with approximately 295,000 floats.

Gill net floats were found to be-the most common plastic litter item
on Amchitka Island, Alaska, during beach surveys conducted for the period
1972-1982 (Merrell 1984). A dramatic decrease in the number of floats
found on these beaches (from 126/km in 1974 to 59/km in 1982) was
attributed to a decrease in gill net fishing activity off Alaska during
this time period.

Floats used to suspend trawls, and inflatable buoys used in the king
crab trap fishery as surface markers, were found on Amchitka Island in 1982
densities of 5.4 trawl floats and 2 inflatable buoys per kilometer of beach
(Merrell 1984).

Merrell (1980, 1984, 1985) also reported on the amount of synthetic
fiber rope found on Amchitka Island beaches. Most of the rope found was
presumed to be from trawl fisheries although some was attached'to buoys
from crab traps. During '1974 to 1982 the weight of rope found decreased
60% (from 36 to 14 kg/km) and cumulative length decreased 30% (from 802 to
565 m). The total number of pieces, however, remained similar with 25.9
pieces per km in 1974 and 24.5 pieces per km in 1982.

The number of buoys and ropes mentioned above were found on a single
isolated beach. It is impossible to estimate the total number of these
items lost in North American waters. Files kept by the Fishermen's Vessel
and Gear Damage Compensation Fund suggest that total amounts of lost bouys
and rope are staggering. In the states of Oregon and Washington a total of
1042 buoys and over 142 km (465,906 feet) of rope were reported lost
(Table 3). King crab fishermen who reported trap losses used 2-3 buoys per
trap. Therefore, the previous estimate.of 30,000 king crab traps lost
since 1960 (High and Worlund, 1979) may represent more than twice as many
lost buoys inthe king crab fishery alone. The 34 stone crab fishery
.claimants reported a loss of 16,611 traps (Table 4). Each trap used in the
stone crab fishery in, the Gulf of Mexico is marked with a single buoy.
Consequently, the loss of 16,611 traps represents a loss of an equal number
of lost buoys. Each buoy is connected to a trap by a synthetic line
averaging 91 m (50 feet) (Swingle pers. comm.). Therefore, the loss of
16,611 traps also represents a loss of approximately 253 km (830,550
feet or 157 miles) of rope.

Momfilament Fishing Line and other PUstics Related to Fisheries

Lost or discarded monofilament fishing line is also becoming an
increasing problem (Merrell and Fowler 1986). However, the amount of
monofilament line used by fishermen, and the potential for such gear to be
lost or discarded, is unknown.

Plastic bags for bait, ice and salt sold to commercial as well as
recreational fishermen, are also known to become lost or discarded and
contribute to the problem of debris. According to one fishing gear

Table 3. Cases examined of traps and buoys lost in the states of Oregon and
Washington for 1985 reported to the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear
Damage Compensation Fund.

Fishery Number of Number of Awmt of
Traps Lost Buoys Rope (feet)

Black Cod 22 12 26,400
Black Cod 62 14 43,200
Black Cod 53 9 41,160
Black Cod 60 36,000

Subtotal 197 35 146,760

Sablefish 98 78 94,800
Sablefish 60 22 44,922
Sablefish 320 16 38,400
Sablefish 41 20 4,800

Subtotal 519 IL36 182t922

Dungeness 74 148 22,200
Dungeness 73 368 24,090
Dungeness 28 112 10,080

Subtotal 175 628 56,370

King Crab 18 54 51,084
King Crab 12 60 9,180
King Crab 21 105 13,974
King Crab 12 24 5,616

Subtotal 63 243 79,854

TUM 954 1,042 465,906

Table 4. Cases examined for stone crab traps lost in 1985 as reported to
the Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund.

Case No. Number of Traps Amoun t Paid

40 316 6,715.00
41 614 11,229.95
45 438 6,679.50
51 179 3,155.00
79 853 12,504.98
80 634 9,294.44
89 935 14,025.00
91 656 11,947.50
92 543 8,280.75
93 222 4,420.10
95 137 1,500.15
97 258 3,934.00
98 398 6,069.50
99 256 3,840.00
100 400 6,100.00
101 257 3,919.25
102 280 4,981.68
103 192' 3,148.24
104 805 13,286.21
108 240 3,600.00
110 721 10,995.25
ill 907 13,831.75
112 257 unpaid
113 983 17,236.50
114 957 15,579.96
116 481 7,830,68
117 316 6,368.75
118 65 977.60
119 350 4,137.88
121 1130 16,950.00
124 430 6,557.50
126 256 3,840.00
128 .171 2,607.75
135 974 21,953.96

70M%L (34 cases) 16,6U 267,498.08

supplier, about 50,000 boxes of frozen herring wrapped in plastic are sold
each year to the longline and troll fleet of southeast Alaska (Paul 1984).
Some have noted these types of bags to be numerous on coastlines in the
United States (Neilson 1985).

Cargo Associated.Wastes

Plastic strapping bands are used to bind items individually or in
boxes (Figure 2). According to Cyklop Strapping Corporation, one of the
major worldwide strapping manufacturers, plastic strapping has replaced
steel straps because it is lightweight, it does not rust, it is less
dangerous when cut, and it is about half as expensive as steel (Sommers
pers. comm.). Plastic straps are primarily made of polypropylene, although
recycled polyester terephthalate (PET) and, to a lesser extent, nylon
straps are also produced. Polyester strapping has a breaking strength of
500 to 1,100 pounds and is used for shipping items that require high
strength and high tension (Plastic Bottle Information Bureau 1986).
Strapping materials are produced in a variety of widths and are sold in 2
forms: "hand grade" strapping which is secured manually with a buckle or
metal strap, and "machine-grade" strapping sealed with heat.

According Cyklop, strapping materials are used extensively by the
beverage container, corrugated box, and other industries. The U.S. Post
office also uses a great deal of strapping. Sommers estimated that the
total amount of strapping materials sold in the U.S. are 75 million
pounds/year of polypropylene, 50 million pounds/year of PET (Sommers stated
that these estimates may be off by � 20 million). It is not possible to
convert these figures to total length, however, because of the variety of
lengths per roll depends on the width of the strapping.
Plastic strapping becomes a problem as debris when these bands are
removed off the end of a package without cutting them, and subsequently
cast off cargo ships (Cawthorn 1985). Merrell (1984, 1985) reported
plastic straps on Amchitka Island which were used in trawl fisheries to
bind boxes of frozen fish, nets, and other items for shipment. Strapping
bands were the second most abundant item found in beach surveys of plastic
debris. In 1982, the average density of straps were 58 straps per
kilometer of beach. In 1974, an average of 71 straps was found per
kilometer. The reduction in straps from 1974-1982 coincided with the
decrease in trawl fishing effort off Alaska during this period.

Neilson (1985) reported finding 2,055 plastic strapping bands during
an organized beach cleanup that covered 350 miles along the coast of
Oregon.

Large sheets of plastic, used in cargo shipments to cover items
during transportation, are also frequently reported as debris. one pound of
this sheeting will cover 28 square feet of beach (King 1985). Although
there is no available documentation of the amount of this material
generated as debris, plastic sheeting has been reported to be the most
abundant litter item found on Padre Island National Seashore in Texas.

Figure 2. Plastic strapping band found in Alaska. Photo: T.R. Merrell

114

-409,
or

Domestic Plastics

The most diverse category of plastic debris known to affect the marine
environment includes plastic packaging materials, bags, containers and a
multitude of other items used for domestic purposes. Essentially, the
items that fall into this category include all plastic articles that are
not fishing or cargo-associated wastes. Much of the plastic litter that
has been observed on beaches and at sea is made up of these everyday items
(Paul 1984). Plastic domestic articles most commonly reported as marine
debris include the following: bags, sheets, six-pack connectors used for
carrying canned beverages, containers, bottles, tampon applicators and
pieces of styrofoam.

Over the past decade the use of plastics in packaging has more than
doubled: in 1975 nearly 5.6 billion pounds of plastics were used in
packaging, in 1985 this f igure increased to about 12.8 billion pounds.
Production of plastic bottles in 1984 exceeded 17.4 billion units, 7.3
billion of which were food and beverage bottles containers. The remaining
were primarily for household chemicals (2.9 billion) medicinal and health
(2.8 billion ) and toiletries and cosmetics (2.3 billion). An additional
5.8 billion pounds of polyethylene, polypropopylene and other
thermoplastics were used in the production of flexible packaging including
household and institutional refuse bags and film. The amount of trash bags
produced in 1984 alone used 902 million pounds of plastic (The Society of
the Plastics Industry 1986). It is virtually impossible, however, to
determine just what amount of domestic plastic items are either
accidentally or intentionally discarded in the marine environment.

Plastic Pellets and Fragments

The occurrence of small plastic particles in marine areas has been
documented repeatedly in the past decade (Carpenter et al 1972, Carpenter
and Smith 1972, Colten et al 1974, Hays and Cormons 197T, Morris 1980, Van
Dolah et al 1980, Greg6-ryT9-79, 1983). The two major types of these
parti(il-ei-are raw plastic pellets and small plastic fragments.

Raw plastic pellets (Figure 3) are the raw form of plastic after it
has been synthesized from petrochemicals (Day et al 1985). In 1985, 47.9
billon pounds of plastic resin were produced in the United States (The
Society of the Plastics Industry 1986). Pellets are transported in bulk to
manufacturing sites, where they are melted down and fabricated into a
multitude of plastic consumer goods. Pellets found in marine areas are
typically described as being spherical or cylindrical and range in size
from 0.2-6 mm in diameter. (Coleman and Wehle 1984, Hays and.Cormon 1974,
Colton et al 1974). The chemical composition of plastic pellets reported
to occur in the marine environment has included polystyrene,, polyethylene
and polypropylene (Hays and-Cormons 1974, Morris 1980).

Raw plastic pellets have been found both on beaches and at sea. In
the United States, concentrations of 1,000 - 2,000 pellets were found in
handfuls of sediments taken along a river bank in the vicinity of a plastic
manufacturing plant (Hays and Oormons, 1974). Concentrations at sea were
reportedly 3,500/km2 in the Sargasso Sea (Carpenter and Smith 1972). Colten
et al (1974) noted a widespread distribution of particles in the coastal,
slope and Gulf stream waters between Florida and Cape Cod. Van Dolah et al

Figure 3. Raw plastic pellets. Photo: R. Day

JJI

(1980) documented an extension in the range of plastic particles into the
offshore waters of the South Atlantic. In the Pacific, Wong tt al (1974)
found a maximum of 34,000/km2.

Plastic fragments, on the other hand, result from the breakdown of
larger manufactured plastic articles. Guillet (1974) and Gregory (1978,
1983) reported that weathering of polyethylene and styrofoam occurs
naturally and eventually leads to disintegration. However, Gregory (1983)
noted that it would require 3-50 years for complete disintegration to occur
on a beach, and much longer at sea.

Merrell (1984, 1985) reported plastic fragments larger than 5 mm to be
the most numerous plastic item on Amchitka Island, Alaska. The number of
plastic fragments found per kilometer of beach increased progressively from
33.5 in 1972, 64.0 in 1973, 137.4 in 1974 and 305 in 1982. He found that
this inc-rease in plastic fragments correlated with a decrease in overall
numbers of other larger items of plastic litter, which were apparently
disintegrating.

PART II

SOURCES OF PLASTIC DEMS

As can be ascertained from the previous section, the types of plastic
debris found to occur in the marine environment encompass a broad range of
objeIcts. While certain items can be easily traced to particular sources,
others may be generated from several different and sometimes unspecifiable
sources. Although plastic debris may be generated both on land and at sea,
it is generally believed that most of the debris in the marine environment
comes from ocean sources (Coleman and Wehle 1984).

Ocean Sources

The worldwide rate of disposal of garbage from ocean sources in the
early 1970's was estimated to be about 6.4 million metric tons per year
(National Academy of Sciences 1975). Morover, according to the Academy
this litter is concentrated unevenly in the Northern Hemisphere. Although
more recent estimates are not available, the disposal of wastes from ocean
sources is an increasing problem and continues essentially because it is
inexpensive and convenient (Merrell and Fowler 1986). Alternative means of
handling shipboard wastes such as garbage grinders, compactors and
incinerators are not only costly, but under certain circumstances highly
undesirable. Small vessels do not have the space for large waste-
processing equipment. For larger vessels, such equipment is often either
not durable enough to handle shipboard shock and vibration,'or is
considered to be a potential safety hazard such as incinerators (Koss pers.
comm.) .

Furthermore, vessels that store garbage on board require adequate
facilities.on shore for disposal. But many ports both in the United States
and abroad are ill-equipped for handling these wastes (Horsman 1982,
Merrell and Fowler 1986). Consequently, in many situations garbage,
including plastics, is routinely disposed of overboard.

Accidental loss of plastic items from ocean sources also contribute to
the problem of debris. The following section describes the means by which
plastic is either discarded deliberately or lost accidentally from ocean
sources at sea.

Commercial Fishing Industry

Commercial fishing operations are known to be a source *of plastic
debris in the form of domestic wastes and fishing gear. The National
Academy of Sciences (1975) estimated that the average rate of domestic.
waste, including plastics, generated by vessel crews is 0.8 kg per person
per day. Using this figure, the Academy arrived at two estimates of total
amounts of domestic wastes generated by fishing fleets. The first, based
on a worldwide fishing fleet of 120,000 vessels over 5 gross tons, with an
average crew of 20 per vessel, was calculated as follows:

(120'.000 vessels)x(20 persons/vessel)x(240 days)x(O.8 kg/person-day)

460,000 metric tons/year

The Academy arrived at a second estimate- of 2200000 metric tons, using
fishery catch statistics. The Academy's final calculation of total
domestic wastes generated by the world fishing fleet was an average of
these two figures, or 340,000 metric tons per year.

No similar calculations have been made for fishing fleets in U.S.
waters specifically. In 1984 there were 24,000 commercial fishing vessels
over 5 gross tons registered in the U.S. The total number of fishing,
vessels was 127,400 (O'Bannon pers. comm.). Therefore, using the Academy's
variables above, the amount of debris generated by U.S. commercial fishing
vessels could be:

(24,000 vessels)x(20 persons/vessel)x(240 days)x(O.8 kg/person-day)

92,160 metric tons/year

This amount does not include wastes generated by foreign fisheries
operating within U.S. waters.

The most recent regional breakdown of the location of U.S. vessels
over 5 gross tons is available for 1977 (Table 5). At this time more than
half (7,643) of the vessels operated in the North Pacific and a large
portion of the remaining vessels (5o328) operated in the Gulf of Mexico.
Therefore, the amount of potential debris generated by commercial fishing
operations would be assumed to be greatest in these regions.

The Academy also estimated that the world's commercial fishing fleet
generates one thousand metric tons of plastic fishing debris including nets,
lines and buoys every year.

There are many reasons why fishing gear may become lost accidentally.
Gear failure caused by normal wear and tear may cause nets, lines and buoys
to separate froiq a fishing unit. If marker buoys are lost, submerged nets
and traps may not be retrievable. operational mistakes, such as setting
traps too deep, may also cause accidental gear loss. Tbwed or dragged gear
is highly suspectible to becoming hung on bottom 'structures (Uchida 1985).
Another form of accidental loss of gear may be caused by storms which may
either relocate gear or destroy gear. In 1985, for example, approximately
25,000 spiney lobster traps were estimated to have been lost in the Florida
Keys due to Hurricane Kate (Sigo, 1986).

Gear conflicts may result in significant amounts of accidental gear
loss especially in areas where both fixed or stationary gear, such as traps
or set gill nets, are being used in the same areas as towed or dragged '
gear, such as trawl nets or draggers. In New England, the increase in both
commercial and recreational fishing pressure in the groundfish fishery has
intensified the problem of gear conflicts. Since bottom gill nets and
trawlers are fishing for groundfish within the same prime fishing grounds,
gill net losses are not uncommon (Carr et al 1985). on the other hand,
recreational fishing by dragging hooks FveF the bottom causes the fouling
of gill nets and the loss of hooks and lines.

Table 5. Regional distribution of U.S. commercial fishing vessels
for 1977.

Vlaum-S (by bmukage)

Region 5 bms less than other total
or more 5 bms

New England 929 1S,221 230 16,380.
Middle Atlantic 573 11,261 61 11,895
Chesapeake 2,058 18,765 275 21,098
South Atlantic 1,463 6,417 255 8,135
Gulf 5,328 10,929 44 16,301
Pacific 7,643 14,937 496 23,076
Great Lakes 217 446 55 718
Mississippi 9,654 201 9,855
(and tributaries)
Hawaii 101 - 101

70TAL* 18,312- 87,,630 1,617 107,559

*Ezclmive of duplication

Source: U.S. Dept. Commer. 1984. Fishery Statistics of the United States,
1977. Statistical Digest No. 71.

@21

There is also an ongoing conflict among draggers and lobster trap
fishermen in New England. Draggerman have stated that they are finding it
increasingly difficult to make a tow without coming in conflict with
lobster pots (Stevens 1985). In 1985, lobstermen had lost more than
$120,000 worth of gear and this figure was predicted to double by the time
all reports were in.

Gear conflicts among fishermen may also contribute to the deliberate,
rather than accidental, loss of fishing gear. For example, in the Gulf of
Mexico where stone crab trap fishermen and shrimp trawlers are in
competition for the same fishing area, incidents have occurred where trawl
gear has become fouled on barbed wire that has been secured to cinder
blocks and stone crab traps in the conflict area (Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council 1984a).

During gear mending procedures pieces of nets or other fishing gear
are deliberately discarded. Although a large portion of debris may be
generated in this way, there is a need for more information on the
frequency of this occurrence (Gerrodette 1985). Entire nets, in particular
gill nets, are also deliberately discarded at times when the total catch is
too great to be hauled in (Anonymous 1985, Uchida 1985). In addition,
there are also reports of foreign fishermen deliberately cutting loose
their nets to avoid U.S. fishing infractions when spotted by the Coast
Guard (Stevens, 1985). However, extensive documentation of such deliberate
gear losses is lacking.

Merchant Shipping Industry

The world's merchant shipping fleet is suspected to be a major source
of cargo-associated wastes as well as domestic wastes. The amount of
cargo- assoc i ated wastes including dunnage, shoring, pallets, wires and
covers was estimated at 5.6 million metric tons per year based on a fleet
of 19,600 ocean-going vessels greater than 1,000 gross tons and a cargo
waste rate of 285 tons/ship/year.

The annual worldwide rate of disposal of domestic litter from crew
members has been estimated at 110,000 metric tons, 0.7 percent of which is
plastic (National Academy of Sciences 1975). This annual rate was
calculated as follows:

(9,101 ships/day)x(40 crew/ship)x(365 days)

140,000,000 crew (per year).

Each crew member was estimated to generate 0.8 kg of litter per day. Thus:

140,000,,000 crew/year x 0.8 kg/day

= 110,000 tons/year.

According to Horsman (1982) each person aboard a m erchant ship dumps
0.3 plastic containers at sea every day. Horsman assumed that the average
number of crew members on a merchant ship is 30 and calculated from the
Lloyd's Register of 71,000 ships in 1979, that 6 39,000 plastic containers
are disposed of daily by the world fleet.

Although there are no estimates of the total amount of waste generated
specifically within North American waters, according to the U.S. Department
of Transportation there are currently 734 merchant ships (over 1,000 gross
tons) registered in the United States (U.S. 'Maritime Administration pers.
comm.). Although many of these vessels are transoceanic, presently 178
ships are listed to operate solely within North American waters. However,
many more foreign, in addition to U.S. ships operate 'within U.S. waters and
por ts.

Merchant ships may also be a significant source of the plastic pellets
that have been reported in the marine environment (Day et al 1985). Since
plastic pellets are shipped worldwide, escapement of pelleFs- may occur
during landing and unloading. Pellets are also used in packaging around
larger objects in ships' holds and therefore may escape during handling.
To reduce friction for moving large objects, some ships use pellets on
their decks which are then washed overboard Wonymous 1981b, as cited Day
et al 1985).

The United States Navy

The United States naval and research vessels also contribute to the
plastic debris problem. There are approximately 600 vessels in.this fleet
with an estimated population of 285,000 (Parker, pers. comm.). The total
amount of waste including plastic, rubber, metal, wood, paper, glass, cloth
and garbage is 1.38 kg (3.04 lbs)/man/day, 0.005 kg (0.01 pounds) of which
is plastic (Parker and Yang, 1986).

The U.S. Navy acknowledges that wastes are typically thrown overboard
on many of their vessels (Koss, pers. comm.). Even ships with compactors
use plastic bags to dispose of compacted trash at sea. Although Navy
regulations require that all trash must be negatively buoyant, this would
be difficult to control for lightweight plastics. Naval technicians,
however, are presently developing alternative and feasible means for
handling shipboard wastes. They are also investigating a type of
biodegradable bag which is used by the Royal Navy.

Passenger Ships

Large passenger ships also constitute a source of debris. The National
Academy of Sciences (1975) estimated that passenger ships serving U.S.
ports generate 28 thousand metric tons of litter per year, 1.8% (504 metric
tons) of which is plastic. Each person onboard a passenger ship is
estimated to generate approximately 0.03 kg of plastic litter per day.

Recreational Vessels

Privately owned recreational vessels also contribute to the debris
problem. In 1984, the Department of Transportation reported that 9.4
million recreational vessels were registered in the United States (Table
6). Figure 4 shows that regions of southern New England, the middle
Atlantic, Chesapeake and Great Lakes have the highest concentrations of
recreational vessels per square mile of land.

Table 6. Number of recreational vessels in the United States for the
years 1983 and 1984.

NUMBERING DATA BY STATE

TOTAL BOATS NUMBERED
SCOPE OF CURRENT BOAT NUMBERING SYSTEM

1983 1984

TOTAL RAW
1984 9,165,094

Alabama 14 227,657 229,890 All motorboats, sailboats, and rental boats ...........................
*Al44k& 47 17.082 24,608 All motorboats used an federal water@ .................................
Arizona 31 107,333 112,047 All watercraft ........................................................
Arka a 11 293,928 309,831 All motorboats with exceptlons 2/ .....................................
California 3 605,387 619,087 All motorboats; sailboats over W feet in length .......................
Colorado 35 64,367 66,016 All motorboats and sailboats ...........................................
Connecticut 33 66,891 72,591 All motorboats; sailboats 19 and a half feet or more In length ........
Delaware 39 36,167 37,402 All motorboats ........................................................
Dist. of Col. 53 4,524 3,391 All watercraft ........................................................
plorids 5 526,495 517,365 All motorboats ........................................................
Georgia 15 219.876 225,812 All motorboats; sailboat* 12 feet or more in length ...................
hawall 50 12,604 13,112 All motorboats and sailboats over 8 feet In length ....................
Idaho 34 64,703 67,471 All motorboats ........................................................
Illinois 12 270,043 275,470 All motorboats and sallbosts over 12 feet In leogtb ...................
Indiana 22 174,479 173,006 All motorboats ..... ...................................................
loan 2.1 185,129 175,470 All watercraft with exceptions 31 .....................................
XAn"s 32 ai,gig 83,305 All motorboats and sailboats ...........................................
yAntucky 30 114,767 114,546 All motorboats ........................................................
Loul ana 10 303,044 312,119 All motorboats ........................................................
Heine 29 116,419 117,942 All motorboats ........................................................
Maryland 25 142.515 142,795 All motorboats ...................................... I.................
Massachusetts 20 161,137 184,140 All motorboats ........................................................
Michigan 1 654,143 665,540 All motorboats ........................................................
-.sot& 2 622,872 629,291 All watercraft with exceptions 4/ ......................................
Mississippi 28 123,249 122,237 All motorboats ........................................................
Missouri 9 302.730 328,440 All motorboats; sailboats over 12 feet In leWb ......................
Montana 40 32,9al 34,395 All motorboats ........................................................
Nebraska 36 50, "4 54,913 All motorboats ........................................................
Nevada 44 30,273 31,288 All motorboats ........................................................
*New Hampshire 51 6,579 9,242 All motorboats used an federal waters ............... I.................
New Jersey 26 138.367 140,884 All motorboats; all other boats more than 12 feet in length ...........
New Mexico 41 30,919 34,114 All motorboats and sailboats ..........................................
new York a 327,700 331,742 All motorboats ........................................................
North Carolina 17 192p432 202,908 All motorboat& except boats with electric motors ......................
North Dakota 38,134 33,723 All motorboats ........................................................
Ohio 7 334,423 338,184 All watercraft ........................................................
Oklahoma 19 202,641 193,022 All watercraft ........................................................
Oregon 27 138,121 140.003 All motorboats and sailboats 12 feet In length or greater .............
Pennsylvania 16 209,241 217,293 All motorboats ........................................................
Rhode Island 45 23,876 31,231 All motorboats ........................................................
South Carolina 23 209,615 168,323 All motorboats ........................................................
South Dakota 43 29,305 33,091 All motorboats ........................................................
Tennessee is 192,018 1%,446 All motorboats and sailboats ..........................................
Texas 4 594,868 599,591 All motorboats ........................................................
Utah 37 47,152 51,781 All motorboats and sailboats ..........................................
Vermont 46 28.737 29,774 All motorboats ........................................................
Virginia 24 145.085 148,999 All motorboats ........................................................
V"blogton 13 .135.642 253,980 All motorboats used on federal waters .................................
Wept Virginia 38 54,466 36,742 ALL motorboats ........................................................
Wisconsin 6 425,905 436,221 All motorboats and sailboats over 12 feet In length ...................
Wyoming 49 19,396 19,831 All motorboats ........................................................
Goaft 54 680 11 690 1/ All motorboats ........................................................
Puerto Rica 48 23,013 23,083 All motorboats ........................................................
Virgin Islands 52 2,872 3,425 All motorboats ........................................................
merica Samoa 56 73 78 l/ All motorboats ........................................................
0. Mariana& 55 134 190 l/ All motorboats .......................................................

States not having an approved numbering system as of 31 December 1984, and where the Coast Guard Is the cambering authority.
I/ Estimate
Arkansas excludes boats with motors of 10 HP or less used only during daylight.
laws excludes Inflatable@ under 7 feet in length and cancealkayake under 13 feet in length.
V Minnesota excludes non-motorIzed boats 9 feet La length and under, dockboats during darkbunting; seasom. and riceboats during
harvest season.

Source: U.S. Dept. Transportation. 1985. Boating statistics 1964. United states
Coast Guard. ComDTINISr M16754 IF.

Figure 4. De nsity of recreational vessels in the United States by state
for 1984.

Nwilbomid Boots Pw SOMM MAP IlAnd ArOW

-A

AWska
Howell
District of Columbia
Guam
Puerto Rico "<10
Virgin Islands Z54<4
American Samoa -54<Z5
Northam Marianas

Area Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986

Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 1985. Boating statistics 1984.
United States Coast Guard. CCMDTINIST M16754 IF.

In calculating the amount of waste generated by this source in 1972,
the National Academy of Sciences (1975) estimated that 3 million vessels
(out of a total of 6 million U.S. registered vessels in 1972) were in
states that border marine areas, and that 1 million (33%) of these vessels
were used in marine (as opposed to fresh) waters. The amount of litter
generated by these vessels was assumed to be dependent on the number of
passengers per vessel and the amount of time these vessels operate out of
the year. Each of these passengers was estimated to generate 0.453 kg of
trash, including plastic, per day. Using the Academy's variables, the
amount of trash generated by all marine recreational vessels in the United
States per year is calculated to be:

(1,000,000 boats)x(76 person-days/year/boat)x(O.453 kg/person-day)

34,000,obo kg or 34,428 metric tons per year

using the Academy's calculations, for the 9.4 vessels registered in
1984, 4.7 million (one half) of these vessels presumably operated in
coastal states and 1.5 million (33%) were used in marine waters.
Therefore, we calculate the amount of trash generated by U.S. recreational
vessels to be:

(1,500,000 boats)x(76 person-days/year/boat)x(o.453 kg/person-day)

51,642,000 kg or 51,642 metric tons per year.

Since the regions of southern New England, the middle Atlantic,
Chesapeake and-Great Lakes have the highest concentrations of recreational
vessels these areas may also be subject to the greatest amount of debris
from this source.

Petroleum Industry

Although the disposal of wastes from oil rigs and drilling platforms
is strictly regulated (Burgbacher 1985) these structures have also been
reported to be an ocean source of plastic debris (Amos 1985, King 1985).
The debris may be in the form of domestic wastes generated by crew as
well as industrial wastes from various operational activities. The
greatest concentration of offshore rigs and drilling platforms within U.S.
waters is in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1985, there were 3,056 oil and gas
platforms in the outer Continental Shelf and 1,000 platforms within the
Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Dept. Interior 1985). The heaviest concentrations of
these structures are off the Louisiana coast and offshore areas of Texas.
As of Cotober 1985, 175 mobile drilling rigs and 67 platform rigs were in
operation (Burgbacher 1985).

The National Academy of Sciences (1975) estimated that there are 50--
person crews working 365 days a year for drilling rigs. Based on this
information the 175 active rigs would have 8,750 person-days per year (175
rigs x 50 person crews). Each platform was estimated to have 30 perscn-
days per year. Thus, the 67 platforms would have 2,010 person-days per
year (67 platforms x 30 person-days). Thus the total number of person-
days per year in the Gulf is 10,760. This figure agrees with Burgbacher's
(1985) statement that there are approximately 10,000 oil company personnel
located offshore at any one time.

The daily amount of domestic litter generated by each employee
is estimated to be 0.8 kg for personel aboard production platforms and 1.07
kg for those on board drilling rigs (NAS 1975). Therefore, we calculate
the total amount of litter generated per year by drilling rigs and
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to be:

Rigs: (175 rigs)x(50 crew)x(365 person-days/yr)x(l.07kg)

3,417,312 kg or 3,417 metric tons

Platforms: (67 platforms)x(30 person-days/yr)x(O.8kg)

1,608 kg or 1.6 metric tons

Data on the plastic component of this litter were not available.

In addition to the number of employees calculated above, there are an
27,000 contract employees offshore every day (Burgbacher 1985). Moreover,
there are numerous related activities that contribute to,. the problem of
plastic debris. The oil structures in the Gulf are serviced by more than
1,000 vessels including cargo boats, standby boats, f ield service boats and
crew boats. Seismic programs, which are conducted from a moving seismic
vessel towing a cable with a sound source attached, involve an additional
small number of vessels. These offshore operations associated with
exploration, development, serving, production and product transmission all
result in the generation of floatable or semi-buoyant trash and debris in
the Gulf (U.S. Dept. Interior 1985).

A large portion of the plastic debris attributed to the oil and gas
activities in the Gulf are the large pieces of plastic sheeting used to
cover certain shore items and small chemical pails (Burgbacher 1985).
Although these items are reported to be contained on ships and disposed of
on shore,. occasionally such containers are overfilled which increases the
chance for loss of sheeting in transit. Other items of plastic debris
attributable to oil and gas activities are seismic marker buoys, five-
gallon plastic drums, computer write protection rings (these come from
magnetic tapes used to record data by seismic research vessels 'and are
removed from the reel 'to protect data), drilling pipe thread protectors,
diesel oil and gas filters polypropylene hawsers and even plastic hardhats
(King 1985, Amos 1985).

Land Based Sources

In some cases plastic debris generated by land-based sources is
characteristic of, and easily identified to a particular source. In other
cases, however, the sources of certain debris items generated on land are
not as clearly defined. The following section provides an overview of some
land-based sources of plastic debris including plastic manufacturing and
processing plants, sewage systems, landfills, dock and marina structures
and littering by the general population.

Plastic Manufacturing and Processing Activities

Industries that synthesize plastic and manufacture plastic articles
have been typically suspected to be the primary source of the plastic
pellets which have been reported as a worldwide contaminant of the oceans
(Morris 1980). Sediment samples taken within rivers below outlet pipes of
factories manufacturing plastics in the U.S. have contained concentrations
of plastic pellets in the order of approximately 2,000 pellets in 2.5 cubic
centimeter samples suggesting that plastic pellets are directly discharged
into river systems by these industries (Hays and Cormons 1974). The
presence of these pellets in distant locations at river mouths and coastal
beaches, but in the general vicinity of these industries suggests that
pellets are carried by river systems into coastal waters.

Sewage Operations

Several operations associated with municipal sewage and wastewater
treatment and disposal have been identified as sources of plastic debris.
These include combined sewer outfalls, wastewater discharges, and ocean
dumping of sewage sludge (Swanson et al 1978). The types of plastics
debris associated with these sources are primarily plastic tampon
applicators, condoms, thin pieces of plastic sheeting from sanitary napkins
and disposable diapers.

In metropolitan areas, primarily along the North Atlantic coast, sewer
systems that are combined with storm runoff systems generate large amounts
of plastic debris via outfalls in marine areas (Swanson et al 1978).
During times of excess rainfall each system may become ffo-oded, resulting
in the escapement of sewage and floatable plastics and the discharge of
these materials in storm runoff which drains into marine areas.

Some municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge plastic debris
directly from both primary and secondary sewage treatment plants. While
many sewage treatment plants in metropolitan areas, such as New York, have
been upgraded for secondary treatment (Tiedemann 1983), some of these
plants are not fully secondary and do not remove all floatables including
plastic (Swanson et. al. 1978, Tiedemann pers. comm.). In addition raw
unfiltered sewage is sometimes discharged because of plant breakdown or
construction activities. In May and June of 1976, an estimated 2,200 to
13,000 cubic feet per day of floatable materials had been dumped into the
New York Bight area from raw discharges by wastewater treatment plants.
What followed has been termed the nfloatables episode" in June 1976, when
unusually large amounts of plastic and other types of debris washed up on
New York beaches. Although sewage treatment plants were not solely
responsible for this incident, the amount of plastic debris from these
sources was thought to be considerable.

Sewage sludge dumping in the ocean is also a source of plastic debris
especially in the New York Bight (Swanson et al 1978). Although plastic
floatables in municipal sewage plants are routinely skimmed during
treatment processes, approximately 5% escape screening and are dumped along
with treated sewage sludge. In the late 1970's, an estimated 1,000 plastic
tampon applicators were dumped with sewage sludge in the New York Bight per
day. Today the amount is considerably higher (Tiedemann pers. comm.).

Solid Waste DiqX)Sal PraCt S

Another source of plastic debris is from municipal solid waste
disposal practices (Swanson et al 1978). Three to four billion tons of
solid waste are produced in-thj-United States every year (NACOA 1985). In
New York City, 7.4% of all wastes by weight in the solid waste stream from
residential and commercial sectors was found to consist of plastics
(Environmental Defense Fund 1985). For purposes of comparison, 9.2% of the
waste stream was metal, and only 5.7% was glass.

In some areas garbage is emptied at collection sites onto barges and
then is transported to landfills located along coastal waterways. Fresh
Kill landfill on Staten Island New Jersey, for example, receives 700 tons
of trash a day. Since this-garbage is not contained on the barges,
lightweight litter items such as paper and plastics are frequently blown
off into the water. Escapement into surrounding waters often occurs during
unloading as, well (Tiedemann pers. comm.). until recently litter that had
escaped into coastal waterways adjacent to Fresh Kill was dredged and
dumped at sea.

Degradation of Docks and Mar-

Large chunks of styrofoam occurring as marine debris are often
identified as pieces of floatation used for docks and marinas (Neilson
1985). During a beach cleanup of Oregon's coast 2,100 volunters collected
48,898 chunks of styrofoam larger than a baseball within three hours. High
concentrations of styrofoam at the mouths of rivers with houseboat moorages
upstream 'suggested that these were the most likely source of this debris.

Littering By the General Population

Although some have concluded that "picnickers" contribute relatively
little debris in comparison to ocean sources (Scott 1972), in some areas
such as Los Angeles County, California, where beachgoers leave behind
approximately 75 tons of trash each week, the general population's
contribution to the debris problem could be substantial (Cahn 1984).
However, in areas where there are both heavy vessel traffic and highly
populated beaches it is often difficult to determine the primary source of
domestic debris.

PART III

I14PACTS OF PLASTIC DEMS

in recent years, there has been an increase in reports of mortality of
marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and fish attributed to plastic
debris. This problem, generally referred to as "entanglement" may be a
problem not only for individual animals, but may ultimately affect entire
marine ecosystems.

In addition to the ecological impacts of plastic debris, there are
also economic problems associated primarily with fishing gear losses,
damages caused by debris, and costs to coastal communities due to cleanup
operations or lost revenues from tourism. In some areas plastic debris has
threatened human safety.

Entanglement of wildlife iri Plastic Debris

Broadly interpreted, entanglement is defined as the "unintentional
harassment, injury and mortality of organisms through physical means by
objects of foreign material in the marine environment* (Wallace 1985).
This foreign material may be identified both as items of debris and as
"active" fishing gear under supervision by fishermen. Entanglement of
animals in active fishing gear, when such animals are not targeted by a
particular fishery but are caught accidentally, is also referred to as
"incidental take" or "bycatch". Since incidental take generally does not
involve lost or discarded debris it will be omitted from this discussion,
even though it is a major cause of mortality for many marine animals
(Coleman and Wehle 1983, Heimonen 1985).

In recent years, the term "entanglement" appears to have been adopted
in literature to refer to any interaction with lost or discarded marine
debris, when in actuality, with respect to marine animals, it consists of
two distinct interactions: 1) the actual act of becoming entangled in
debris, and 2) the ingestion of debris. While some authors have included
both of these types of interactions in their overall interpretation of
"entanglement," for purposes of this report "entanglement" and "ingestion"
will be dealt with separately. Here the term "entanglement" will be used
to describe interactions of marine animals with debris that involve plastic
items encircling body parts. "Ingestion" will be used to describe
interactions that involve animals that have consumed plastic items.

Entanglement in plastic debris may occur when an animal comes into
either accidental or intentional contact with an item of debris and becomes
ensnared in this debris. Although some entanglements have been attributed
to random encounters with debris during normal activities, there appear to
be a number of factors that affect an animal's chances of becoming
entangled.

Some of these accidental entanglements have been attributed to the
inability of an animal to "see" plastic debris, especially fishing gear that
is designed to be nearly transparent in water (Balazs 1985). Accidental
entanglement may also result when an animal is attracted to prey that
congregate around floating objects or to prey entrapped in lost nets that

continue to fish. Consequently, while attempting to feed on th e prey,
animals may become entangled in debris.

Other encounters with debris may be deliberate. The propensity of
pinnipeds and especially young pups to investigate floating debris has been
repeatedly attributed to their curious and playful nature (Henderscn 1984,
1985, Scordino 1985, Stewart and Yochem 1985, Calkins 1985). Unfortunately
such curiosity may often lead to entanglement. The following section will
discuss information reported in literature on entanglements of animals in
marine debris.

With the intent of identifying the scope, if not the magnitude of,
entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris by marine wildlife, anecdotal
and exemplary findings involving single animals are included as a
demonstration suggesting that these problems could well be broader in
range.

Mar ine MannIs

The. list of pinniped species reported to be entangled in plastic
debris includes northern fur seals (Fowler 1982, 1985, Scordino 1985), Cape
fur seals (Shaughnessy 1980), New zealand fur seals (Cawthorn 1985),
California sea lions, northern elephant seals and harbor seals in
California (Stewart and Yochem 1985), Hawaiian monk seals (Henderson 1984,
and Stellar sea lions (Calkins 1985).

Fragments of nets and-plastic strapping bands have been reported to
entangle almost all species of seals with the greatest frequency. Trawl net
fragments, the most frequently observed item on northern fur seals, are
usually of a mesh size large enough to slip over the head of a seal
(20-25 cm.) (Scordino 1985). Smaller meshes seem to have a lower
entanglement potential unless they have tears in the webbing. The average
fur seal may encounter two to ten pieces of potentially entangling netting
every year (Fowler and Merrell 1986). The size of plastic strapping bands
found on fur seals varies between 38-96 cm. in circumference and 0.3-1.6
cm. in width (Scordino,1985) with smaller circumference bands'being
observed more frequently on. seals (Fowler et al 1985). While net fragments
may, in some cases, derive from encounteri-wi-th active fishing gear,
plastic strapping bands are recognized solely as items of debris (Stewart
and Yochem 1985).

The effects of entanglement on the survival of pinniped species is
generally unknown, but for the northern fur seal, entanglement is believed
to be a major cause of mortality (Fowler 1982, 1985, Fowler et al 1985,
Fowler and Merrell 1986). The Pribilof Islands of Alaska ha7ve i-population
of about 871,000 northern fur seals, 80 percent of the estimated total
population of this species (Fowler and Kozloff 1985). Studies indicate
that the fur seal population of the Pribilofs is less than half of that
observed 30 years ago, and current trends indicate that this population is
declining at annual rate of 4 to 8 percent per year (Fowler and Merrell
1986).

Although subsistence hunting still occurs on the Pribilofs, there is
strong evidence to suggest that entanglement is the major factor for this
decline. The history of entanglement of northern fur seals presents a

prime example of the influence of synthetic commericial fishing gear and
other items on an animal population (Fowler and Merrell 1986). Small
numbers of seals were observed entangled in rubber bands and rope in the
early 1900's. An increased frequency of entanglement, however, was noted
in the early 1960's, at a time when fishing effort increased in the North
Pacific and Bering Sea and synthetic fiber fishing gear was coming into
widescale use. Based on sightings of young males, 0.4% of the Pribilof
population are currently entangled in debris. An almost equal percentage
of fur seals have been observed with cuts, bruises or scars indicative of
previous entanglements.

Seals entangled in debris may be affected in many ways. If a seal is
not immediately immobilized by being entangled, the debris could ultimately
prevent normal activities required for survival. The majority of entangled
northern fur seals have had items of debris around their necks (Scordino
1985) (Figure 5). This kind of entanglement, if constricting, may directly
impair swimming or feeding abilities. Entangling debris also increases
drag during swimming (Feldkamp 1983). Consequently, an entangled seal
must use more energy to swim and therefore must consume more food
compensate. However, the drag caused by entangling debris would inhibit
the high speed required for pursuit of prey items and may therefore lead to
starvation. Young entangled fur seals, (two and three years old),
reportedly have reduced growth rates compared to unentangled seals, and
only 10% are expected to survive (Fowler 1985, Fowler et al 1985).
Entangled female seals may take twice the amount of time i-o-forage for
their pups, if they are able to return at all (Fowler pers. comm.). In
addition, although the observation of scarred seals suggests that some of
these animals may be able to rid themselves of this debris (Scordino 1985),
others may not be as fortunate and while they grow their synthetic
ncollars" can cause lacerations and open wounds susceptible to infection.
Cpen wounds are more frequently observed on older seals which may have
encountered debris at an earlier age.

The observations of entangled seals on the Pribilof Islands has been
thought to represent "only the tip of the iceberg" (Fowler pers. comm.).
while entangled seals are usually observed with only small fragments of net
and pieces of debris, these seals are believed represent only those
individuals that have survived entanglement. The limited numbers of
observations of entangled seals at sea have involved larger net fragments,
in which most of the seals were found dead (Fowler and Merrell 1986). It
is not known how many seals may become entangled and die, and subsequently
drop out of these larger nets at sea without ever being observed (Fowler
pers. comm.). Therefore, earlier mortality estimates of 50,000 Northern
fur seals per year attributed to observations of entanglements on shore
(Fowler 1982) may actually be conservative (Fowler et al 1985).

Although many species of cetaceans have been reported entangled in
nets or trap lines, this has generally been attributed to collisions with
active fishing gear. However, there are cases in which entanglement has
been attributed to debris. For example, DeGange and Newby (1980) found two
dead,Dall's porpoises in a 3500 m derelict gill net off Amchitka Island,
Alaska.

Figure 5. Northern fur seal entangled in synthetic trawl net in the
Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Photo: C. Fowler

7
J@'.jt11

Sea Turtles

Sea turtles, because of their physical as well as biological
characteristics, are prone to entanglement (Balazs 1985). Specific
reports of sea turtle entanglements include green, loggerhead, hawksbill,
olive ridleys and leatherback turtles. Monofilament fishing line was
reported by Balazs to be the most common type of debris to entangle
turtles, followed by rope, trawl net, gill netsp and plastic sheets or
bags. Fishing-related debris was involved in approximately 68% of all
cases. As is the case for mammals, entangled sea turtles are unable to
carry out basic behaviors such as feeding, swimming, and surfacing to
breathe, and constricting debris may cause lesions or even necrosis of
flippers. Leatherbacks and green turtles are especially prone to
entangling their front flippers and heads in rope. Trawl net fragments
floating at the surface have been described to "act like magnets" for sea
turtles, which are attracted to sargassum mats and other natural floating
masses that offer shelter and concentrated food sources.

Birds

Information on entanglement of birds in marine debris consists
primarily of anecdotal accounts in literature. This issue tends to be
overshadowed by the magnitude of seabird mortality in active fishing gear.
The Japanese salmon gill net fishery, for instance, is reported to kill
over 250,000 seabirds in U.S. waters each year during a two-month fishing
season (King 1985). Seabirds are attracted to the fish caught in nets, so
that derlict nets, which continue to catch fish, will also entangle seabirds.
one hundred or more dead seabirds have been found entangled in large.pieces
of derelict gill nets found at sea (Jones and Ferrero 1985). Smaller net
fragments, including the webbing from lobster pots, have also been reported
to entangle birds (Bourne 1977).

Birds also become entangled in monofilament fishing line and everyday
domestic debris. The entanglement of brown pelicans, a protected species,
in monofilament is a major problem in both California (Gress and Anderson
1983) and Florida. For many of these pelicans and other birds, if the
monofilament does not immobilize them immediately, it often becomes snagged
in trees and the birds are unable to break free. Other items, such as
plastic six-pack rings, get stuck on birds' necks when they attempt to dive
or feed through the rings (Figure 6). many birds actively collect pieces
of nets and fishing line for nest material (Bourne 1977) which can lead to
the strangulation of both adults and juveniles. Although many of these
incidents are considered to be rather infrequent (Fowler and Merrell 1986)
there is no means by which this information is collected and monitored.
There is clearly a need for networks or reporting systems such as those
that already exist for sea turtles and marine mammals.

Fish and Crustaceans

A major issue tied to the debris problem in recent years has been
ghost fishing, the ability of certain lost or discarded fishing gear to
continue to catch finfish and shellfish species indefinitely.
Unfortunately, it is a difficult problem to study and there are few
quantitative data on the subject. The problem of ghost fishing was
initially recognized when lost bottom-set gill nets used in the cod fishery

Figure 6. canada goose entangled in plastic six-pack ring on Lake Erie in
Ohio. Photo: Ohio Division of Watercraft.

_toe

Xl. - -
Iwo

Iceland were reportedly catching fish months or even years after
becoming lost (Smolowitz, 1978a). Ghost fishing by discarded domestic and
foreign fishing gear may pose a real problem to U.S. fishing stocks.

Gill nets deployed at the surface and suspended by floats have been
reported to catch fish after being lost or abandoned. 1,500 meters of a
3,500 m. gill net retrieved in the North Pacific contained 99 seabirds, 2
salmon shark, 1 ragfish and 75 recently entangled salmon (DeGange and
Newby i980). For every fresh salmon in the net there were also at least 2
decaying or skeletal remains of additional salmon. It was estimated that
the net had been adrift for a month and may have traveled a distance of 100
kilometers or more. Another lost gill net found off Agattu Island in 1981
measured 15 kilometers. In addition to the 350 seabirds and 2 salmon
sharks caught in this net, there were also salmon, many of which were
decaying (Jones and Ferroro 1985). While the retrieval of this net lasted
3 hours, 175 salmon were counted within only 35 minutes.

Ghost fishing by submerged nets, which cannot be easily observed, may
be another serious problem (Figure 7). Gillnets set on the bottom have
been reported to catch fish and crustaceans years after they are lost (High
1985, Carr et al 1985). In New England, observations from a submersible
reported fi-ndi-ng that even lost gill nets, which generally become twisted
and tangled on the ocean bottom, still continue to ghost fish (Carr et al
1985, High 1985). In Lake Superior, approximately 1/2 mile of nylon gill
net was retrieved during a study, and although the net was mostly rolled up
in a ball, it contained approximately 100 lbs of fish, many of which were
too rotten to identify (Groll pers. comm.). The estimated age of this net
was 15 years.

The threat of ghost fishing in various trap fisheries is also of major
concern. Once a trap becomes lost it may continue to fish indefinitely or
until the trap deteriorates (Figure 8). Once fish or crabs of appropriate
sizes enter a baited trap they are unable to escape. . If the trap is lost
they will die as a result of starvation or cannibalism thus serving as bait
to attract new species, which could go on indefinitely. Unbaited traps
also attract certain species as a means of shelter (High 1985, Smolowitz
1978b). Some have even hypothesized that certain crustaceans, such as
lobster, may be conditioned to.enter unbaited traps relating these objects
to major food sources in heavily fished areas (Smolowitz 1978b). Lost king
crab traps have been reported to contain as many as 100 live marketable
sized crabs per trap (Smolowitz 1978a). Black cod or sablefish pots
recovered after one month have been found to contain up to 32 snow crabs
and an average of 12 sablefish per pot. Other experiments involving
dungeness crab pots demonstrated the effectiveness of lost pots to retain
legal sized crabs (High 1976).

Each lost inshore lobster trap in New England has been estimated to
catch 2.5 pounds of lobsters a year, Each larger offshore trap catches 6
pounds of lobsters per year. Although these figures may not seem
significant alone, in 1978 annual trap losses were reported at 525,000 and
18,000 traps for the inshore and offshore fisheries, respectively. This
amounts to a total of 1,420,500 pounds of lobster in a single year, and
does not take into account the cumulative effects of lost traps over
several years.

Figure 7. Submerged groundfish gill net "ghost fishing" one year after
being lost in New England. Photo: A. Carr

Figure 8. Derelict Dungeness crab trap found with crabs as result of
"ghost fishing." Photo: W.L. High

7"
WA oi@
A
A 4
'Ilk
iz

awAk,A
14
'tk
ms
v - " @@A' k
Ilk -o-* v
4k,;
AL
IJI
m
All,
f,@F7

L
OW
1-0

WFFI@l 10

Although lost f ishing nets and traps present the greatest problem to
f ish and crabs, other plastic items also cause entanglement. Monof ilament
fishing line, six-pack rings and other items entangle both fish and crabs.
(one of the more unusual items reported in literature is of a salmon which
became in plastic strap used to bind spinach (Anonymous 1981). It is
assumed that fish become entangled in these items while looking for food.

Land Mammals

Although plastics at sea present problems.for marine animals, debris
accumulating on. coastlines has entangled land mammals as well. For
instance, foxes and rabbits have been observed entangled in nets and other
plastic items (Fowler and Merrell 1986, Fowler pers. comm.). A reindeer
was also found with its antlers entangled in a 30 kg Japanese fishing net
on Atka Island, Alaska (Beach et al 1976).

Ingestion of Plastic Debris by Wildlife

Along w ith the increasing reports of plastic debris in the marine
environment appears to be an increase in the documentation of plastic
ingestion by marine animals. Certain animals may ingest plastics
nonselectively while feeding on other organisms in the water column.
Factors such as winds and currents that tend to concentrate planktonic
food items also concentrate debris. On the other hand, floating items may
actually resemble authentic food items. For seabirds, small plastic
pellets and fragments may resemble planktonic organisms, fish eggs, or even
the eyes of squid or f ish (Day et al 1985). The fact that sea turtles may
mistake plastic bags and sheets for jellyfish has now become a widely.
recognized problem (Balazs 1985). Plastic items covered with encrusting
organisms such as algae and bryozoans may actually "smell" or "taste" like
authentic food items. In addition, it has been suggested that hungry
animals are less likely to discriminate among authentic food items and
debr is.

The effects of debris ingestion are not as well understood. The fact
that plastic has not been found in the intestinal tracts or feces of birds
suggests that it may be indigestible by these animals. Large quantities
of ingested plastics may cause intestinal blockage (Balazs 1985).
Ingestion of plastics may also create a false feeling of satiation (Day tt'
al 1985, Balazs 1985) or may reduce absorption of nutrients thus robbing
an animal of needed nutrition. Suffocation, ulceration and intestinal
injury could result from the presence of jagged edges on plastics or the
grinding of these items against intestinal walls.

Long-term effects may result in physical deterioration due to
malnutrition, decreased reproductive performance, and the inability to
maintain energy requirements (Daytt al 1985). Buoyancy caused by plastics
in sea turtles could also inhibit diving activities needed for pursuit of
prey and escape from predators. It has also been proposed that the
absorption of toxic plasticizers (PCBs) may result from plastic ingestion,
although this is still not well understood. The following sections provide
a brief overview of those animals known to ingest plastics and the items
involved.

mar ine mamma I s

Very little documentation exists in literature on the ingestion of
plastic debris by marine mammals. One incident of a Minke whale reportedly
feeding on plastic and other garbage discarded by a commericial fishing
vessel was reported by Wallace (1985). Wehle and Coleman (1983) also
listed the pygmy sperm whale, rough toothed dolphin, and Cuvier's beaked
dolphin to have ingested debris. Records kept by the Smithsonian
Institution listed nine species of cetaceans known to have ingested plastic
debris, primarily plastic bags and sheeting (Table 7). An additional case
involving a sperm whale that had stranded at Florence, Oregon was reported
by Mate (1985) to contain approximately 1 liter of tightly packed trawl net
in its stomach. Because most of information was obtained from dead animals
that had stranded, the actual cause of death is speculative. However,.a
captive dolphin in Hawaii (species unknown) was reported to have died as a
result of ingesting a piece of membrane plastic (Uyehara pers. comm.). In
Texas, the stranded pygmy sperm whale which was taken into captivity died,
apparently from ingestion of paper and plastic bags (Jones et al 1986).

Reports of pinnipeds ingesting plastic debris are rare in literature.
Mate (1985) reported that a northern elephant seal and a Stellar sea lion
had died from choking on styrofoam cups.

Sea 71irtles

While the ingestion of plastic bags and sheeting by sea turtles has
become highly popularized and is attributed to deliberate consumption by
these animals who mistake these items for jellyfish, sea turtles consum *e a
wide variety of debris (Figure 9). In a comprehensive review of this
subject, Balazs (1985) reported five species of sea turtles known to ingest
plastic: green, loggerhead, leatherback, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley. For all
of these species, with the exception of the leatherback, reports of
immature turtles that had ingested debris were more frequent than reports
of adults. Howevec, immature leatherbacks are rarely seen. While plastic
bags and sheets were the most common item ingested (32% of 79 cases), tar
balls (20.8%), and plastic particles (18.9%) were also common. Specific
reports of sea turtles ingesting plastic debris in the United States
included green turtles found in Hawaii, Florida and Texas; loggerheads in
Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Virgina; Hawksbills in Florida and Hawaii and;
leatherbacks in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virgina, Florida and
Texas. In one case on Long Island, New York, a researcher reported that 11
of 15 dead leatherback turtles that washed ashore during a two week, period
had plastic bags blocking their stomach openings. 7en of the turtles had
ingested four 8-quart sized bags, while one had eaten 15 bags (Anonymous,
1981a). Another leatherback found in New York had ingested 150 feet of
40-pound test monof ilament fishing line.

There has been growing concern over the mysterious "lost year" period
for juvenile sea turtles when they are rarely seen by researchers. Recent
findings indicate that these small turtles may concentrate to feed -in the
open ocean at areas of convergence and upon sargassum mats (Carr pers.
comm.) However, the downwelling in these areas not only concentrates food
for these turtlesi but also plastic debris.

Table 7. Records of cetaceans with plastic bags in stomach.

Records f ram National Museum of Natural History

Species Date Sex Length Locality

Gervais beaked whale 12/18/83 F 371 cm Cape May, NJ
Striped dolphin 3/22/83 M 220 cm Cape Point, NC
Cuvier's beaked whale 1/?/81 F 580 cm Assawoman, VA
Dwarf sperm whale 12/4/74 F 170 cm Corolla, NC

Records from other organizations

Dall's porpoise 7/2/73 M 222 cm Santa Monica, CA
Grampus dolphin 5/6/82 M 230 cm Martha's Vineyard, MA
Pygmy sperm whale l/l/84 M 182 cm Galveston, TX
Pygmy sperm whale 5/17/85 M 320 cm Brevard Co., FL
Sperm whale 7/l/85 ? 510 cm Seaside, NJ
Minke whale 8/7/85 M 370 pm Acoaxet, MA

Source: 1986 Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History. *Division
of Marine Mammals. Computer printout. Retrieved Feb. 11, 1986.
Washington, DC: Matt Hare pers. comm..

Figure 9. Plastic debris ingested by a sea turtle. Photo: G. Balazs

IA J,
44'

Ak
low,

7W,

Birds

The ingestion of plastic debris by seabirds has received a great deal
of attention in recent years. In a comprehensive review of this subject
Day et al (1985) reported that 50 species of marine birds worldwide are
known to ingest plastic debris. The tendency to ingest plastic debris
appears to be closely related to feeding habits. Diving birds had the
highest incidence of plastic ingestion. Plunging birds who sight prey below
the water surface, and birds who feed by taking food dropped by others,
had low incidences. Species feeding primarily on crustaceans or squid had
the highest frequency of plastic ingestion whereas fish eaters were
comparatively lower. Most birds also exhibit selective prefe 'rences for
certain types of plastic in accordance with their color, shape or size.
For example, the parakeet auklet, which feeds primarily on planktonic
crustaceans, is found to ingest large amounts of light brown plastic
particles that were classified as being "regular" in shape, primarily
cylindrical, spherical, box-.or pill-shaped. Most seabirds studied in
Alaska appear to ingest light-colored plastics such as white, yellow, tan
and brown. only 7% of the birds ingested black-gray, dark blue, dark green
or red-pink plastics. The most common plastic materials ingested are raw
polyethylene pellets followed by plastic polyethylene fragments. Foamed
polystyrene spherules are ingested less frequently.

Nearly all plastic particles ingested by seabirds float at the
water's surface (Day et al 1985). Ingested plastic pellets and other
debris can fill a birds stomach causing false feelings of statiation
therefore leading ot malnutrition or internal injury that may lead to death
(Figure 10). Seabirds that forage near areas of extensive plastic
production or manufacture were reported to have higher incidences and
amounts of plastic as compared to the same species located in areas away
from plastic industries. Some species also feed plastic debris to their
young (Fry 1986). Of 50 Laysan albatross chicks examined on Midway and
Oahu Island, Hawaii, 90% (45) contained plastic. The weight of plastic
ingested varied from 1.0 - 175.0 grams, with a mean of 43.5 grams per
chick.

Fish

Ingestion of plastic by fish has primarily been recorded anecdotally
in literature- One study in southern New England found eight out of 14
species examined contained white, opaque polystyrene pellets measuring 0.1
- 2.0 mm in diameter (Carpenter et al 1972). Bottom fish such as winter
flounder and perch had the greaiEe-sE-concentrations of ingested pellets.
Pellet ingestion was suggested to perhaps cause intestinal blockage for
smaller fish. Similar observations of plastic pellet ingestion by flounder
were noted in the Severn Estuary, England (Kartar et al 1973; 1976). The
number of pellets in the intestines of junevile flounder (2 - 5 cm.) was as
high as 30 spherules per fish.

Impacts on Eco systems

While plastic debris has been shown to affect individual species, very
little information is available on. the broader impacts on marine popula-
tions, communities or ecosystems. 'To date, extensive research has only
been carried out on northern fur seal populations. But among those species

,43

Figure 10. Raw plastic pellets in stomach of seabird. Photo: R. Day

A4_

Vm@

A-

k N
440 1

that appear to have the greatest degree of interaction with marine plastic
debris, many are endangered or threatened species: Hawaiian monk seal,
brown pelican, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, green and olive
ridley sea turtles. The effects of plastic debris on these threatened and
endangered species therefore should be closely monitored.

The possibility of bioaccumulation via food chains has also raised
concerns. Although Day et al (1985) indicated that secondary ingestion of
plastic by birds through plastic-contaminated fish was low, cases of
secondary, or perhaps tertiary ingestion have been documented, including:
bald eagles preying on parakeet auklets in Alaska (Day et al 1985),
Antartic skuas preying on broad-billed prions in the South Tt-lantic (Bourne
and Imber 1982), and short-eared owls in the Galapagos Islands preying
on blue-footed boobies, which in turn had ingested fish containing plastic
pellets (Anonymous 1981b). Others have noted encrusting diatoms, hydroids
and bacteria on small plastic pellets at sea and have suggested that these
organisms could absorb PCBs from seawater and pass these concentrated
sources of.PCBs along to organisms that ingest pellets (Carpenter et al
1972, Colton et al 1974)(Figure 11).

Some encrusting species have taken advantage of plastic debris. In
Southern latitudes the increasing amounts of plastic debris, which is
colonized 'by certain epipelagic organisms, may be offsetting the decrease
of natural debris items such as logs, coconuts and sea beans due to
deforestation and development of coastal areas. one species of bryozoan,
Elletra tenilla, which had been relatively rare on the Atlantic coast of
Florida, is now the most abundant bryozoan (Winston 1982). The recent
success of this organism has been attributed to the presence of large
quantities of drift plastic in the area, in combination with its ability to
utilize this substratum in the absence of competition or predation.
aefloatation experiments performed by Winston showed that all plastic
debris with encrusting organisms floated at or just below the water
surface. Many of -the debris items, especially large fishing buoys,
observed on the surface of the Pacific were also heavily encrusted with
organisms (Dahlberg and Day 1985).

other ecological impacts of plastic debris could be caused by lost
fishing gear and other items which are snagged or lost on the ocean bottom
and may damage coral reefs or other habitats as they are swept by currents
and dragged across the bottom.

Value of Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear

Probably one of the most expensive but least known economic impacts is
the loss of synthetic fishing gear sustained by commercial fishermen.
Under the "Fishermen's Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund," which
compensates fishermen for damages from foreign fishing operations,
fishermen received approximately 1.7 million dollars for cases filed
between January 1983 and February 1986 (Table 1). However, fishermen do
not usually receive full compensation for their estimated losses (Ford
pers. comm.). Moreover, since domestic fishermen are not required to
report fishing gear losses there is no way to determine how much gear was
lost in the FCZ by fishermen who have not filed for compensation, or for
fishermen who suffered gear losses in state territorial waters which are
not covered by this fund. Nor is there a way to estimate the costs

Figure 11. Photomicrograph showing plastic pellet with encrusting
organism. Photo: M. Gregory

lit

Ael

associated with gear mending to replace sections of lost or discarded nets
or other gear.

In areas of intense gear conflicts, recreational fishermen have
reported substantial losses of fishing gear attributed to fouling of hooks
and lines on commercial gill nets. In New England, this situation has
become of particular concern for party boat operators who claim that it is
becoming increasingly difficult to find places to fish without becoming
entangled in gill nets. According to the Interstate Party Boat Association
in New England, approximately $50,000 worth of hooks, synthetic lines and
lures, and $1 million in operating expenses are lost every year in dealing
with monofilament gill nets in the Gulf of Maine (Hill pers. comm.)

Impacts on Fishery Resources

The economic impact of lost fishing gear on fishery stocks could be
the most severe cost attributed to marine debris. However, very few
quantitative data are available on this problem (Carr et al 1985).
Gillnets have been reported to continue fishing for yea-rs-'9-fter they have
been lost (Carr et al 1985, High 1985). These nets are also
indiscriminate in species they catch. Consequently, a lost gill net may
continue to catch target fish species in addition to lobsters, crabs or
,other economically important species.

In 1978, the economic impact of lost lobster traps in, New England was
assessed. According to Smolowitz (1978b) approximately 1.5 million pounds
of lobsters valued at approximately 248 million dollars (1976 average price
1.66 per pound) are lost each year. Since then, the number of traps
used in this fishery has increased from approximately 2.2 to 2.5 million
traps while loss rates remain at 20 to 30 percent per year (Smolowitz
pers. comm.). The cumulative effect of these lost traps in combination
with the trend toward using plastic-coated wire or plastic traps in the
shore fishery presents considerable problems for this resource.

In realizing the potential consequences of this situation, the state
of Maine recently implemented regulations requiring that a biodegradable
vent be placed in all traps to minimize the impact of ghost fishing. While
Maine's inshore lobster fishery is the most significant area of lobster
production in the U.S. (New England Fishery Management Council 1983) other
areas do not as yet require biodegradable vents.

Damage to Vessels

Plastic debris has also been reported to interfere with vessel
operations. The most common instances involve plastic items that foul
propellors and clog cooling water intake systems which may lead to engine
failure. In Alaska, vessel props have been reported to become fouled in
lost gill nets (Anonymous 1983). In New England waters, garbage bags are
considered to be the leading external cause for engine damage of commercial
and recreational vessels (Gibson pers. comm.) In the Gulf of Mexico,
several incidents have occurred in which large plastic sheeting used by
merchant ships has wrapped up in the propellors of recreational vessels
and in one case a disabled vessel near a jetty barely escaped a tragedy
(Graham pers. comm.).

Although the disablement of vessels by plastic debris appears to be a
problem, there is no source of information to determine the frequency of
this occurrence. According to the Safety Evaluation Branch of the U.S.
Coast Guard, over 10,000 vessel accidents have been reported in the past
two and a half years, ten percent of which were caused by debris and only
,two or three individual cases involved fouling in plastic (Petton pers.
comm.). However, according to another division of the Coast Guard that
deals with accident review, vessel disablement caused by plastic debris is
not specifically coded for in data analyses and therefore there is no way
to determine the frequency of this occurrence (Gray pers. comm.).
Therefore, either vessel disablement caused by plastic debris occurs
infrequently, or with minimal damages, or is unreported. Persons who deal
with propellor repairs and servicing were also contacted but no records
were kept on such information.

The U.S. Navy also has its share of problems with plastic debris.
Problems associated with plastics clogged in cooling intake, systems for
large naval vessels occur during exercises when a ship is not traveling at
a brisk pace (Koss pers. comm.). Smaller vessels also tear up nets and
get lines around propellors. Much of the information on the frequency of
these occurrences, however, is either classified or not typically
documented, but it is said to happen quite often.

The fact that some boating supply companies have built devices on
propellors to combat this problem, however, may give some indication that
the problem is not merely a random occurrence (Figure 12).

Costs to Coastal Communities

The aesthetic quality of an area as perceived by society is extremely
important in determining its value. one's perception of pollution,
however, is often measured more by what is visible on a beach as opposed to
actual pollution indicators measured in a laboratory. Consequently,
beaches that are maintained on a regular basis by clean-up crews have been
reported to be more popular than those that are not, even if these areas
are "polluted" in a technical sense (Squire 1982).

Therefore, many coastal municipalities carry out routine clean-ups of
debris, while others employ enforcement officers to patrol and control
litter deposited by beachgoers (Cahn 1984). But in certain areas the
deposition. of debris is beyond immediate surveillance, coming either from
distant land-based or offshore sources. Padre Island National Seashore in
TLzxas is a prime example of the costs incurred from debris deposited beyond
the Seashore's jurisdiction. In 1985, 140 tons of debris was estimated to
be along one 57 mile stretch of coastline in Tlexas (Amos 1985). Sampling
studies showed that less than 10% of this litter is deposited by beach
users (Lukens 1985). The other 90% comes from the Gulf of Mexico and
consists primarily of plastic items associated with merchant shipping and
oil industry activities, such as large pieces of plastic sheeting, computer
9-track write enable rings, seismic markers, drilling pipe thread
protectors, hundreds of plastic milk jugs, jars and buckets and even hard
hats (Lukens 1985, King 1985, Amos 1985). Presently the Park spends
$10,000 per year on beach cleaning efforts, primarily concentrated on one
half-mile of beach which is most visited by the public (King 1985).

A 7

son"

JL 4

sk ir

PM
rl

ts it

IRMO-

5, S,
z
*v

k cc P
Eli

.01

. .............

ir ir

ooo
Fir

-sTjqap jaq;o
pup 9UTT BuTqSTJ luawr:?TTJOuOw qno o; SJ9TTedoid uo pasn aoTAaa 'ZT ajnbTd

In 1978, the National Park Service purchased a mechanical beach
cleaner for $18,000 but found this equipment to be inadequate on Padre
island because of the nature of the debris on the beach, especially
synthetic rope and plastic sheeting along with glass, logs, and large oil
drums, which caused equipment failure (Lukens 1985).

There is a growing concern that the visibility of Texas beach debris
problems may have a severe impact on the tourist industry. Since the
establishment of Padre Island National Seashore in 1962, 99% of the
complaints received by staf f- members have been in regard to the beach
litter problem and almost daily at least one visitor tells an employee that
he will never return to Padre Island because of its "filthy beaches"
(Lukens, 1985) (Figure 13).

The economic impact suffered by coastal businesses as a result of
marine debris was clearly demonstrated by the "floatables episode" of June
1976, when unusual amounts of material washed up on beaches of Long Island,
NeW York (Swanson et al 1978). Plastics were reported to far exceed all
other materials in quantity and consisted mainly of tampon applicators
(about one per 3 meters of beach), condoms, sanitary napkin liners, and
disposable diapers. Other items included domestic waste such as plastic
straws, pieces of styrofoam cups, plastic bottle caps, corks, plastic toys
and plastic cigar and cigarette tips. Within a period of nine days after
the first of this debris hit Long Island on June 14, all beaches were
closed to swimming, waters were closed to shellfishing and the Governor of
New York had declared most of Long Island as disaster areas. Later the
President assigned the Job Corps to clean up Long Island's Southshore
beaches under the supervison of the Coast Guard.

No one source could be blamed for this incident. Rather, a combination
of factors including combined sewer outfalls, wastewater discharges, ocean
dumping of sewage sludge, landfills, trash discarded by commercial and
recreational vessels, oil spills, and pier fires along with unusually heavy
rainfall and southerly to southwesterly winds caused the problem. Debris
left by beach goers was minor compared to the amount that washed up from
distant sources.

Water quality tests indicated that no immediate or long-term health
hazard had been presented by this episode. In fact, coliform counts were
well within state standards to allow swimming; the closings were
precautionary measures. By July 1 all beaches had been cleaned and
reopened. The total cost of cleanup operations was $100 thousand. The
Long Island coastal recreational industry, however, suffered an even
greater economic loss (Squire 1982). The pier fishing industry was
reduced by 30%. Restaurants on the beaches lost 20% of their income. Bait
and tackle shops reported as much as 30% less business. There was also a
30-50% reduction in beach attendance during and,after the event because of
a general opinion that the water was polluted. The total economic impact
to business resulting from this incident was estimated at $30 million
(Squire 1982). Unfortunately, some predict that similar episodes are
likely to recur (Swanson et al 1978).

Figure 13. Aesthetic degradation caused by plastic debris at Padre Island
National Seashore, Padre Island, Texas. Photo: Padre Island
National Seashore.

0@77

Potential Threats to Human Safety

A final impact of plastic debris is the threat it may pose in certain
situations to human safety in the marine environment. While the loss of
fishing gear is often attributed to snagging on bottom structures such as
reefs and wrecks these areas are also popular sites for scuba divers.
Cccasionally divers have become entangled in monofilament fishing line, but
more frequently encounters involve gill nets (High 1985). Several near
fatal incidents of divers entangled in gill nets have been reported. Even
divers with special training and diving equipment modified for purposes of
working near gill nets frequently become entangled. The disablement of
vessels caused by plastic debris may also endanger human safety when power
or steering control is lost Some have attributed fatalities at sea to
vessel disablement during storms, particularly. in the Bering Sea. As
mentioned briefly above, disabled vessels near inshore structures such as
jetties also face the risk of collision (Graham pers. comm). Research and
military submarines have also had near fatal encounters with lost gill nets
(Evans 1971).

PART IV
RE)GIONAL ANALYSIS (T PLASTIC DEBRIS

Much of the literature pertaining to the types,.sources and problems
associated with plastic debris in North America focuses on the North
Pacific, where the National Marine Fisheries Service has directed its major
Entanglement Program efforts. The subject of plastic debris has been
documented to a much lesser degree for most other areas within, the United
States. In the Great Lakes region, this issue has received very little
attention. Furthermore, individual perceptions of the magnitude of the
problems caused by plastic debris is largely influenced by personal
interests (Gerrodette 1985). A scientist or a conservationist may view
plastic debris as a major cause of mortality for marine animals. A
fisherman, however, may perceive plastics as a cause for economic loss
while a recreational planner may perceive plastic debris to be a hinderance
to beachgoers. Not all of these views are likely to be represented in the
literature on this subject.

This section attempts to identify marine areas of the United States
where plastic debris poses some type of problem and to identify unique
situations which are not documented in literature. Included is information
on the types and sources of this debris. States programs that are
applicable to plastic debris are also identified. The information is
grouped and presented according to geographic location as follows:

Northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire);
Massachusetts;
Southern New England (Rhode Island, Connecticut)
New Yo rk Bight (New York, New Jersey);
Chesapeake (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia);
South Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Fast
Florida);
Eastern Gulf of Mexico (West Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana);
Texas;
Pacific West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington);
Alaska;
Hawaii;
Lake Ontario (New York);
Lake Erie (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio);
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron (Michigan, Indiana, Illnois, Wisconsin);
Lake Superior (Minnesota, Wisconsin).

In addition, in 1985 several New England and west coast states
recruited volunteers to conduct beach cleanups (Neilson 1986). The results
of these activities are included where available to provide insight into
the types of plastic debris found to be most prevalent in particular areas.

Northern New England

(Maine, New Hampshire)

During a beach cleanup that extended along 30 miles of Maine's
coastline from Kennebunk to Eastport 363 volunteers collected 1,560 pounds
of debris (approximately 52 pounds/mile). A special focus of the cleanup
was on plastic items which. constituted 32.8% of the total pieces of debris
collected. This does not include fishing gear items which comprised 8.4 %
of the total. The majority of the debris items were assumed to have come
from within the Gulf of Maine as opposed to sources further offshore.
Certain beaches appeared to be used as dumpsites for household wastes.
Tampon applicators were particularly numerous in the southern part of the
state.

Most debris items in Maine are apparently fishing gear associated with
the lobster fishery such as netting from traps and bait bags, rope and
buoys. There are also plastic salt bags (salt is used to preserve fish),
motor oil containers, and numerous bleach and other types of bottles
(Appollonio pers. comm., Shell pers. comm.). one source commented that
plastic bottles of all types are used by lobster trap fishermen as buoys
(Shell pers. comm.).

In New Hampshire fifteen volunteers collected 100 pounds of debris
during a beach cleanup along four miles of coastline (25 pounds/mile).
Debris items were not reported categorically, but included a substantial
number of cut strapping bands in an area located near a major shipping port
(Holzaetafel pers. comm.). Disposable diapers were also reported to be
numerous and were thought to come from areas that did not have adequate
sewage treatment facilities (Spurr pers. comm.).

In both Maine and New Hampshire the major problem caused by plastic
debris is one of aesthetic degradation. However, one source commented that
in Maine, fishing gear debris is not a major problem because it is often
collected by tourists who would otherwise buy items such as lobster traps
and buoys for souvenirs (Shell pers. comm.). The Maine Audubon Society
(Johnson pers. comm.) had some knowledge of bird entanglements in plastic
debris which mainly involve gulls entangled in monofilament line and
Canada geese entangled in six-pack rings. Seals are also found at times
entangled in netting. In New Hampshire, both birds and fish have been
found on occasion entangled in plastic six-pack rings. No quantitative
information was available on the frequency of animal entanglements.

Massachusetts

more than 500 volunteers participated in the state cleanup effort that
extended over 30 miles of coastline in southern Massachusetts from
Provincetown to Scituate and Swansea. Over 16,000 pieces of debris were
collected with a total weight of 5000 pounds (approximately 167 pounds per
mile). Some of the plastics collected on the beaches exposed to the ocean
were noted to be directly related to fishing activities. Items included
monofilament line, buoys, and parts of trawl gear. other items on these
beaches were plastic jugs and styrofoam. Plastic eating utensils and
containers were found to be more common on beaches in the vicinity of

developments, picnic areas and marinas. The abundance of plastic bags,
sheeting and, in particular, plastic tampon applicators was noted on at
least 95% of all areas.

In view of the results of the beach cleanup and personal
communications, the most prevalent items of debris in this state appear to
be plastic bags, containers, six-pack rings and plastic tampon applicators.
Although the sources of bags, containers and rings can be either land or
ocean-based, plastic tampon applicators have been reported to come from
combined sewers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's
Regional office in Boston (Newman pers. comm.), the presence of large
numbers of tampon applicators on beaches has stirred numerous complaints
from state residents. The source of these items has been directly tied to
the combined sewers located within Boston Harbor which occasionally
overflow into the harbor during times of heavy rainfall. According to
Keough (1980) 1/8 inch of rainfall on Boston's 29,440 acres will become 100
million gallons of waste water. This volume of water is directed toward
sewage- treatment plants which are unable to treat both this runoff and the
city's sewage, and therefore open their gates and discharge into the Boston
Harbor. Cnce these items enter the harbor they are transported to the
mouth and taken in a southern direction by longshore currents travelling
parallel to the coast.

The situation of plastic tampon applicators on Cape Cod and surroun-
ding beaches has caused much consternation for local residents. Residents
complain that hundreds of applicators routinely wash up on town beaches
(Critchley pers. comm.). Even a sense of humor has developed over the
problem with local residents now referring to the applicators as "beach
whistles", and a local artist, Jay C ritchley, has formed an organization
called TACKI (for Tampon Applicators Creative Klubs International).
Sculptures created from plastic tampon applicators collected on beaches
(Figure 14) have been used to draw attention to the increasing plastic
debris problem in the area.,

Recently a legislative bill has been filed that would ban the sale and
distribution of plastic tampon applicators in Massachusetts. introduced by
Massachusetts Representative Howard Cahoon and Senator Paul Doane ' the bill
states that whoever.sells or distributes disposable tampon applicators
composed of plastic or other non-biodegradable material shall be punished
by fines of $1,000 up to $5,000 for each offense.

Manufacturers of these items are not blaming consumers for disposing
of the applicators improperly, but rather the inadequate Boston sewer
systems. However, a spokesman for the metropolitan District Commission
stated that it would be impractical to install small enough screens on
discharge pipes in attempts to correct this problem (Sleeper 1984). The
latest public hearing on this issue was held on March 18, 1986 but no
decision has been made on the bill.

Aside from the aesthetic problem described above, entanglement of
wildlife in monofilament fishing line and plastic six-pack rings are
common problems at Parker River National Wildlife refuge in northern
Massachusetts (Fillio pers. comm.), and in Cape Cod (Clarke pers. comm.).
In addition to these problems, there was also an incident at Cape Cbd

Figure 14. Sculpture made of plastic tampon applicators to draw attention
to the problem of plastic debris in Massachusetts.
Photo: J. Critchley

w7z@t

@4e

National Seashore in which a seal washed ashore entangled in a plastic net
and subsequently died due to the stress of the entanglement (Olsen pers.
comm.).

Southern New England

(Rhode Island, Connecticut)

In Rhode Island, 287 volunteers filled 350 large garbage bags of
debris, weighing an estimated 5,400 pounds, which was picked up over 48
miles of coastline (113 pounds per mile). Although debris items were not
quantif ied, monofilament line, lobster trap buoys, rope, disposable diapers
and tampon applicators were noted to be prevalent. There was a question as
to the source of tampon applicators and whether they could be generated by
disposal systems in recreational boats.

Besides the beach cleanup, the issue of plastic debris in Mode Island
has received minimal attention. Several agencies contacted stated that
they had very little knowledge concerning this issue. According to the
Department of Environmental management (Bell pers. comm.) the most prevalent
types of debris in marine areas are six-pack rings., bags and fragments of
styrofoam that are showing up in water sampling procedures. The only
problem appears to be'one of aesthetics.

Rhode Island has a program that encompasses all types of litter and
recyclable items known as the Mode Island's ocean State Cleanup and
Recycling Program (OSCAR). Although OSCAR does not presently address
plastics or marine pollution specifically, plastics recycling will be a
study topic in 1986.

OStAR is under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island's Department of
Environmental Management, office of Environmental Coordination under the
direction of Victor Bell. OSCAR resulted from the Litter Control and
FLecycling Act of July 1, 1984, with *a sunset date of June 30, 1990. The
budget derives from a tax on all carbonated beverages at the wholesale
level at the rate of five cents per case. The tax makes approximately
$850,000 available each year for this program and funds are divided equally
between litter control and recycling projects. Examples of program
components include education projects and litter cleanups. -

In Connecticut, a beach cleanup coverin g 5 miles of coastline was
conducted by 15 participants who collected an estimated 300 pounds of
debris (60 pounds per mile). The majority of the debris consisited of
styrofoam food containers, plastic straws, pieces of rope, and household
items. No quantitative information was available on this debris.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is currently
working on an EPA multi-agency effort to assess conditions in Long Island
Sound (Stacey pers. comm.) but the issue of nonbiodegradable plastics has
not been identified as a priority. The Marine Fisheries office (Blake
pers. comm.) reports that entanglement of marine species in lost fishing
gear or other debris does not seem to be a major problem. However, there
is a "slight" problem with ospreys that use monofilament fishing line as
nest material. Reportedly, there could be at least one mortality each year

of young. ospreys due to entanglement in monof ilament before leaving the
nest. The problem of lost lobster pots was considered as a possible future
subject of study given the increase in gear and especially plastic-coated
wire pots in Long Island Sound.

New York Bight

(New York, New Jersey)

The New York repartment of Environmental Conservation has not carried
out any studies which have been directed specifically toward plastic debris
on Long Island (Weber pers. comm.), Reportedly there have been noticeable
quantities of plastic debris at coastal beaches.on the south shore of Long
Island. For many areas the most prevalent types of plastics are six-pack
rings, bags, and styrofoam cups. In East Hampton, large concentrations of
debris items collect in harbor areas (Penny pers. comm.). While fishing
gear debris is uncommon in this area, recreational and commercial vessels
are thought to be the major sources of domestic type debris. Further west,
on Fire Island National Seashore, considerable problems with plastic debris
occur periodically due to wind direction and storms (Northrope pers.
comm.). Plastic one-liter beverage bottles have been found on the bay side
in increasing numbers even though they are marked for deposit. Further
towards New York City at Gateway National 1;@ecreation Area in Brooklyn,
tampon applicators and automotive product containers are most prevalent in
addition to the items listed above (McIntosh pers. comm.).

The major problem associated with plastic debris in New York is the
aesthetic degradation of marine areas. However, entanglement of gulls and
turtles in six-pack rings and monofilament fishing line is also reported.
In East Hampton, at least five incidents per year occur of sea turtles
stranding due to ingestion of plastic bags (Penny pers. comm.). ospreys
also use monofilament as nesting materials in eastern Long Island. One
source provided documentation of over 20 birds, primarily ducks and Canada
geese, which had become entangled in six-pack rings and monofilament
fishing line in recent years. (Zarudsky pers. comm.).

In New Jersey, the State Department of Environmental Protection has
received incidental reports of gulls and wading birds entangled in
monofilament fishing line and scuba divers have reported the presence of
ghost gill nets off the coast on submerged wrecks (Freeman pers. comm.).
others noted that domestic wastes, such as plastic containers, six-pack
rings, and tampon applicators are most prevalent (Caldwell pers. comm.,
Garabedian pers. comm.). The only type of fishing gear in any abundance
appears to be monofilament fishing line.

Three primary sources suspected of generating most of the plastic
debris along New Jersey's coastline are raw sewage discharges from
treatment plants, sewage sludge dumping, and a major landfill located on
Staten Island, New York (Tiedmann pers. comm.). Some of the plastic
tampon applicators that are'found on beaches are suspected to originate
from the 12-mile sewage sludge dump site in the New York Bight. Presently,
nine municipalities use this site. However, a recent EPA action has
designated that all sewage sludge disposal will be conducted at a 106 mile
site by 1988. It has also been alleged, -but never proven, that sludge

barges ma y dump on their way out to designated sites, termed "short dumps"
(Tiedemann pers. comm.). This practice, although it is illegal by EPA
standards, saves both time and fuel by dumping on the way out and therefore
lightening the load.

A larger portion of the tampon applicators is suspected to be coming
from raw sewage discharges in the area (Tiedemann pers. comm.). The
problem with the sewage treatment plants in this area is that many are
technically secondary treatment plants, but some are actually less than
this and are more like primary. Recently, the New Jersey Assembly
Environmental Quality Committee gave initial approval of a bill similar to
the one introduced in Massachusetts to ban the sale and distribution of
plastic tampon applicators in the state. International Playtex Inc.
lobbied against the bill and paid for female college students and doctors
to testify against the bill (Benner 1986).

A large volume of the domestic wastes, in this area is coming from the
Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. Both escapement of debris from
barges going to the landfill, and escapement of garbage directly from the
landfill are causes for this debris. Reportedly, there are actually plumes
of this debris following the coastline and emptying out onto Sandy Hook,
New Jersey, and farther down the coast (Tiedemann pers. comm.). Sandy
Hook, however, seems to get the brunt of most of this debris. Employees
here can pick up all the debris on the beach in the morning and f ind that
the beach is just as littered later in the afternoon. After a major storm
the extent of debris escaping from the landfill can extend as far down as
Ocean County. However, recent legal action has resulted in a judicial
mandate for the discontinuation of this landfill (McHugh pers. comm.).
Raw plastic pellets have also been observed on beaches at times but the
source of the pellets is unknown (Zipf pers. comm.).

Major problems associated with plastic debris in New Jersey are the
general aesthetic degradation of coastal areas but entanglement of
wildlife, primarily birds, also occurs involving monof ilament fishing line
and six-pack rings. Incidents involving deer lodging their feet in plastic
gallon containers was also reported (Treen pers. comm.). Fishermen in the
area also claim that the dumping sites in the Bight are adversely affecting
their ability to fish (Tiedemann pers. comm.).

Although there have been certain actions taken recently to minimize
the problems associated with sewage sludge dumping and the Fresh Kill
landfill,' for purposes of this report the New York Bight area would be
considered an area of particular concern.

Chesa2take

(Delaware, Maryland, Virginia)

Officials at National' Wildlife Refuges in the states of Delaware
and Maryland indicated that plastic debris causes problems in waterfront
areas. The most prevalent plastic debris items in Delaware are domestic
wastes, primarily six-packrings and bottles or containers (Daly pers.
comm.). Monofilament fishing line and some commercial fishing gear such as

trap buoys, net fragments and rope were also reported to be most prevalent
in Maryland but were not as abundant as domestic types of wastes.

Wildlife refuges in Delaware and Maryland reported the entanglement of
birds in six-pack rings and monofilament fishing line involving primarily
snow geese and Canada geese (Daly pers. comm., Giese pers. comm.). At
Blackwater National Wildlife refuge in Cambridge, Maryland (Giese pers.
comm.) ospreys have also been observed to use six-pack rings and
monofilament line as nesting materials and there have been several
incidents of young ospreys becoming entangled in these items. At
Assateague Island National Seashore the most common.problem relating to
plastic debris involves fishing nets and snarls of monofilament line that
often contain large numbers of marine animals including birds, fish and
crabs (Rector pers. comm.). Plastic line also occasionally causes prop
fouling for small boats in the area.

In Virginia, the State Public Beach Commission stated that plastic
debris accumulates on public beaches but that the beaches are cleaned
regularly and therefore the debris only presents a temporary aesthetic
problem (Hardaway pers. comm.). other sources in Virginia, however,
reported that plastic debris causes problems with aesthetics and some
entanglement of wildlife. The Eastern Shore National Wildlife Refuge in
Cape Charles (Stairs pers. comm.) noted that domestic wastes accumulate in
areas such as boat landing ramps, whereas on beaches with little public
access common items of debris include rope, nets, buoys, containers, bags
or sheeting and monofilament fishing line. Chincoteague National Wildlife
Refuge often finds lost drifting gill nets in the area (Holland pers.
comm.) .

At Back Bay National Wildlife refuge in Virginia Beach, plastic debris
consists primarily of plastic articles that are reportedly coming from
naval ships in the area, including cleaning agent containers as well as
domestic types of trash (Dewhurst pers. comm.). In addition, there were
also several items of debris with foreign labels.

Responses from Virginia also reported the entanglement of birds in
six-pack rings; one source estimated that eight gulls are found entangled
every year (Dewhurst pers. comm.). In York County, where plastic
containers such as milk jugs, soft drink and motor oil bottles are most
prevalent, there is a problem with these items causing blockages of normal
tidal flux and nutrient transfer in marshes and estuarine areas
(Rindfleisch pers comm.). Consequently, the stagnation of water caused by
these blockages creates prime conditions for the breeding of the salt marsh
mosquito which has considerable impacts on the quality of local life.

South Atlantic States

(North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and East Florida)

Three items of plastic debris common in all states are plastic bags,
containers, six-pack rings, and monofilament fishing line. Both whole
styrofoam objects, such as buoys, and small pieces are also common.
According to the North Carolina Department of Natural resources and
CommLnity Development (Shaw pers. comm.) plastic jugs (for milk and bleach)

were prevalen't in this state until a recent regulation was amended to
prohibit their use as floating buoys for marking traps.- Plastic tampon
applicators wash up on the Outer Banks of North Carolina following strong
northeastern storms but appear to have been in the water for long periods
of time nd therefore an immediate source is not ssuspected (white pers.
comm.). Estimates are 100 tampon applicators for every one aluminum can on
the beach.

Specific problems caused by these items in North Carolina include
aesthethic degradation and the entanglement of ducks, geese and pelicans in
plastic six-pack rings and monofilament fishing line. Mackay Island
National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina (O'Neill pers. comm.) also finds
ospreys using monofilament for nesting material, as well as racoons
entangled in six-pack rings. After Hurricane Gloria in 1986 the beaches
and near-shore areas Of the Cuter Banks of North Carolina were reportedly
littered with plastic bags (White pers. comm.). At the same time a large
number of dead loggerhead sea turtles also washed ashore and were suspected
to have died from ingestion of plastic.

Sources identified an informal program in North Carolina that
addresses entanglement problems in fishing areas. Fisheries regulations
QB.0503 and 3B.0504) prohibit leaving devices unattended in coastal
fishing waters for periods longer than twelve consecutive months. Also,
eel, crab, fish and shrimp pots. must be taken out of the water from January
24 to February 4 each year to eliminate ghost pots. 7he cleanup efforts
associated with these regulations are incidental to routine operations of
patrol boats. The responsible agency is the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Marine resources. The
contact for the project is Mike Street in Marine Fisheries, Morehead City.

In South Carolina, at least 3 to 5 lost gill nets are found in the
Georgetown area every year with entangled fish and birds (Allen pers.
comm.). Cape Fqmain National Wildlife Fefuge has also documented that
monofilament gill nets cause mortalities of loons and, on several
occasions, boat damage.

Savannah Coastal Refuges in Georgia report that most of the plastic
litter items on the beaches, such as jugs, monofilament line, and motor oil
containers, are coming from shrimp boats off the coast and pose primarily a
problem of aesthetics (Singleton pers. comm.).

In Florida, Hobe, Sound National Wildlife Refuge (Marcus pers. comm.)
and Cape Canaveral National Seashore (Graham pers. comm.) most of the
plastic debris comes from recreational boats. Merritt Island National
wildlife Refuge.reported the entanglement of manatees in rope and buoys
from crab traps and monofilament fishing line (Whitmore pers. comm.).
There was also a report of a manatee that ingested a piece of rope.

Eastern Gulf of Mexico

(West Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)

From Everglades National Park to Gulf Islands National Seashore in
Florida the major types of plastic debris are domestic wastes such as bags
and containers, and fishing gear such as styrofoam floats, rope from traps,
nets, and monofilament fishing line. The most frequent problems caused by
this debris is the entanglement of pelicans and wading birds in
monof ilament fishing line and the ingestion of plastic bags by sea turtles
(Hatcher pers. comm., Larkin pers. comm.). In Everglades National Park,
there are few places where monofilament fishing line is not present (Dawson
pers. comm.). Pieces of plastic sheeting used to cover agricultural fields
also wash into the park from surrounding areas during storms.
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge reported the entanglement of a
manatee in a plastic rope (Hartis pers. comm.). Gulf Islands Mtional
Seashore finds plastic sheeting from the oil industry washing up on beaches
(Thackery pers. comm.). They also reported the ingestion of raw plastic
pellets by birds. In Sanibel, Florida, even alligators become entangled in
monofilament fishing line (LeBuff pers. comm.).

Alabama and Mississippi state government agencies had very little
information on the issue of plastic debris. Other contacts in these states
indicated that some fishing gear and domestic wastes were present but that
these caused no major problems (Carroll pers. comm., Thomas pers. comm.).

A cleanup by 100 volunteers conducted on Grande Isle, Louisiana
resulted in the collection of 500 garbage bags along 7.3 miles. The amount
of styrofoam and plastic were noted to be significant. The Louisiana
Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism stated that 75 percent of all
plastic debris in the area of Baton Rouge consisted of six-pack rings
(Beckman pers. comm.). Aesthetic degradation, and entanglement of birds in
six-pack rings and monofilament fishing line has been observed but not
quantified (Clark pers. comm.). Sources in Louisiana also noted that a
large portion of the plastic debris, including domestic wastes and fishing
gear, come from offshore commercial fishing, merchant shipping, and
petroleum industry activities (Brown pers. comm., Edmonson pers. comm.).

Texas

There is a major problem with plastic debris in Texas. Domestic items
such as garbage bags and six-pack rings, and in the northern portion of the
state, fishing gear including nets, rope and monofilament fishing line are
prevalent (Bisbee pers. comm.). Plastic items lost or discarded by the oil
and merchant shipping industries, however, are the dominant types of debris
in other areas, primarily in South Texas.

Documentation provided by Padre island National Seashore stated that
90% of the debris on Padre Island comes from the Gulf (Lukens 1985). In
1985, sampling surveys indicated that '140 tons of debris were present on 57
miles of Padre Island (Amos 1985). Approximately 800,000 one-gallon milk
jugs wash ashore each year (Lukens 1985). The most prevalent types of
plastic debris in order of abundance are: large pieces of plastic sheeting,

computer write enable ring s, seismic marker buoys, drilling pipe thread
protectors, and diesel oil and air filters (King 1985). Milk jugs, 55
gallon plastic barrels, 5-gallon grease, pickle, fruit and assorted
vegetable containers, were among the most prevalent plastic items at
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Johnson pers. comm.). Some reported
entanglements of birds in monofilament fishing line and six-pack rings.
Laguna Atasclosa National Wildlife Refuge reported incidents of ingestion by
birds of small plastic bottles (Labuda pers. comm.). However, the major
problem appears to be one of severe degradation of aesthetic quality of the
Texas coastline.

In 1985, a status report entitled "Litter on Texas Coastal Beaches"
concluded that littering is a coastwide and year-round problem and the Gulf
of Mexico is the major source of litter found.on Texas beaches (Texas
Coastal and Marine Council 1985). while all local governments are having
problems with beach litter, the worst situations occur in coastal areas
beyond county, town and village jurisdiction, namely Padre Island National
Seashore. This area receives the greatest portion of debris generated in
the Gulf because currents move both surface and subsurface debris towards
Padre Island with a convergence of north and south longshore currents in
the area of Big Shell Beach (King 1985). These currents sweep the entire
eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico and converge on this ten mile area of
Padre Island. The rate of deposition in this area is approximately 7
pounds per day. Material entering the Gulf at coastal areas along Mexico,
Texas and Louisiana may also be transported to the convergence on Padre
Island at speeds of up to one mile per hour (Lukens 1986).

The convergence zone shifts slightly north and south seasonally. A
researcher at Texas A & M University is studying this complex current
system by using plastic debris as current indicators (Amos pers. comm.).
Currents coming from the south bring, among other things, green plastic
bottles of "Clarosil", a popular brand of bleach in Mexico. Currents
coming from the north in late spring and- fall bring plastic containers
bearing the brand names of supermarkets in Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama. By studying what types of debris wash up at particular times, it
is hoped that a greater understanding of this current system can be
achieved. Two peak offshore trash periods are during late spring and fall.
Prevailing inshore winds also bring debris to the beaches.

The tourist and recreational industry in Texas not only fears the
immediate effects of beach debris, but also the negative viewpoint of
tourists that may persist even if the problem is solved. This industry is
the second largest in the state ranked behind the oil and gas
industry (Ditton 1985). In 1984, $13 billion was spent on tourism in
Texas, over one-third of which (4.5 billion) goes to coastal counties.
Approximately one thi *rd of the jobs and payrolls of the state's tourist
industry are also located on the coast. In 1984, twelve coastal political
jurisdictions received $391,568 in state funding for beach cleaning
procedures. Matching funds on a 50/50 basis were obtained by local
jurisdictions from hotel/motel occupancy tax monies and other revenues.
Padre Island National Seashore, however, does not qualify for state funding
and if problems here are not remedied, dropping visitation rates may affect
the local tourist industry.

Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife (Boat Ramp Section) administers
a program to maintain beaches authorized under the Natural Resources Code
and Senate Bill 16, passed in 1969. The program covers Gulf Coast beaches
only, and does not include any beaches in bay areas. The project aims to
keep these important tourist areas free from litter, for both aesthetic and
safety reasons. The cities and counties participating in the program
determine their own cleanup schedules and methods. Costs are shared with
the Department of Parks and Wildlife, which currently contributes $300,000
annually to the effort with biennial appropriations.

There is also concern that the debris problem in Texas may have
serious affects on the state's fishing industry, although the Texas Shrimp
Association (Rayburn pers. comm.) and PISCES (Professionals in Sea
Concerned with Enterprises) (Steed pers. comm.) reported only minor
problems with plastic debris. However, the accumulation of this debris may
eventually interfere with fishing operations in the Gulf. The Gulf shrimp
fishery is the most valuable fishery in this area with average annual
landings of 200 million pounds worth $300 million (U.S. Department of
interior 1985).

Pacific Coast

(California, Oregon, Washington)

The 1500-1600 volunteers who participated in California's beach
cleanup collected 89 tons of debris in three hours over 300 miles of
coastline (593 pounds per mile). Estimates of specific types of plastic
debris collected included: 5 tons of styrofoam including food containers,
cups, packaging materials and ice coolers, and 3 tons of assorted plastics
including 4,500 six-pack holders, 600 assorted types of containers, 930
pieces of monofilament fishing line and 200 pieces of nets and strapping.
Picnic debris and fishing gear were noted to be most prevalent. Cleanups
in the San Diego area noted that some trash appeared to come from Mexico.
At Point Reyes National Seashore 4 '50 pounds of debris consisting of
monofilament fishing line, six-pack rings, containers, styrofoam and other
.non-plastics were collected on 3.4 miles of beach.

State agencies contacted in California reported that they had no
information on the issue of plastic debris. Three county governments,
however, responded with information. In San Diego the most common forms of
plastic debris are bottles, bags and styrofoam cups, tampon applicators and
disposable diapers (Melbourne pers comm). San Diego County reported having
previous problems with passage of neutral bouyancy particles through
wastewater treatment plants, but. the use of fine screening or filtering
devices has eliminated the discharge of plastics. Considerable quantities
of sewage and stormwater borne plastics, however, come from the Tijuana
area of Mexico where sewage is not treated.

Santa Barbara County reported that six-pack rings, cups, styrofoam
pieces and monofilament fishing line are most prevalent (McCurdy pers.
comm.). The source of this debris is considered to be mostly beach goers
and problems are mainly aesthetics.

Mendocino County reported that there was only one specific problem
with plastic debris, which occurred in the late 1970's and resulted from a

plastic tarp that had been placed over an agricultural area for fumagation
but was not removed (Bengston pers,. comm.). During a period of high water
and flooding from the Russian River the tarp was washed into the river and
shredded into the tops of the trees along several miles of Highway 101 in
Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. ibis resulted in the severe degradation of
aesthetics for those travelling the highway years after the water receded.
To avoid this problem in the future, permits for restricted pesticides
issued by the County of Mendocino Department of Agriculture have
implemented conditions requiring cleanup procedures of plastic tarps.
Ho TAever, these conditions are only applicable to permits for restricted
materials and cannot be enforced for pesticides that do not require
permits, or for activities that do not involve pesticides.

Los Angeles County beaches are maintained through arrangements with
private industries. Coppertone provides trash barrels for the beach in
return for using the barrels as advertising space. Sea and Ski gives
prizes to volunteers participating in beach cleanups and the 7-Up company
hires youths at minimum wag .es to clean the beaches (Cahn 1984).

In Oregon, the beach cleanup conducted in 1985 was probably the most
wellrorganized, since the methodology had been well established from a
previous cleanup conducted in 1984 (Neilson pers. comm.). In 1985, 2300
volunteers collected 2800 20-gallon garbage bags of debris weighing 25.5
tons. Eighty-five percent of all debris, consisting of 31,541 pieces, was
categorized and tabulated. Plastic items included 3,634 pieces of rope,
2,019 strapping bands, 1,096 six-pack rings, 924 pieces of recreational
fishing gear, 564 pieces of gill net, and 1,403 pieces of trawl net. In
addition, 18,656 pieces of styrofoam were collected. Most of the styrofoam
had come from broken floatation blocks rather than domestic wastes.
Plastic bags used for frozen bait were found to be abundant near the mouth
of the Columbia River on the north coast and in an area adjacent to Coos
Bay on the south central coast. Forty-three percent of all debris
collected was estimated to come from beach uses while 42 percent drifted in
from the ocean.

A short-term project that is plastics-specific is being conducted in
Oregon. Oregon's Bottle Bill requires plastic six-pack rings to be
degradable within 120 days of disposal. At present, the Liquor Cbmmission,
in conjunction with the Attorney General's office, is testing the plastic
rings for compliance with the Bottle Bill requirements. The project began
in August 1985, and is budgeted through existing funds. The contact for
the project is Darleyne Myer at the Liquor Commission.

Due to the difficult terrain in Washington, a beach cleanup was
conducted with the use of hundreds of four wheel drive vehicles (in
addition to two helicopters) and collected over 3,640 bags of debris.
Although the 'debris was not reported categorically, one prominent finding,
especially on the southern beaches, was an abundance of plastic bags used
for frozen bait.

- The Washington State Parks and Fecreation Commission (Heiser pers.
comm.) provided a detailed list of the prevalent types of plastic debris
found at 102 developed parks in the state, many of which are located on
Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. These
items include domestic wastes such as plastic bags, sheets, bottles and

containers and disposable diapers. Fishing gear items included
monof ilament fishing line and tackle, buoys, ropes and nets. Styrofoam and
plastic foam chunks from domestic wastes and docks were also reported.
Large pieces of plastic sheeting and plastic barrels are also common and
appear to be coming from offshore merchant shipping or pertroleum
operations. Clallam County noted these items to be prevalent also, in
addition to plastic six-pack rings (Stulquist pers. comm.).

Among the problems associated with plastic debris, the State Parks and
R--creation Commission noted entanglements of waterfowl, mostly in six-
pack rings, danger to bathers caused by broken rigid plastic pieces, and
entanglement of scuba divers in monofilament line. The Commission has also
received many reports from the public on incidents involving plastic bait
bags and other types of bags clogging boat water intakes and causing
overheating and vessel damage. In addition they noted the danger to
firefighters when dealing with dune fires that emit toxic fumes especially
if fishing nets or other plastic debris catch fire. They also reported on
the aesthetic problem caused by plastic debris, especially in areas where
driving on the beach is permitted and where commercial debris washes ashore.

Alaska

State Departments in Alaska indicated that they did not have direct
involvement in studies concerning plastic debris. Many referred to the
results of studies conducted on Amchitka Island (Merrell 1982, 1984, 1985)
and the serious problems facing the northern fur seal in the Pribilof
Islands (Fowler 1982, 1985, Fowler et al 1985, Fowler and Merrell 1986)
which have been included in prev iou-siect ions of this report. Others
indicated that due to the volume of vessel traffic in Alaska there is a
tremendous amount of debris. Charter fishing boats, commercial fishing
boats, private recreational vessels, large passenger cruise ships, barges
and cargo ships, some of which are foreign, all use the waters off the
coast.

Kenai Fjords Mtional Park, with approximately 600 miles of shoreline,
and Kodiak National Wildlife Fefugp, with approximately 800 miles of
shoreline, are both situated in an area of major shipping activity. The
most prevalent types of debris in this area include domestic wastes,
commerical fishing gear, and merchant shipping wastes (Kaye pers. comm.,
Vivion pers. comm.). 7he most common items include plastic garbage bags,
plastic sheeting, net fragments, various types of'buoys and plastic
containers. A good portion of the debris in these areas is from foreign
vessels.

Problems associated with this debris include wildlife entanglement,
particularly of sea lions, sea otters and seals in nets, and vessel
disablement caused by monofilament line fouling propellors and plastic bags
clogging cooling water intake systems. Although the aesthetic problem
caused by plastic debris was recognized, one source commented that "it
is hard to walk on Kodiak Island without seeing some type of debris but
that debris in Alaska is a way of life" (Vivion pers. comm.).

Hawaii

over 650 volunteers picked up over 8 tons of debris during two beach
cleanups. overall results were not available, but in Mauii 6,585 pounds of
debris was collected including 412 plastic strapping bands, 655 pieces of
commercial gill net, 150 pieces of styrofoam and 1,101 six-pack holders.
Seventy-five percent-of the debris in Mauii was assumed to have been
generated from beach use.

An official with the office of Environmental Quality Control (LJyehara
pers. comm.) referred to general problems caused by marine debris including
entanglement, aesthetic degradation and vessel fouling. A particular
situation for Hananma B ay in Oahu was noted where scuba divers and
snorklers bring food for fish and leave plastic bags behind.

Lake Ontario

(New York)

7he eastern end of Lake Ontario receives much floatable debris from
the rest of the lake (Mead pers. comm.). Plastic items, especially
polyethylene seem to be quite prevalent at times on the eastern Ontario
beach areas. Plastic tampon applicators are especially prevalent, about
one every few feet. Monofilament fishing line was said to be an aesthetic
problem at times in the Black River below Dexter. Several Canada geese in
this area of Lake Ontario have become entangled in six-pack rings and
monofilament fishing line.

After contacting two county and three state park officials,, five,
waterfront towns, two marinas and six sewage treatment plants in Niagra.
county (at the opposite end of lake Ontario), an official with the Niagra
County Environmental Management Council (Walder pers. comm.) reported that
from 45 to 80 percent of all debris collected in this area is plastic.
7his includes large plastic bags filled with garbage or leaves, tampon
applicators, six-pack rings, cups, bottles, disposable diapers and
monofilament fishing line. 7he sewage treatment plants in the area have
problems with plastic tampon applicators and disposable diapers since they
sometimes float below the surface thereby escaping the skimming process.
During high flow periods they are bypassed into Iake Ontario.

The specific problems caused by plastic debris are entanglement of
birds in six-pack rings, vessel disablement caused by monofilament fishing
line and the attraction of rats to the debris.

Lake Erie

(New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio)

The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (Kenyon pers. comm.) indicated that
monofilament fishing line, six-pack rings and styrofoam are the most
prevalent types of debris on Lake Erie. Also mentioned were monofilament
and multifilament gill nets and plastic shotgun shells. Problems such as
vessel disablement caused by monofilament fishing line, and the
entanglement of waterfowl in monofilament and six-pack rings were said to
occur, but very infrequently. Aesthetic degradation is the primary problem
especially at Presque -Island State Park where styrofoam left by visitors is
becoming an increasing nuisance (Giza pers. comm.).

According to the Ohio Division of.watercraft, office of litter
Prevention and FLucycling (Hawse pers. comm.) the majority of plastic debris
found on the Ohio border of Lake Erie consists of domestic wastes and
monofilament fishing line. The most prevalent items are styrofoam
articles. Rubber tires are also numerous, because they are often disposed
of in the Lake, rather than paying a fee of $5 per tire at local dumps.
Problems include the aesthetic degradation of lakefront areas, entanglement
of wildlife in six-pack rings, and vessel disablement which occurs
frequently due to fouling in monof ilament fishing line.

The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waterways,
administers a litter education and cleanup program to maintain lakefront
areas and adjoining waterways which is sponsored under the Chio Litter
Oontrol and Fecycling Act (Hawse, Director, pers. comm). The program's
funds come from a $72,000 grant from Chids office of Litter Prevention and
lLecycling. Under the program, the state is divided into seven district
offices that set up the litter program.

Education efforts are aimed at informing boaters and members of
sporting groups about water pollution problems. Schools have also been
included in education sessions. River and stream cleanup projects are
also organized by the district offices and are conducted by volunteers in
environmental groups and other interested individuals.

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron

(Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin)

The state of Michigan borders three of the Great Lakes and state
authorities in Michigan addressed the issue of plastic debris statewide.
Lake Superior will be discussed in a separate section. The types of
plastic debris that are most prevalent along lakefront areas of Michigan
are domestic wastes such as plastic containers and bottles, bags and
sheeting, six-pack rings and styrofoam (Gahsman pers. comm., Wright pers.
comm.). Fishing gear, namely monofilament fishing line and gill nets was
also reported. There is a concern-that lost gill nets may continue to
catch fish in the Great Lakes, and researchers at Michigan State University
are exploring ways to study the effects of this on fishery resources (Groll
pers. comm.). Although Michigan law banned the use of gill nets some years
ago, other jurisdictions bordering the Great Lakes have not. Another

problem is the entanglement of waterfowl and fish in monofilament fishing
line and six-pack rings. State biologists have estimated that one in every
100 waterfowl observed are entangled in monof ilament fishing line. (Martin
pers. comm.). It was also reported that mortality of diving ducks and
loons may be caused by entanglement in plastic debris used for nest
materials. A documented case of fish entanglement in Lake Michigan
involved a steelhead salmon tightly encircled by a plastic ring (Richey
1986). Vessel disablement caused by monofilament line, and recreational
fishermen snagging hooks on plastic debris were also cited as problems.

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on Lake Michigan, noted the
accumulation of large amounts of plastic debris, much of which consists of
plastic containers for detergent or motor oil (Abbett pers. comm.). The
major problem is the aesthetic degradation of the area.

Indiana Department of Natural 1@esources (Simpson pers. comm.) reported
that there are few problems associated with plastic debris. Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore, which extends along a major portion of the Indiana
border on Lake Michigan, reported that they were unable to provide any
information on the specific types of plastics that were routinely removed
from beach areas, but that they too are unaware of any major problems
associated with plastic debris (Alexander pers. comm.).

Illinois also indicated that there are no specific problems with
plastic debris that would restrict recreational use or present a hazard to
the public or wildlife (Moylan pers. comm., Dinning pers. comm.). The
Chicago Metropolitian Sanitary District indicated that there are more
severe environmental problems in the area than accumulation of plastic
(Gosden pers. comm.). However, beaches are routinely maintained and
therefore plastic and other types of debris do not accumulate.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Fesources (Baker pers. comm.)
reported that on the western shore of Lake Michigan domestic wastes,
.particularly bags and six-pack holders, and monofilament fishing line were
most prevalent on waterfront areas. Entanglement of birds and animals in
fishing line were said to occur but were not quantified. In Marinette
County, Wisconsin domestic wastes such as trash bags, containers and
six-pack rings are most prevalent in the area, but these items are
more of an aesthetic problem inland as compared to waterfront areas on
Green Bay (Crowley' pers. comm.).

For lakefront areas in Huron-Manister National Florests on Lake Huron,
monofilament fishing line, plastic fishing tackle packaging are most
prevalent (Mann pers. comm.). Styrofoam coolers are also prevalent in some
of the major canoeing streams. Problems caused by this debris are
primarily the degradation of aesthetics. Entanglement of waterfowl in
monofilament fishing line and the potential hazard of this line to divers
were.also reported.

Hiawatha National Florest, which borders both Lakes Michigan and
Superior, also reported that monofilament fishing line and plastic six-pack
rings are the most prevalent types of debris in the area but there are no
particular problems associated with this debris (Awkmann pers comm.).

Lake Superior
(Wisconsin, Minnesota)

At Apostle Island National Lakeshore, in Bayf ieldp Wisconsin domestic
wastes and a variety of fishing gear are the most common types of plastic
debris (Miller pers. comm.). The problems caused by this debris are
aesthetic degradation, entanglement of wildlife in six-pack rings and lost
nets, and vessel failure caused by plastic bags and net fragments getting
entangled in propellors.

In Minnesota, the Department of Mtural resources commented on a "very
obvious litter problem" in the lakefront areas (Shannon pers. comm.).
Here, plastic debris is the most prevalent type of litter, second to
beverage cans. Although, specific types of plastic debris were not
reported by this source, Superior National Florest (Beal pers. comm.)
commented on the abundance of particular items, namely garbage bags,
styrofoam insulation chunks and disposable- diapers. It was suggested that
vessel traffic is the primary source of the garbage bags.

Problems associated with plastic debris reported by all observers are
aesthetic degradation, the entanglement of wildlife (primarily ducks and
loons) in six-pack rings and monofilament fishing line, and the nuisance to
fishermen of having bags entangled on fishing hooks and lines. In the
vicinity of Superior, Wisconsin, there is also a problem with erosion of
debris into Lake Superior from a discontinued landfill (Beal pers. comm.).

PART V

LWAL AUTHORITIES LINIM 70 DISPOSAL

OF PLASTICS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Introduction

The following analysis examines international, federal, and state
authorities relevant to the disposal of plastics in the marine environment,
focusing on the particular issues of entanglement of marine species in
discarded plastic materials or ingestion by marine biota of plastic debris.
The broader issue of solid waste disposal as it relates to any and all
plastic litter that ultimately finds ins way in to the ocean is not
examined in detail at the state level, although relevant authorites are
noted. With regard to international agreements, the analysis presents
detail on several agreements, but where groups of agreements are patterned
after each other (for example, the United Nations Regional Seas Program),
one model is examined in detail, and similar models are noted.

For purposes of the analysis, each authority is examined as follows:
its purpose; its authority, including responsible party/agency, provisions,
and jusrisdiction; its application to entanglement, included express
provisions, construction and interpretation by the courts, and possible
new interpretations; its relationship to other laws; and its limitations,
including further issues for review.

Abbreviations and citations used are according to A*Uniform System of
Citation, Thirteenth Edition, published by the Harvard Law Review
Association. For unabbreviated titles, see the list of references.
Relevant portions of all laws cited are included in Appendix 3. Where the
complete text of a law or treaty was extremely long, and where provisions
were not applicable to the instant discussion, only those portions
discussed are reproduced in the Appendix.

Because much of the following analysis hinges on definition and
interpretation of words and phrases, terms that are used repeatedly are
defined separately, rather than each time they occur in the discussion.
Unless otherwise noted, the following terms used in this analysis have the
meanings set out below.

Vessel: waterborne craft of any type whatsoever, including air
cushioned craft and floating craft, whether self-propelled or not; but not
artificial islands.

Garbage: solid waste including, but not limited to, waste by-products
of food handling; household waste such as paper, cans, bottles; and any
other discarded, used materials normally attendant to domestic activity.

U.S. Territorial sea: the belt of the seas measured from the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct
contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland
waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles.

Contiguous zone: the belt of the seas measured from the limit of the
territorial sea and extending seaward a distance of 12 miles.

Navigable waters: waters of the U.S. including the territorial sea.

ocean: any portion of the high seas beyond the contiguous zone.

Exclusive Economic Zone: zone contiguous to the territorial sea, and
extending to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

International Authorities

International Oonvention on the Prevention of marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and other Matter, London, 1972; entered into force 1975; 26 USr
2403. (I"mkn Mmoping Convention)

Purpose

Promote the "effective control of all sources of pollution of
the marine environment...by dumping of waste and other matter
that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm
living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to
interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea."

Authority

� Individual contracting parties responsible for passing applicable
statutes; treaty not self-implementing.

� Individual nations responsible for promulgating regulations,
issuing permits, enforcing provisions.

� Provisdons:

(1) Prohibits deliberate disposal at sea of materials listed in
Annex I.

(2) Annex II lists materials that may be dumped under special
permit.

(3) Annex III lists factors to be considered before issuing
general permit for dumping of materials not listed in Annex
I or II.

� Prohibited materials listed in Annex I include "...persistent
plastics and other persistent synthetic materials, for example,
netting and ropes, which may float or remain in suspension in the
sea in such a manner as to interfere materially with fishing,
navigation or other legitimate uses of the sea." Annex 1, 4.

0 Each nation's jurisdiction extends to vessels and aircraft:

(1) registered in territory or flying flag;

(2) loading in territory or territorial seas matter which is to
be dumped;

(3) under its jurisdiction believed to be engaged in dumping.
Article VII, 1.

Application to Entanglement

The dumping of persistent plastics such as netting is expressly
prohibited under Annex I. Dumping is defined in Article III l(a) as "any
deliberate disposal at sea...." Therefore, a deliberate discard of fishing
nets seems to be prohibited, for example, throwing damaged nets overboard,
or purposefully cutting nets loose in an effort to avoid detection for
fishing violations, or purposefully cutting nets loose to release
illegally entangled marine mammals. However, the convention excludes
"disposal at sea of wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from
the normal operations of vessels...." Therefore, the accidental loss of a
net in the course of fishing operations probably would not be covered by
the Convention.

Relationship to Other Laws

� The treaty is implemented in the U.S. by 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.,
Marine Protection, Resources, and Sanctuaries Act. See

� The Convention does not preclude the parties from prohibiting
materials in addition to those listed in Annex I, nor from
adopting other measures to prevent dumping at sea. Article VIL

Limitations/Further Considerations

There has been some criticism of the Convention because it addresses a
narrow scope of ocean dumping, rather than all sources of debris that
pollute the seas. (6 Law and Pol in Int Bus 575 at 578-579(1974)). At the
time negotiations were taking place, however, it was the U.S. position tha@t
the introductiion of issues such as river and land-based sources of ocean
debris would have posed too many obstacles to the ratification of the
convention. (Ibid., 579). The Convention has also been criticized because
of each nation's discretion in enforcement, (Ibid., 583-585), and it is not
known how each party has implemented the Convention through its own
domestic law. (Gosliner, 1984). Even if each party implemented the
Convention through domestic enabling legislation, however, enforcement still
would be difficult because the discard of netting and other debris takes
place at sea where there is little chance of observation by the contracting
nation's enforcement agencies. (Ibid.)

Yet another problem with the Convention stems from possible varying
interpretation of the key phrases "derived from the normal of operations of
vessels ... and their equipment,..." and "legitimate uses of the sea."
Neither phrase is defined in the Convention. One analyst contends that'
accidental loss of debris, such as a broken net, is not governed by the
Convention. "Net discards which are generated in the course of fishing
operations may be considered to fit [the) exception" excluding disposal
derived from normal operations. Ubid., 6).

cn the other hand, there is some history of implementing legislation
to indicate that "normal operations" meant the discharge of bilge water or
water flushed as part of the propellant system of a vessel that might
include some oil or wastewater, with the intent that such discharges not
come under the prohibitions of the Convention. This is clearly the intent
under the U.S. law that implements the London Dumping Convention. See 33
u.s.C. 1402(f) for definition of dumping and exclusions. Yet another
interpretation is that the London Dumping Convention would apply to
disposal of nets only if they were put aboard a vessel for the express
purpose of dumping them. (Bean, at 33(1984)).

Once the determination were made as to whether a discarded net was
deliberately dumped, it would still remain to be determined.that such
dumping interfered with "legitimate uses of the sea," a phrase which is not
defined in the Convention.

It can be argued that "ghost fishing" by discarded nets (continued
capture of both target and non-target species) affects not only the health
and maintenance of those species and the other marine organisms that use
them for food, but also affects the legitimate economic use of fisheries
resources by humans. Another argument made is that "the utilization of the
oceans to ensure healthy populations of marine mammals and other marine *
fauna is a legitimate use of the sea which is materially interfere@ with by
casting off netting and other debris...."(Gosliner, p. 7).

Therefore, if discard of nets met the first test of the Convention
definition of "dumping" as a deliberate disposal, it can be argued that the
second test, 'interference with a legitimate use of the sea, is also met when
a discarded net captures fish and entangles marine mammals and birds.

Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Oonvention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, with annexes and protocols, 1978,
entered into force 1983.(MAMAM Protocol).

Pur22se

To prevent and control pollution generated by ships by
amending the 1973 Convention.

Authority

� Annexes contain regulations for enforcement and administration of
pollution prevention.

� Individual contracting parties pass implementing domestic
legislation to enforce.

� Annexes III, IV, and V are optional.

� Provisions:
(1) Annex III regulates disposal of hazardous packaged
substances.

(2) Annex IV regulates disposal of sewage.

(3) Annex V regulates disposal of garbage,
prohibiting, inter alia, disposal of "all
plastics, includin _Fu_t not limited to synthetic
ropes, synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage
bags....

0 Optional Annexes do not enter into force until after adoption by
at least 15 nations whose fleets jointly constitute 50 per cent
of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping fleet. (15
of MARPOL 73/78).

Jurisdiction treated below in discussion of U.S. implementing
legislation.

Ap2lication to Entanglement

Barring the limitations to the MARPOL Protocol set out below, it has
been argued that its provisions apply to disposal of fishing gear that
causes entanglements. First, it covers accidental disposal, unlike the
London Dumping Convention. Secondly, it expressly denotes synthetic
fishing nets among prohibited disposals in optional Annex V. Thirdly,
since only one or the other convention may apply, because discharges as
defined in MARPOL exclude acts defined as "dumping" under the London
Dumping Convention, it is more likely that MARPOL addresses nets because of
the problems outlined above in covering nets under the London Dumping
Convention. One analyst describes- the relationship between the two
conventions as a distinction between waste carried to sea for the purpose
of dumping, and waste discarded in the normal course of operation. The
analysis is illustrated with the following example: "...if a fisherman
damages his gear at sea and discards it there, his action is contrary to
the MARPOL Convention; if, however, he returns to port and gives it to a
junk dealer. who then hauls it to sea and dumps it overboard, the junk
dealer's action is contrary to the London Dumping Convention." (Bean, 33).

Relationship to Other Laws

0 Implemented in U.S. by 33 U.S.C. 1901.

0 Definition of "discharges" prohibited by MARPOL Convention
specifically excludes acts which constitute "dumping" under the
London Dumping Convention.

0 Amends provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.

To be read and interpreted as one single instrument with above.

Limitations/Further Considerations

Annex V may have applicability to the entanglement issue, however, it
is not yet in force. To date, 26 nations have ratified the Annex, but
their combined tonnage, which currently stands at 44.53%, falls short of
the requirement in Article 5. The U.S. has not ratified any of the
optional annexes, because at the time the Protocol was submitted, "the
Coast Guard, which was the key decision-making agency..., was so keenly

interested in getting the Convention's oil pollution provisions in place
that it did not want to jeopardize that goal by asking the Senate to
consider extraneous matters like those addressed in the optional annexes."
(Bean, 34).

The Coast Guard is considering ratification and implementation of
Annex V at this time, but officials state that such a move is about two
years away. Recent support for U.S. ratification of Annex V has been
expressed by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Delegation to the IMO Maritime
Safety Committee and Maritime Environment Protection Committee. A
recommendation that the U.S. support ratification was made to the Secretary
of State, who is expected to forward that position to the President.
(Testimony, RADM J. William Kime, Chier Office of Marine Safety, Security
and Environmental Ptotection, U.S.C.G., before Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation, U.S. House of
Representatives, 12 August, 1986.)

If the United States were to ratify the optional annexes, including
Annex V which addesses plastics and netting, there would still be three
hurdles to clear before MARPOL could be applied to the entanglement
problem: 1) passage of implementing legislation, 2) determination that the
loss of a- net was not accidental in the-course of repair, and 3) that
reasonable precautions to prevent the loss were not taken. The enforcement
problems in proving that the latter two exemptions did not apply would be
significant. (Gosliner, 8-9, aee also, Bean, 32-34).

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Karine Environment of
the Wider Caribbean Region, 1983. (Caribbean Convention)

Purpose

To provide a cooperative mechanism on a regional basis for coastal
states in the region to reduce and control pollution in the Convention
area. Article 4, 1.

Authority-

� Contracting parties to "endeavor to conclude bilateral
or multilateral agreements.... for the protection of the
marine environment." Article 3, 1.

� Provisions:

Parties shall take "all appropriate measures" to:

(1) Prevent, reduce and control pollution from ships.

(2 Prevent, reduce and control pollution caused by.dumping.

(3) Prevent, reduce and control pollution caused by coastal
disposal or by discharges emanating from internal waters.

0 Jurisdiction extends to 200 miles in Convention area, which
includes the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the areas
of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent thereto, south of 30 north
latitude.

Application to Entanglement

The provisions of this Convention are very broad and general, and
nowhere in the Convention is the phrase "all appropriate measures" defined.
However, Article 3, 2, states that the provisions "shall be construed in
accordance with international law relating to their subject matter," and
Articles 5 and 6 each state that appropriate measures shall be taken "to
ensure the effective implementation of the applicable international rules
and standards....". Since these two Articles seem to be patterned after
the London Dumping Convention, it.could be argued that the London Dumping
Convention is the "applicable international rule." If that is the case,
the same considerations and limitations in applying those provisions to
entanglement would apply to the Caribbean Convention.

Relationship to Other Laws

� The Caribbean is one of 10 regional seas areas delineated under
the United Nations Regional seas Program.

� The Regional Seas Program provides a mechanism for regions to
identify issues and draw up an action plan designed to address
marine pollution in their respective areas.

� The Caribbean Convention is typical of the Conventions that
result from the regional action plans.

� Five other regions have negotiated Conventions, noted below,
Section G. Four regions which are still in the planning state
are East Africa, East Asia, Southwest Pacific, Southwest Atlan-
tic.

Limitations/Further Considerations

The Caribbean region is the only region in the Regional Seas Program
which encompasses waters, of the U.S. teritorial sea and contiguous zone.
The U.S. has signed and ratified the Convention, and is providing advisors
on a consultative basis to the United Nations Environment Program in the
area. Other nations which have signed, but not ratified, the Convention
are: Barbados, Colombia, France, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica,
Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Lucia, United Kingdom,
Venezuela, and the European Economic Community. The Convention does not
enter into force until 30 days after the ninth state ratifies.

Pr22rams

The United States participates in the Regional Seas Program through
the Wider Caribbean regional group. Although there are no specific
projects being carried out by the United States, advisors have been sent to
consult on the Caribbean Action Plan. The Coast Guard provided an oil
spill consultant to the Plan, and the Army Corps of. Engineers also has

ass igned a consultant to the Plan. Most of the projects being conducted
under the program concern oil spill contingency plans for the region. The
liaison for the Regional Seas Program in the United States is located in
the Bureau of Cceans and International Environmental And Scientific
Affairs, Department of State.

united Nations 0mvention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

Pur22se

The codification of existing maritime law, with a goal, among others,
to protect and preserve the marine environment.

Authority

0 The Convention binds those nations that are party to it.

0 Defines territorial seas and exclusive economic zones.

� Individual states to pass laws, prescribe permitting procedures
relating to pollution.

� Individual states to promulgate conservation measures regarding
fish and marine wildlife.

� Individual states to enforce laws and regulations adopted.

� Creates methods for arbitration and adjudication of disputes.

0 Provisions relevant to plastics dumping/entanglement:

(1) In its exclusive economic zone, each state has the right
to protect and preserve the marine environment. Article
56', l(b))iii).

(2) Each state shall determine allowable catch of marine
resources, and shall take conservation measures designed
to maintain maximum sustainable yield. Article 61.

(3) Coastal states shall promote optimum utilization of
resources, including other states' access to surplus
of allowable catch. Article 62j2.

(4) Nationals of other states fishing in coastal state's exclu-
sive economic zone shall comply with regulations, including
those applying to vessels and equipment. Article 62, 3(a)..

(5) States shall adopt laws to indemnify owners for loss of
nets or other fishing gear. Article 115.

(6) States have a duty to take measures to conserve living re-
sources. Article 117.

(7) States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce
and control pollution by dumping. Article 210.

(8) States shall establish international rules and standards to
prevent, reduce and control pollution from vessels.
Article 211.

(9) States shall enforce their laws and adopt laws to prevent,
reduce and control pollution from land-based sources.
Article 213.

Application to Entanglement

Like the London Dumping Convention, the Convention on the Law of the
Sea defines dumping as a deliberate disposal, Article 1.1(5)(a), and
excludes disposal incidental to normal operations of vessels, 1.1(5)(b)(i).
Therefore, the same interpretation problems as exist with the London
Dumping Convention would apply to the Law of the Sea. On the other hand,
the Law of the Sea directs contracting parties to prevent or control
"pollution of the marine environment," which is defined as "the
introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances... into the
marine environment..., which results or is likely to result in such
del6teriorus effects as harm to living resources and marine life...."
Article 1.1(4). Therefore, even if discard of nets were -not covered as
"dumping," it could be argued that it is covered within the meaning of
91pollution" as defined, since entanglement is a "harm" to marine fauna.

The provisions noted above that may be relevant to entanglement
include -several possibilities for interpretation. For example, the
provisions directing states to conserve their living ocean resources for
maximum sustainable use could be applied to encourage regulatory schemes
that prohibit fishing in areas where entanglement of marine birds
and mammals is a significant threat. Further, such fisheries regulations
might prescribe types of gear and netting that minimize entanglement. In
establishing rules and standards for preventing pollution, pursuant to
Articles 211 and 213, coastal states could become signatory to and enforce
the London Dumping Convention, by strengthening provisions relating to
entanglement and disposal of plastic debris.

Since the Law of the Sea is not in force, the preceding discussion is
theoretical only, in terms of how its provisions might be used to address
the entanglement problem. one commentator has noted, however, that the
provisions of the Law of the Sea enjoy wide support as customary practices
even though not ratified, and "while not offering any new basis for
resolution of the entanglement problem, may be useful by giving added force
and legitimacy" to other efforts. (Bean, 39).

Relationship to Other Laws

0 Codification of existing maritime law.

0 Encourages contracting parties to enter into local and regional
agreements.

0 Does not prevent parties from negotiating agreements with
stricter applicationsto pollution prevention measures.

Limitations/Further Considerations

The Convention on the Law of the Sea was opened for signature on
December* 10, 1982, and will enter in force 12 months after 60 of the
signatory states have ratified. To date 26 of the 159 signatory nations
have ratified. The U.S. is not signatory.

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and
Aircraft, Oslo, 1972. (Oslo Convention)

Purpose.

Prevent the pollution of the sea by substances that are liable to
create hazards to huma.'n health, to harm living resources and marine
life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses
of the sea. Article I.

Authority

� Individual contracting parties responsible for passing applicable
measures; treaty not self-actuating.

� Individual nations responsible for promulgating regulations, issuing
permits, enforcing provisions.

� Provisions:

(1) Prohibits disposal at sea of materials listed in Annex I
(Article 5).

(2) No wastes listed in Annex I shall be dumped without a permit
(Article 6).

(3) Annex III provides criteria for determining whether and where
a permit shall be issued.

� Prohibited materials listed in Annex I include "persistent plastics
and other persistent materials which may float or remain in
suspension in the sea, and which may seriously interfere with
fishing orInavigation, reduce amenities, or interfere with other
legitimate uses of the sea." (Annex 1, 6).

Each nation's jurisdiction extends to:

(1) ships and aircraft registered in its territory;

(2) ships and aircraft loading in its territory the materials
to be dumped;

(3) ships and aircraft believed to be engaged in dumping within
its territorial sea (Article 15).

0 The area governed by the convention is the North Atlantic,
specifically:

(1) high seas and territorial'seas situated within those parts of
the Atlantic and Artic oceans north of 36 north latitude, and
between 42 west longitude and 51 east longitude,

(2) but excluding the Baltic and mediterranean Seas (Article 2(a)).

0 Contracting parties are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal
Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Application to Entangleirent

Relationship to Other Laws

Limitations/Further Considerations

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living ResourCeS,
Canberra, 1980. (Antarctic Convention)

Purpose

General conservation and protection of the marine environment and
resources of the Antarctic, through scientific and technical
cooperations.

Authority

0 Creates a Commission made up of members from each of the contracting
parties.

0 Commission shall (inter alia):

(1) encourage research,

(2) compile data,

(3) publish information,

(4) identify conservation needs and measures to address them,

(5) formulate, adopt and revise conservation measures, including
measures regulating harvest of Antarctic species.

0 Contracting parties bound by Commission conservation measures.

NOTE: The Oslo Convention is a regional agreement similar to the
London Dumping Convention, and the same applications and
limitations apply. Other regional agreements which follow
pattern are noted below, Section G.

Jurisdiction: The area south of 60 Deg. South latitude to the
Antarctic Convergence (a line joining the ollowing latitude/
longitude points: 50 Deg. S, 0 Deg.; 50 Deg. S, 30 Deg. E; 45 Deg. S,
30 Deg. E; 45 Deg. S, 80 Deg. E; 55 Deg. S, 80 Deg. E; 55 Deg. S,
50 Deg. E; 60 Deg. S, 150 Deg. E; 60 Deg. S, 50'Deg. W; 50 Deg. S,
50 Deg. W; 50 Deg. S, 0 Deg.).

Application to Entanglement

The issue of pollution or dumping is not addressed p@@r se in the
Convention, even though the agreement is aimed at general conservation and
protection of the Antarctic marine environment. However, since the Conven-
tion addresses harvest of marine species in the Antarctic, some of the
conservation measures described in the provisions could apply. For example,
among these provisions is one for regulation of the types of fishing gear
not likely to entangle, or, conversely, prohibit types of gear which are
known to cause entanglements. The Commission also is authorized to take
"...such other conservation measures as ... necessary... . including'measures
concerning the effects of harvesting and asscoiated activities on compo-
nents of the marine ecosystem other than the harvested populations"
(Article IX 2 (i). Under this language it is possible that the Commission
could prohibit dumping or take other measures if it were found that
harvesting activity in the area generated enough discarded gear or garbage
to entangle or affect non-target species.

Relationship to Other Laws

0 Relates to Antarctic TTeaty with regard to territorial claims.,

0 Does not derogate from rights and obligations or parties under
I other agreements affecting the Antarctic.

Limitations/Further Considerations

The Convention does not address the issue of pollution directly, so
it could be argued that its application to control of marine debris is
limited. However, its main goal is the conservation of the living marine
resources of the area, so to the extent that any of those species are
endangered by entanglement, or to the extent that the health of the
ecosystem is threatened by pollution, marine debris might be an issue to
which the Commission could address itself. In transmitting the Convention
to the President with recommendations for ratification, the U.S State
Department pointed out that the intent of the parties was to give the
Commission broad discretion in taking conservation measures. "The listing
makes clear that the Commission may draw on the full range of such measures
in pursuing the objective of the Convention." (Letter of Submittal,
October 29, 1980.

Other International Agreements Noted, but not Examined

U.N. Regional Seas Program (See Caribbean Convention, above, as model)

0 Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against
Pollution, Barcelona, 1976.

0 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean
Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, Barcelona, 1976.

0 Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against
Pollution from Land-based Sources, Athens, 1980.

0 Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Pollution, Kuwait, 1978.

0 Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of
the marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central
African Region, Abidjan, 1981.

0 Protocol for the Protection of the Southeast Pacific Against
Pollution from Land-based Sources, Quito, 1983.

.0 Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf
of Aden Environment, Jiddah, 1982.

9 Protocol Concerning Regional Cooperation in Combating Pollution
by oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency, Jiddah,
1982.

Other Regional Agreements (See Oslo Oonvention, above, as model)

0 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki, 1974.

0 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North.
Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances, Bonn, 1983.

Foreign stic Legislation

0 An Italian law prohibiting the use of non-biodegradable plastic
grocery bags was passed recently. However, its major thrust was
to block competition by plastic bags over paper packaging and
paper bag manufacturers were the major sponsors and advocates for
the legislation. while the law will have an inadvertant benefit
in addressing marine pollution, the environment was not its
primary purpose.

0 Discussions with experts in the course of research indicate there
may be Korean legislation providing a bounty for return of
discarded fishing nets. However, no authority was found.

0 Discussions in the course.of research*indicated there is Japanese
domestic legislation relating to discard of nets. Attempts to
secure copies of this legislation have been successful.

U.S. Federal Authorities

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,, 33 U.S.C. 407 (The itefuse Act).

Purp2se

To keep navigable waters free of obstructions.

Authority

0 Coast Guard and Department of Justice administer.

0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has permitting authority.

0 Any federal agency may bring action for violation.

0 Citizens may not bring action against federal officials to
enforce.

0 Provisions

(1) Prohibits discharge into navigable waters or their tribu-
taries "any refuse matter of any kind or description'what-
ever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and
passing therefrom in a liquid state."

(2) Prohibits deposits of "material of any kind" anywhere it is
likely to be washed into navigable waters. This would include
active or abandoned dump sites on land.

0 Phrase "navigable waters" has been construed broadly. (61A Amiur
2d 726, Sec. 215).

0 Jurisdiction includes all internal navigable waters and extends
to three miles.

Application to Entanglement

The Refuse Act contains no provisions specific to marine entangleflent
or disposal of plastics. However, its general provisions have been con-
strued very broadly by the courts. The term "refuse" has been held to
include oil, gasoline, industrial wastes and solids, animal waste, brush,
timber pilings, logs, and earth removed in strip mining. (Ibid.) In
fact, the only exemption to the kinds of nmaterial" or "refuse" is the
specific exception to matter "flowing from streets and sewers." Under
these interpretations, it is likely that plastic debris would be covered.
Further, the courts have held that the act is a criminal,-strict liability
statute, and as such requires no intent for a violation. (Ibid.).
Therefore, it could be argued that disposal of plastic debris such as
beverage container connectors (six-pack rings), plastic pellets, buoys,
and other types of debris set out above would be prohibited by the Refuse
Act, even if such disposal were not deliberate. The only exclusion would
be if such debris were carried into waters from a sewer.

Relationship to Other Laws

The Refuse Act was used in the 1970's aga inst violaters-who could not
be reached by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) before its
amendments in the late 19701s. The permit program that had existed under
the Act was subsumed under the FWPCA permit program after the 1972
Amendments. However, two federal district court cases have held that the
Act is not superseded by FWPCA, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
the absence of a permit system under the Refuse Act did not bar prosecu-
tion of a company for a violation. ("The Refuse Act of 1899," Environ-
mental Reporter, Vol. 5, No.-20, Sept. 13, 1974).

Limitations/Further Considerations

The principal limitation to applying the Refuse'Act to disposal of
plastics that lead to entanglement is that its jurisdiction extends. only
to the three-mile limit. Therefore, it would have applicability to
marine disposals within the three-mile limit, or to a land-based source
of debris. A further consideration is in the likelihood and effectiveness
@of enforcement. It is conceivable that the Act could be used against, for
example, an industrial source of large quantities of plastic pellets or, a
landfill operated in such a way that refuse could be washed into rivers.
It is inconceivable, however, that the Coast Guard, or any other federal
agency, would be willing or able to invoke the.Act against individual
litterers who toss six-pack rings onto river banks where they ultimately
are washed into navigable waters.

Deepwater Port Act, 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq-

Purpose

In addition to its main purpose of regulating the siting and
construction of ports, protection of the coastal and marine environ-
ment in the course of such construction is a stated purpose of the
Act. (33 U.S.C. 1501).

AuthaLx

� Department of Transportation administers.

� Governors of coastal-states approve licenses.

� Provisions:

(1) Secretary shall determine ' in issuing licences, that
deepwater ports will be constructed and operated to minimize
adverse impacts on the marine environment (33 U.S.C.
1503 (b) (5)).

(2) Secretary shall prescribe by regulation and enforce
procedures including but not limited to rulse "...(A) to
prevent pollution of the marine environment, (B) to clean up
any pollutants which may be dischargedl and (C) to otherwise
prevent or minimize any adverse impact from the construction
and operation of such port." 33 U.S.C.-1509 (a).

0 Jurisdiction includes:

(1) coastal environment;

(2) marine environment.

Application to Entanglement

0 Would apply if:

(1) environmental criteria considered in licensing construction
included threat to marine species;

(2) in course of construction, associated debris led to
entanglement problems.

Relationship to Other Laws

� For purposes of the FWPCA, a deepwater port is a "new source."

� Applicable principles of international law apply with regard to
safety and environmental protection under the Act.

Limitations/Further Considerations

0 Act limited only to activities surrounding the siting,
construction, and operation of deepwater port facilities.
Cnly one is in operation at present.

outer CmUnental Shelf Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.

The discharge and pollution prohibitions of the Act deal only with
oil, and as such are not relevant to this discussion. Therefore, the Act
is noted only, not examined.

Intervention on the High Seas Act, 33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.

Purpose

Environmental protection in the event of an accident on the high seas
through intervention to contain or remove pollutant.

Authority

0 Secretary of Transportation authorized to act, authority delegated
to Coast Guard.

0 May take action to remove pollution, salvage vessel, and/or cargo,
or, if necessary, destroy ship and/or cargo.

Provisions:

(1) Must be "...grave and imminent danger to the coastline or
related interests of the U.S. from ... pollution of the
sea ... by a substance other than conventional oil which may
reasonably be expected to result in major harmful con-
sequences." (16A Am jur 2d 718, Section 209.)

(2) In determining whether grave and imminent danger and major
harmful consequences will result, Secretary shall consider
human health; fish, shellfish, and other living marine
resources; wildlife; coastal zone and estuarine activities;
public and private shorelines and beaches.

9 Jurisdiction: High seas.

A22lication to Entanglement

Even though this act applies to substances other than oil, it is not
intended to deal with substances that are not hazardous, therefore plastic
debris would not be covered. See discussion of Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Act (CERCI.A) below for a discussion of "imminent
danger."

Relationship to Other Laws

0 CERCLA and FWPCA funds available to pay for clean-up.

Implements International, Convention Relating to Intervention on
the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution, and the 1973 Protocol
Relating to Intervention on the High.Seas in Cases of Marine
Pollution by Substances other than oil.

Limitations/Further Considerations

The scope of the Act is limited to response and clean-,up of
substances which, in the definition of hazardous set out in relevant
regulations, would not include plastic debris.

Act to Prevent Pollution ftan Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq

Pur2L)se

To prohibit and prevent discharges of oil or other hazardous
substances into the navigable waters of the U.S.; to implement the
MARPOL Protocol.

Authority

0 Coast Guard to enforce provisions.

0 EPA to develop mechanisms and procedures to insure high standard
of care in handling of hazardous substances in U.S. waters.

� Provisions:

(1) Violation to dump in U.S. waters (33 U.S.C. 1902).

(2) Violation for ship of U.S. registry or operated under
authority of U.S. to dump anywhere (33 U.S.C. 1902(l)).

(3) Optional Annexes of the MARPOL Protocol are not implemented.
(33 U.S.C. 1909).

� Jurisdiction extends to any vessels operating in the navigable
waters of the U.S., including the territorial seas, and to U.S.
ships operating anywhere. Naval and warships are excluded.
(33 U.S.C. 1902(b)).

Application to Entanglement

Since the U.S. has not ratified the optional Annex V of the MARPOL
Protocol which specifically relates to plastics, the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships is not applicable to entanglement. The definition of
substances covered by the Act, as set out in regulation, does not include
plastics. The courts have held that unless a substance is specifically
included in the list, the provisions do not apply. U.S. v. Ohio Barge
Lines, 410 F. Supp. 625, af f'd 531 F. 2d 574 (1975). Therefore, this Act
is 71mited to enforcement against dumping of the named substances.

Mean Pollution Manning Act, 33 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

PurE2se

Establish program to plan ocean pollution research and monitoring;
coordinate and disseminate information on federal programs; develop an
information base to support conservation and development of ocean
resources (33 U.S.C. 1701(b)).

Authority

� Prepare 5-year plans to address ocean pollution issues, identify
priorities, and recommend projects and programs.

� Establish an ocean pollution research and development and
monitoring program.

� NOAA is lead agency.

Provide grants and financial assistance to educational and reseach
grantees and contractors.

0 Plan may include policy recommendations that propose legislative
changes, interagency cooperation, changes in funding of existing
efforts at ocean pollution monitoring.

0 Jurisdiction: The "marine environment" to be addressed in the
plan is defined as the water, seabed and subsoil of the terri-
torial sea, waters of the high seas, and sea bed, and subsoil of.
and beyond the outer continental shelf (33 U.S.C. 1702(4)).

Application to Entanglement

Since the Act authorizes only a planning and policy effort rather than
regulatory measures, there -are no provisions that would apply to
prohibit.ing, preventing or mitigating entanglement as such. However, in
developing its most recent 5-year plan, completed in September 1985, the
National Marine Pollution Program Office included the issue of entanglement
and the problem of ingestion of marine debris by ocean organisms. While
these issues were raised, they did not receive very high ranking in the
list of national problems and priorities. Entanglement was ranked as
number 46 of 50 issues, and ingestion of marine debris as number 48 of 50.
The two issues were included in the Plan's discussion of Marine
Transportation as a source of ocean pollution, as one of five broad areas,
categorized as "Low Priority National Problems." In its recommendations
for addressing the entang lemen t/ ingestion problem, the Plan states that
"Ihlighest priority in the program should be given to efforts'for precisely
estimating the magnitude of debris-related mortality on animal population
levels, obtaining accurate estimates of the amounts and longevity of
released materials in marine waters, and implementing actions to eliminate
or reduce the introduction of marine debris into U.S. waters." (Federal
Plan, NCAA, 1985, p.206). A specific recommendation in the plan identifies
marine debris from vessels as an "emerging issue," and states that "NOAA,
in cooperation with the Marine Mammal Commission, should conduct a research
program to evaluate the potential threats to marine biota from release of
net fragments and other types of marine debris..." (Ibid., p.315).

Relationship to Other Laws

The ocean Pollution Planning Act is limited in its scope to planning,
.cooperation, coordination, and policy recommendations. However, as a
reflection of national ocean pollution policy, it provides a vehicle for
focusing research and monitoring resources on the entanglement problem.
Although this focus has not emerged strongly in the most recent plan, the
plan has recognized the issue as one of increasing concern. It remains to
be seen how its recommendations for further research into the issue will be
implemented.

Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq
(MPRSA, -ocean Dumping AW)

Purpose

Regulate dumping of all types of materials and prevent or strictly
limit ocean dumping of materials "...which adversely affect human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or
economic potentialities." (33 U.S.C. 1401(b)).

Authority

0 EPA has permitting and enforcement authority.

0 Army Corps of Engineers also has permitting authority over dumping
of dredged materials, but the Corps' role is not relevant to this
discussion of plastics.

0 Coast Guard has surveillance authority for compliance with
regulations regarding transportation and marine safety and that
dumping is done at the time and place specified in EPA permits.

0 Provisions:

(1) Prohibits dumping within territorial sea without a permit
(33 U.S.C. 1411(b));

(2) Prohibits all transportation of materials from U.S. for
purpose of dumping, unless authorized by permit. (Ibid.)

(3) In issuing permits, EPA to consider factors such as need for
dumping, alternatives to ocean dumping, effects of dumping
on human health and welfare and uses of the oceans, and
effects of dumping on marine environment and ecosystems.
(33 U.S.C. 1412(a)).

(4) Regulations prohibit dumping of floatable materials in
compliance with Annex I of the London Dumping Convention.
(4 0 C. F. R. 227.5 (d)).

(5) Enforcement provisions include civil and criminal penalties
as well as permit suspension or revocation.

(6) Citizen suits may be brought (a) after 60-day notice to EPA
of violation, (b) if federal officials have not begun civil,
criminal or permit proceedings.

9 Jurisdiction

(1) For purposes of the Act, ocean waters are defined as waters
of the open seas lying seaward of the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured (33 U.S.C. 1402(b)).

(2) Includes territorial sea, contiguous zone, and oceans, as
defined in CWA (see below for analysis of relationship of
two laws.

(3) Although at time of passage of the Act, the "contiguous zone"
was 12 miles, after later passage of the 200-mile "exclusive
economic zone," it seems consistent-to extend the jurisdiction
of this Act. Amendments to that effect were introduced in
1985 and 1986, but the Congress failed to act upon them.
(See also, Bean, 32-35).

(4) Transportation used as basis of jurisdiction to avoid
international conflicts, because the U.S. has the power to
regulate transportation from and into its border, but not
activity on the high seas, except activity by U.S. citizens.
(5 Ecol LQ 753, at 761 (1976)).

A2 lication to Entanglement

Before the passage of the Ocean Dumping Act, the U.S. had no effective
means of regulating Ocean dumping. "There were virtually no regulatory
controls over the dumping of wastes beyond the three-mile territorial sea.
Several federal agencies were empowered to regulate limited facts of
dumping activities within the territorial sea, but no agency attempted
comprehensive regulation." (Ibid., 758). In 1970, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), in its Fourth Annual Report, pointed out that
while ocean dumping was not a major contributor to marine pollution, the
concentration of such dumping at.coastal sites could lead to potential
harm. Further, the report stated, increasing controls on land-based waste
disposal could force more dumping into the oceans. (61A Am Jur 2d 744). In
1971, the U.S. was party to negotiations that led up to the London Dumping
Convention; in 1973, the Ocean Dumping Act became effective, and in 1975,
the Convention entered into force.

One problem with the ocean Dumping Act is that it expressly regulates
transportation for purposes of dumping, not simply dumping. This could
make its application to a fishing boat which discards gear very difficult,
since it "...fails to provide for instances where materials originally
shipped for some other purpose subsequently may be dumped on the. high
seas." (5 Ecol LQ 761). However, one commentator suggests that the Act be
interpreted to cover this omission, because the -legislative history
indicates Congress wanted to control all purposeful dumping, and regulation
of transportation was the only means to get at the issue. (Ibid.) However,
even if the Act were interpreted in light of this legislative history, the
hurdle of "purposeful" dumping still would have to be cleared if the Act
were to be applied to nets discarded in the course of fishing activity.
Since the Act implements the London Dumping Convention, it could be argued,
given the limitations of that Convention pointed out above, that the
parallel prohibitions against purposeful dumping would limit its
effectiveness against discarded nets. on the other hand, the Act broadly
delegates the permitting function to EPA, and in promulgating regulations
as to how permits will be granted, the agency has provided that it will
never issue permits for dumping "...persistent inert synthetic or natural
materials which may float or remain in suspension ...... (40 C.F.R.
.227.5(d)). It is therefore within the agency's discretion to consider
fishing nets and other floating plastic debris as falling within the
absolute prohibition of the Act and the regulations.

Relationship to Other Laws

� Implements London Dumping Convention

� Exceptions to dumping of any matter in any manner are limited to
activities covered by other environmental statutes.

0 Act is consistent with Clean Water Act, using same definitions
and criteria for evaluating permit applications.

Limitations/Further Considerations

If the Act were unavailable to reach discarded fishing gear because of
the "purposeful dumping" limitation, another possible consideration might
be within the definition of "material," which the Act defines to include
"wrecked or discarded equipment" as well as garbage.and other material. If
a discarded net were considered "wrecked equipment," it might fall within
the prohibitions.

Another possible application would be to the industrial disposal of
plastic pellets which find their way to the oceans and are ingested by
marine biota. Again referring to the definitions in'the Act, industrial
waste includes "any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated by a
manufacturing or processing plant." Pellets discarded in such a manner
could be covered if such disposal "may unreasonably degrade or
endanger-the marine environment." The determination of "unreasonably
degrade or endanger" is within the discretion of the Administrator of EPA.

One last consideration can be found under a provision in the Act
enabling the EPA to limit dumping to designated sites, to designate the
sites, and to "designate regions in which the disposal of certain materials
will be prohibited in order to protect 'critical areas'." Q 3 U.S.C.
1412(c)). The term "critical areas" is not defined in the Act, and no such
areas have been designated. However, areas where particularly sensitive
populations of marine birds or mammals were subjected to threat of
entanglement might be so designated.

Clean Water Act. 33 U.SX. 1251, 1262, 1311 et (CWA, also called
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) gL

Pur22se

Restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the national waters (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). The purpose of the
Act has been interpreted by the courts to establish a means for EPA to
develop and implement programs to control pollution (.U.S. v. Holland 373
F. Supp. 665 (1974)), and also to enable the agency to create interrelated
regulatory programs to preserve national water quality. (Sierra Club v.
Lynn, 364 F. Supp. 834 (1973)).

Authority

EPA is lead agency.

� States retain primary responsibility for implementation, but must
use federal standards at minimum.

� Provisions:

(1) Sets water quality standards.

(2) Sets limitations on effluents from point sources.

(3) Regulates discharges from point sources through National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program.

(4) Any discharge of any pollutant by any person is prohibited
unless the discharge is under a NPDES permit.

(5) Prohibits discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts.

(6) Prohibits discharge of oil or hazardous substances in
harmful amounts, except where permitted under MARPOL
Protocol.

(7) EPA designates hazardous substances other than oil, which,
when discharged, present an imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited
to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. (33
U.S.C. 1321(b)(2)(A); 4o C.F.R. 116).

(8) Sets up program to assist communities in financing
construction of publicly owned waste treatment plants.

� Prohibitions have been construed by the courts in an enormous
body of case law from many jurisdictions. While a detailed exam-
ination of this entire body of case law is not within the scope
of this analysis, it can be said that the decisions have hinged
on the particular state implementing legislation, and the par-
.ticular language each state has used. Most of the case law has
served to extend the scope of federal authority over waters
inland, and to broaden the types of waters covered.

� For purposes of the instant discussion, the key issue is whether
the substance (plastics) is among those prohibited. A sampling
of ca!@es on this issue is discussed in the section on Applica-
tion to Entanglement, below.

A22lication to Entanglement

The principal application of the Clean Water Act to the issue of
entanglement or ingestion of plastic debris would be to land-based sources
of debris, since its jurisdiction extends to the territorial sea, but
covers rivers, harbors, lakes, and adjacent wetlands. The Clean Water Act
is not limited, like the Ocean Dumping Act, by the need for "purposeful"
dumping. There are, however, three key questions which must be answered
before the Act could be applied to the problem: Is plastic a "pollutant"
under the Act? Is plastic a "toxic pollutant" under the Act? If plastic
is neither, could it be designated by the Administrator as a covered
substance?

The Act defines pollution as "man made or man-induced alteration of
the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water"
(33 U.S.C. 1362(19)). "Pollutant" is defined as "dredged spoil, solid
waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive material, heat, wrecked

or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water." (33 U.S.C. 1362(6)). The
Act defines "toxic pollutant" as "those pollutants or combination of
pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after discharge and
.upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism,
either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through
food chains, will, on the basis of information available to the
Administrator cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer,
genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions ... or physical deformations,
in such organisms or their offspring." (33 U.S.C. 1362(13).

Under the definition of pollutant, plastic debris such as pellets,
beverage container connectors, packaging materials and other such litter,
could be interpreted to fall within the definition as a type of industrial
waste, for the former, and as types of garbage or municipal waste, for the
latter. As discussed above, the courts have taken many different routes
to interpret statutory language of water pollution. However, even in those
jurisdictions which have applied the maxim expression unias est exclusio
alterius to exclude non-named substances from coverage in a list of named
substances, plastic debris would certainly be construed to be part of a
list that included "garbage." The next hurdle is to determine whether
these substances are covered within the meaning of "discharge" as a
prohibited action under the law.

The Clean Water Act defines "discharge of a pollutant" as (1) any
addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, and (2)
any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the
ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft (33
U.S.C. 1362(12)). Discharges from point sources are allowed only under a
NPDES permit, but those permits are used primarily to deal with effluent$.
Therefore, the only effective use of CWA in dealing with the problem of
plastic debris might be as a tool against point source discharge of
plastic pellets used in the manufacture of plastic items, and which are
flushed into waterways as part of the industrial waste disposal process, or
against those municipal waste treatment plants which fail to filter out
plastic tampon applicators which eventually find their way into rivers and
the ocean.

The next question is whether discarded plastic nets and debris could
be covered as hazardous substances under Section 311 of the Act, or as
toxic pollutants.' A list of about 5 dozen toxic pollutants has been
incorporated into regulation after a court decision ordered the ZPA to
designate such substances. Inert plastic is not one of the toxics. Nor is
it included as one of 300 hazardous substances set out at 40 C.F.R. 116.4.
However, the standard for determining toxicity might apply. Certainly
entanglement causes "death, disease, behavioral abnormalities,...or physical
deformations," part of the criteria set out in the Act. "While it is
conceivable that a creative interpretation of the hazardous substances
definition could be used to include netting and debris, the toxicity of the
chemicals currently designated as being hazardous evidences a narrower
interpretation of this phrase by the EPA." (Gosliner, p. 18). It is within
the discretion of the Administrator to make a determination if he so chose.

Relationship to Other Laws

0 Not to be construed as affecting or impairing any treaty, or
limiting authority under any other laws consistent with its
provisions.

0 Provides basic definitions for all other water pollution
statutes.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.SX- 6901 et seq.
(RCRA)

Pur22se

Promote the protection of health and the environment by regulating
the disposal of solid waste.

Authority

0 EPA islead agency.

0 Management of solid waste is delegated to the states after EPA
approval of plan.

0 EPA promulgates regulations establishing criteria for solid waste
management.

0 EPA provides technical assistance to states.

0 EPA regulates disposal of hazardous wastes.

0 Provisions:

(1) Solid waste is "any garbage, refuse ... and other discarded
material ... resulting from industrial, commercial, mining,
and agricultural operations, and from community activi-
ties...." (42 U.S.C. 6903).

(2) Any solid waste management practice or disposal of solid
waste or hazardous waste which constitutes open dumping
of solid waste or hazardous waste is prohibited. (42
U.S.C. 6945(a)).

(3) Materials covered in other pollution laws are excepted.

(4) Criteria to determine whether a solid waste is hazardous
are its toxicity, persistence, degradability in nature,
potential for accumulation in tissues, flammability,
corrosiveness, and other hazardous characteristics.
(42 U.S.C. 6921(a), 40 C.F.R. 261.10, 261.11).

(5) If a substance is determined hazardous, the Act provides
a permit program for those who treat, transport, store,
generate, or dispose hazardous wastes.

@p2lication to Entan5lement

Because netting is a solid waste generated in the course of commercial
fishing activity, it probably is a waste covered by the Act. However,
.unless netting is considered "hazardous," the prohibitions of the Act would
not apply. The standard for determining what constitutes hazardous waste
set out at 42 U.S.C. 6903(5), is a waste which, "because of its quantity,
concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may
cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or
which may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment...." Under this standard, the Agency has designated a list
of hazardous wastes appearing at 40 C.F.R. 261.30 et At@L. Inert plastic is
not among the listed items. Further, plastic netl@ln-g exhibits none of the
characteristics listed in the regulations for designating hazardous wastes.
However, one analyst has suggested that netting might be designated as
hazardous because of its persistence or slow rate of degradation.
(Gosliner, p. 20). "Changes in the EPA regulations may be appropriate to
accommodate the listing of net fragments and other synthetic
materials .... While no materials have been designated by EPA ... based upon
their persistence or slow rate of degradation, these are considerations
expressly enumerated in the Act." (Ibid.)

Relationship to Other Laws

� Distinguish "hazardous waste" under FCRA from "hazardous
material" regulated by the Department of Transportation.

� Distinguish "hazardous waste" under RCRA from "hazardous
substance" regulated by CWA.

LimitationL/Further Considerations

Even if discarded netting were designated as a hazardous waste under
RCRA, the requirements of the Act upon those who handle such materials may
be burdensome and inappropriate for the fishing industry because the
standards for generators of hazardous waste (40 C.F.R. 262) are totally
inapplicable in the context of the fishing industry. Further, enforcement
would require the identification of the source of the material, and
discards in the open ocean would be difficult to pinpoint.

Tbxic Substances Control Act, is U.S.C. 2601 et seg. (TSCA)

Pur29se

To regulate those chemical substances and mixtures "whose manu-
facture, processing, distribution in comerce, use, or disposal
may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment." (15 U.S.C. 2601(a)(2)).

Authority

0 EPA Administrator may make determination of potential harm
of chemical, then require testing.

0 If testing indicates a chemical poses an unreasonable risk,
then Administrator may:
(1) prohibit or limit manufacture, processing or distribution;

(2) prohibit or limit amounts for particular-use;

(3) require warnings;

(4) require records;

(5) prohibit or regulate disposal;

(6) prohibit or regulate commercial use;

(7) require notice of risk;

(8) require replacement or repurchase._

� Requires coordination with other federal agencies and within
agency to use laws other than TsCA to prevent or reduce risk
of injury.

� However, if the Administrator determines it is in the public
interest to use TSCA rather than other laws, he may do so.

Application to Ent!aNlement

In contrast to authorities examined above which regulate the disposal
of debris, TSCA authorizes direct regulation of chemical substances. The
Act enables. the EPA to focus on the constituent substances which are used
to manufacture the plastic items or articles which ultimately become marine
debris. Authority under TSCA may be used to prohibit or limit the
manufacture, processing or distribution in commerce of 6 substance for a
particular use.- 'TSCA also can be used to require labeling with
instructions for use, and to regulate certain disposals. This authority
could, for example, allow EPA to focus on the issue of biodegradability of
plastics by examining and affecting the manufacturing processes that
result in articles which ultimately are discarded in the oceans.

The operative standard for regulation under TSCA is "unreasonable
risk." The Act does not define the term, but legislative history suggests
that such a finding is a discretionary matter, involving balancing "the
probability that harm will occur and the magnitude and severity of that
harm against the effect of proposed regulation on the availability to
society of the benefits of the substance, taking into account the -
availability of substitutes ... and other adverse effecs which such proposed
action will have on society." (House Report, TSCA, 94th Congress, 1976).
Whether the discretion extends to a determination that an inert plastic
compound, or some component of that compound, poses and unreasonable risk
must be decided within the agency.

Once that determination were made, Section 6(c) of the Act then
requires that EPA consider four factors before a rulemaking, and publish a
statement as to its findings regarding: (1) the effects of the substance
on human health; (2) its effects on the environment; (3) the benefits the

substance provides and the availability of substitutes; (4) the economic
consequences of regulating the substance. (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1)).

In a memo exploring such a use of TSCA, the Regulatory Program Branch
of the Agency points out the first criteria is not at issue, and the second
is a matter for continued research "to ascertain the extent of the
problem." (Cohen memorandum, 1985). The memo further points out that
little is known regarding the advantages of nondegradable versus degradable
plastic products, and that such an examination could be an area for the
agency to focus its efforts. (Ibid.) The memo concludes that if Section
6(c) findings were made, a variety of options from prohibiting the
manufacture of nondegradable plastics to labeling such products or
regulating their disposal, could be available as regulatory measures.
(Ibid. pp. 12-13).

Relationship to Other Laws

Administrator may give other agencies with authority to act
the opportunity to do so in order to avoid duplication of
regulatory activity against a toxic substance.

0 Compared with other pollution laws, TSCA has a "lenient standard
of proof," which requires only a potential for harm, rather than
a demonstrable showing of harm. (30 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 1149(1977)
at 1186).

Limitations/Further Considerations

If the Agency decided that TSCA was applicable to the manufacture of
plastics to require manufacturers to make biodegradable those items that
ultimately become ocean debris, there are still some additional hurdles to
be crossed. Because the unreasonable risk analysis requires consideration,
among other things, of the costs of regulation and the availability of
substitutes, the Administrator must consider whether the costs, for
example, of prohibiting or limiting the manufacture of substances *used in
fishing nets which cause them to be non-biodegradable might outweigh the
benefits of regulation. Also, if CWA, RCRA, or some other authority might
be used to control the same risks, the Administrator would have to address,
why, in the public interest, action should be taken under TSCA. Similarly,
the Administrator must address whether the risks can be prevented or
reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under federal laws not
administered by the EPA.

Comprehensive Environmental neesponse, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42
U.S.C. 9601 et s (CERCLA, "Super fund*)

Pur22se

To provide a mechanism to act in the face of substantial environmental
damage, and to address the costs of environmental clean-up associated
with such action.

Authority

0 President has authority to act to clean up when a situation poses
"imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare."

� EPA generally lead agency in natiorA response team.

� Federal action usually deferred if owner/operator of vessel or
facility will clean up, although EPA may clean up regardless of
owneres plans.

� Creates a fund from industry specific taxes, punitive damages
collected, transfers from CWA fundi and appropriations.

� May impose liability on owners, operators, transporters, storage
facilities.

� Hazardous substances which may be responded to include substances
designated under:

(1) CWA

(2) TSCA

(3) RCRA

(4) Clean Air Act

(5) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and RDdenticide Act

(6) Section 9602 of CERCLA, which authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to promulgate and revise regulations to designate
additional.hazardous substances.

0 Jurisdiction extends to navigable waters, territorial sea, con-
tiguous zone, and ocean waters within the Exclusive Economic
Zone.

*Note: Superfund was amended in the closing days of the 99th
Congress, October, 1986. This report does not analyze any changes the
amendments have made to the Act, nor their effects on the instant
discussion.

Application to Entanglement

Before CERCLA could be used to address the problem of entanglement in
and ingestion of plastic debris, a two-pronged test would have to be met.
First, the debris would have to be found hazardous under one of the
statutes discussed above. Second, the existence of the debris in the
marine environment would have to pose an imminent and substantial danger.
The determination that plastics are hazardous cannot be found per se in
any of the statutes discussed, however, as pointed out, this determination
is within the discretion of the Administrator. Assuming, arquendo, that
such a finding were made, could it also be determined that plastic debris
poses an imminent and substantial danger? The Act uses the phrase "there
may be an imminent and substantial endangerment." Guidelines issued by the
Agency state that "evidence need not demonstrate that an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health or the environment definitely
exists. Instead, an Order may be issued if there is sound reason to
believe that such an endangerment may exist." (EPA Guidance Memorandum).
Further, the Guidelines point out that while the risk of harm must be
imminent before the Agency may act, the harm need not be. (Ibid.) The
circumstances to be examined in determining whether the presence of a
substance poses an imminent risk of harm include the nture and amount of
the substance, the potential for exposure, and the known or suspected
effect of the substance on the environment. (Ibid.) Under these criteria,
it would seem difficult to extend the authority of CERCLA to the clean-up
of net fragments or to other plastic debris, except under extraordinary
circumstances. "Congress intended to give the federal government tools for
prompt and effective response to problems of national magnitude resulting
from hazardous waste disposal," according to the courts (U.S. v. Reilly
Tar and Chemical Corp. 546 F. Supp. 1100 (1982)), and the entanglement
issue has not yet been determined to be a problem of national magnitude, as
evidenced by the most recent National Marine Pollution Plan discussed
above. Therefore, it seems unlikely the Act would apply.

Relationship to Other Laws

0 CERCLA applies to substances designated as hazardous by other
federal laws, see above.
Limitations/Further Considerations

While CEFCLA authority might be stretched to include clean-up of
plastic ocean debris, the priorities of the Agency are focused on more
pressing clean-up problems.

Marine Mammal Protecticn Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (MMPA).

Purpose

To ensure that species and population stocks of marine mammals do not
diminish beyond the point where they cease to be a significant
functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part.
(16 U.S.C. 1361).

100

Authority

0 Establishes a moratorium on taking of marine mammals.

0 Take is defined as harass, hunt, capture or kill.

0 Provides for permit programs for incidental take of non-depleted
species.

0 Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Interior authorized to
promulgate regulations and issue permits.

0 Provides for both civil and criminal penalties for violations.

0 Secretaries have enforcement authority.

0 Jurisdiction extends to 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone and to
U.S. citizens anywhere.

Creates the Marine Mammal Commission.

Application to Entan2lement

Although the prohibition against taking any marine mammal has never
been used to prosecute a person who discarded a net which later entangled
and killed an animal, the Marine Mammal Commission has said that under
certain circumstances, intentional or negligent discard of nets could
constitute a "take." On the prevention side, the Act has been used to
limit takings incidental to fishing activity. Regulations may restrict
fishing techniques which cause undue fatalities, and permits are issued
restricting incidental take. For example, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) requires that the tuna purse seine fleet use certain
procedures as a condition of the incidental take permit issued to that
industry. In most net fisheries, however, the Service has to work with
state fisheries management entities to regulate fishing in such a way to
reduce or eliminate the incidental taking. (Gordon, 1985).

Recent Congresional directives and appropriations created a program to
address the entanglement issue through research and education, see below,
and both NMFS and the Marine mammal Commsision are conducting studies on
ways to address the problem. See generally, Marine Mammal Commission
Annual Reports; see also, testimony of David Laist before House Merchant
Marine Committee, 1986.

Limitations/Further Considerations

The MMPA, like other wildlife conservation laws discussed below,
addresses entanglement after the fact, that is, no violation occurs until
an animal is actually taken. Therefore, application is limited from the
perspective of preventing entanglements by reducing ocean debris. Since
the disposal of gear does not violate these acts generally, and since many
entanglements occur in lost gear, the enforcement of wildlife law is
further limited. nWithout some mechanism for identifying the owners of
gear responsible for entanglement, enforcement of these provisions is
virtually impossible." (Gosliner, p. 21).

101

Proqrams

The National Marine Fisheries Service Entanglement Research Program
focuses on the the issue through more than a dozen education and data
collection projects, including working with fishermen in the Pacific
Northwest. Data collection projects focus on gathering information on
fisheries management, species-specific entanglement problems, and methods
of assessing marine debris. There are also efforts underway to address the
plastics problem at its source by working with the plastics industry to
develop degradable plastics and to find alternative disposal methods. A
complete list of projects is attached at Appendix 1.

The Marine Mammal Commission also has centered much attention on the
entanglement problem through sponsoring research, data collection, and
informational workshops. A complete discussion of Commission activities
can be found in its testimony before the House Merchant Marine Committee.
(Laist, 1986) .

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et sM. (ESA)

Purpose

Provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species
and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program
for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened spe-
cies. (16 U.S.C. 1531).

Authority

� Prohibits taking of any endangered or threatened species by any
person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

� Term "take" includes kill, trapt harass, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. (16 U.S.C. 1532).

� "Harm" is broadly defined in regulaton to include significant
habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or
injures by impairing (50 C.F.R. 17.3), and has been construed
by the courts to include indirect and unintended harm. (Palila
v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985
(1979), aff'd, 639 F. 2d 495(1981).

� Permits may be issued for indidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activity (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), or for
scientific research purposes (50 C.F.R. 17.22(b)(1)).

� Section 7 of the Act provides for consultation among federal
agencies about to engage in actions that may affect endangered
species.

� Section 10 sets out procedures for developing conservation
plans with mitigating measures in the course of activity that may
affect endangered species.

102

0 Jurisdiction extends as far as the territorial sea, and to U.S.
citizens anywhere.

AP-2lication to Entanglement
of the animals subject to entanglement, those that are endangered are
the Hawaiian monk seal, Guadalupe fur seal, some species of sea turtles,
and. most of the great whales. The prohibition against any taking would
apply to taking of the listed species in lost or discarded fishing gear.
Further, no permits could be issued for entanglements in discarded gear,
because the permits apply only to takings incident to lawful activity. ,If
disposal of nets at sea is considered to be a violation of one or more of
the aforementioned pollution control laws a permit could not be issued.,,
(Gosliner, p. 25).

Another potentially relevant section of the ESA is section
10(a)(1)(B), which authorizes the issuance of an incidental take permit
whan an applicant complies with certain requirements, including the filing
of a conservation plan intended to benefit the impacted species '. 16 U.S.C.
1539(a)(1)(B), (a)(2). It is, therefore, conceivable that a permit could
be issued under the ESA that would allow for the taking of certain species
incidental to a lawful activity, such as fishing, if an approved
conservation plan is in place. For additional discussion of tKis
authority, see, Bean, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law (1983).

Relationship to Other Laws

9 'If an endangered animal is a marine mammal, the more restrictive
prohibitions of MMPA apply (16 U.S.C. 1543), because ESA requires
that where another law is applicable, the more restrictive shall
apply.

Limitations/Further Considerations

One analyst has suggested that the incidental take permit under ESA
could provide an incentive to reduce entanglements, because it "legalizes
what would otherwise be an illegal act punishable by substantial criminal
and civil penalties." (Bean, 45). The argument points out that a permit
with negotiated conditions, such as agreements not to discard gear, or to
report sightings of lost gear, could be offered as an alternative to
prosecution. (Ibid.) The problem, however, is that the threat of
prosecution is flimsy, in that with ESA, as with any of the wildlife laws
or ocean dumping laws, enforcement is virtually impossible without actual
observation of a violation.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. (MMPA)

Purpose

To protect migratory birds.

103

Authority

� Prohibits taking of migratory birds listed in treaties between
United States and Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet
Union.

� Department of Interior has authority to issue regulations,
enforce provisions.

� Permits, through regulation, taking of migratory game birds,
and taking for various scientific and collection purposes.

� Prohibition against taking has been construed by,the courts to
require no intent for a violation.

� Jurisdiction extends only to the territorial sea, but may apply
to U.S. citizens on the high seas.

Application to Entanglement

Of the many species of seabirds susceptible to entanglement, most are
included on the lists of protected migratory birds (50 C.F.R. 10.13).
Eiders, scoters, mergansers, old squaws, harlequin ducks, all termed "sea
ducks," are considered migratory "game" birds, so there is permitted taking
pursuant to regulations governing, hunting (50 C.F.R. Part 20). The
remaining listed species are not considered "game" birds, so there can be
no permitted taking pursuant to hunting regulations.

The courts have construed the Act to prohibit any taking, whether
intentional or not. (U.S. v. Corbin Farm Services, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 510
(1978), af Vd 578 F. 2d 259). In interpreting the legislative history, the
courts have said "...it was not the intention of Congress to require any
guilty knowledge or intent to complete the offense of killing any
migratory bird. (U.S. v. Schultze, 28 F. Supp. 234 (1939). Further,
prosecution is justified under the MBTA where the person in danger of
taking migratory birds is reasonably in a position to foresee the danger
and prevent it. (Corbin, at 535). Since entanglement of marine birds in
discarded gear is preventable, -and since entanglements do kill listed
species, entanglement deaths would be prohibited and prosecutable under the
Act.

Relationship to Oth r Laws

MBTA is enabling legislation to implement the treaties.

Limitations/Further Considerations

In addition to the enforcement problems of either tracing lost gear to
a specific vessel or observing a vessel in the act of entangling sea birds
there is little impetus to prosecute event those offenses which have been
observed. While recognizing the Department of interior's responsibility to
enforce the Act, the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (FWS) has stated that it
and the U.S. Attorney General's office are "reluctant to criminally
prosecute such cases ... and it may be worth mentioning that prosecutions
have apparently had very limited success in other areas where incidental

104

take of seabirds has occurred...." (U.S. FWS, 1985).
Another limitation of the MBTA is its applicability beyond the three-
mile limit, where significant entanglements take place. A 1980 opinion
from the Department's Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife outlines a
four part test that must be met before a U.S. law can be applied extra-
territorially. Applying the language of the treatie's and the Congressional
intent behind the MBTA, the opinion concludes that the "primary function of
the Act is to implement the treaties within the United States." (solicitor
Memorandum, 1980).

On the other hand, a subsequent opinion concludes that the Act does
apply to foreign citizens while within U.S. territorial waters. (solicitor
memorandum, 1981). And one analyst has argued that the MBTA might be
applicable to takings by U.S. citizens upon the high seas, because '1[tjo
limit the statute's applicability to U.S. teritory would leave open a large
immunity for violations by U.S. citizens on the high seas." (Gosliner, 28).

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et sec. (Fo%)

Purpose

Conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the
United States and (inter alia) to promote sound conservation and
management principles.

Authority

0 National marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of
Commerce is principal management agency.

9 System of Regional Fisheries Management Councils promulgates
fishery management plans, and states promulgate regulations
consistent with those plans.

0 Establishes a fishery conservation zone (FCZ) which extends from
the baseline of the territorial sea seaward to 200 miles. (16
U.S.C. 1821).

9 Foreign fishermen may fish within the FCZ only after issuance of
a permit (16 U.S.C. 1821).

0 Regulations prom-algated pursuant to the above contain conditions
and restrictions on fishing permits, inter alia, a prohibi-
tion against intentionally placing abandoned fishing gear in the
FCZ which may Interfere with fishing gear or vessels; or
(2) Cause damage to any fishery resource or marine mammal."
(50 C.F.R. 611.16).

105

Application.to Entanglement

The plans promulgated by the Regional Cbuncils are to include
conservation and management measures which are appropriate to the fishery
being regulated. "It is not clear whether conservation and management
measures may be included in an FMP if their purpose is solely to provide
protection to marine mammals or birds. However, entanglements of wildlife
are only one aspect of the problem created by the disposal at sea of
fishing gear. There is little doubt that the dumping of gear and debris
may be regulated under the Magnuson Act if the prohibition is directed
toward alleviating the problems of ghost fishing or vessel entanglement."
(Ibid, p. 30).

State L29islation

Each of the states has enacted legislation on the state level to
implement federal pollution control laws such as the Clean Water Act and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The provisions of these laws
are substantially the same as the federal law, though may be more restric-
tive. This analysis does not examine each of the 50 states' pollution
control laws, however, a series of laws known as "bottle bills" is worth
examining in the entanglement context. The Oregon bill, which was the
first such legislation, is examined in detail, and other states with
similar bills are noted, and the statutes are included in Appendix 4.
Those states with exemplary programs, such as beach clean-up programs, are
set out in detail. Although not within the scope of this analysis, it is
worth noting that several coastal states have passed fisheries regulations
or laws aimed at reducing entanglements in active fisheries, as opposed to
entanglement in ocean debris.

An Act Relating to beverage containers; and providing penalties.
Chapter 745, Laws 1971, State of Oregon

Purpose

To reduce litter by banning: the sale of non-returnable beverage
containers; sale of beverage containers with detachable pull tabs;
sale of beverage containers connected with non-biodegradable plastic
rings.

Authority

Oregon Liquor Control Commission certifies acceptable containers.

Commission establishes redemption centers.

0 Establishes misdemeanor penalties for, violation.

0 Commission or State Department of Agriculture may revoke or
suspend license of any person who wilfully violates the Act.

106

Application to Entanglement

Although the primary purpose of the Oregon bill is to reduce litter,
it is litter such as plastic ring connecters that eventually makes its way
to the ocean as debris. Since there is evidence that both fish and birds
have become entangled in plastic ring connectors, the mandate tht these
connectors be bio-degradable within a certain time (120 days, in Oregon)
would be effective in reducing entanglements. however, it is unknown
whether the litter reduction effects of the Oregon bill also have reduced
entanglements.

Other States with Plastic Ring connector Bans

Alaska

Beginning Jan. 1, 1985, no sales of beverage containers that are held
together by plastic rings unless degradable., AS 46.06-090(b).

California

Beginning July 1, 1981, no sale of beverages with plastic rings tht
are not degradable. California Health and Safety Code 24384.5(a).

Connecticut

Holders used for beverage containers must be either photo, chemical,
or bio-degradable within a reasonable period of time upon exposure to
the elements. Effective Jan. 1, 1980.

Delaware

No beverage shall be sold or offered for sale in containers connected
to each other with plastic rings or similar devices which are not
classified as biodegradable or photo-degradable by the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Delaware Code, Chapter
60, Title 7, 6059(b).

Maine

No,beverage container shall be sold with containers connected to each
otyher by a separate holding device constructed of plastic rings or
other device or material which cannot be broken down by bacteria into
basic elements. MRSA 1868(2) (1978).

Massachusetts

No dealer shall sell containers connected to each other by a separate
holding device constructed of plastic rings or any other device or
material which cannot be broken down by bacteria and/or by light into
constituent parts. Chapter 94, Mass. General laws, Section 323 (1983).

107

New York

No distributor or dealer shall sell.beverage containers connected to
each other by a separate holding device constructed of plastic which
does not decompose by photodegradation or biodegradation.
Environmental Conservation Law, Article 27, Litter and Solid Waste
Control, Title 10, Section 27-1011(4) (1983).

Vermont

No beverage shall be sold in containers connected, to each other with
plastic rings or similar devices which are not classified as
biodegradable by the Secretary of the Agency of Environmental
Conservation. 10 V.S.A. 1525(2) (1975).

108

REFERENCES

Aiken WE. 1981. Pollution control. 61A AmJur 2d 395(1981).

American Law Reports. 1985. Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Co.,
32 ALR 3d 215 (1985).

Amos AF. 1985. Testimony of Anthony F. Amos presented to the President's
Commission on American outdoors. 12 December, 1985: 9.

Anonymous. 1974. The Refuse Act of 1899. Environment Reporter. Vol. 5,
monograph 20, 1974.

Anonymous. 1981a. Confused sea turtles sai d to be dying from diet of
plastic trash. The Baltimore Sun, Tuesday, December 28, 1982.

Anonymous. 1981b. Galapagos tainted by plastic pollution. Geo 3:137.

Anonymous. 1981c. Spinach tag may be newest salmon identification. Alaska
Fish Tails and Game Trails. September 1981: 11.

Anonymous. 1982. Coastal Zone Management: program at a crossroads.
Environment -Reporter. Vol. 13, Monograph 20, 1982.

Anonymous. 1983. Derelict nets found off Kodiak. Alaska Fisherman's
Journal. 6(6): 40.

Anonymous. 1985. Should CERCLA be used to cover cleanup of dumping sites
in oceans? Environment Reporter. Sept. 1985: 806.

Anonymous. 1985. Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan will involve more than $100
million a year of expenditures. Environment Reporter. Sept. 27,
1985: 946.

Anonymous. 1985. Abandoned nets snaring salmon off Point Roberts. The
Seattle Times. Wednesday August 21, 1985.

Balazs GH. 1985. Impacts of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement
and ingestion. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Ea-te and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Terh. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:387-429.

Beach RJ, Newby TC, Larsen RO, Penderson M, Juris J. 1976. Entanglement
of an Aleutian reindeer in a Japanese fish net. Murrelet 57(3):66.

Bean Mi. 1984. United States and international authorities applicable
to entanglement of marine mammals and other organisms in lost or discarded
fishing gear and other debris. A report to the Marine Mammal Commission,
October 30: 56pp.

Bourne WRP. 1977. Nylon netting as a hazard to birds. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
8(4):75-76.

109

Bourne WRP, Imber Mi. 1982. Plastic pellets collected by a prion on Gough
island, central South Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:20-21.

Burgbacher J. 1985. Marine User Panel Discussion. Petroleum Industry. In
Sixth Annual Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional
office, Information Transfer meeting. Session IV.E. Trash and Debris on
Gulf of Mexico waterfront Beaches. 23 October 1985, Metairie, Louisiana.
(unpublished manuscript).

Cahn B. 1984. Muck and sand. Los Angeles magazine, August 1984.

Calkins DG. 1985. Stellar Sea Lion entangleme nt in marine debris. In
Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the
Fate and Impact of marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii.
U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:308-314.

Carpenter EJ, Anderson SJ, Harvey GR, Milkas HP, Peck BB. 1972.
Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178(4062):749-750.
Carpenter Ei, Smith KL Jr.. 1972. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface.
Science 175:1240-1241.

Carr HA, Hulbert AW, Amaral EH. 1985. Underwater survey of simulated lost
demersal and lost commercial gill nets off New England. In Shomura RS,
Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-Tm-NMFS-SWFC-54:438-447.

Carr HA. 1986. Observations on the occurrence of impacts of ghost gill
nets on Jeffrey's Ledge. Paper presented at Sixth International Ocean
Disposal Symposium, 21-25 April 1986, Pacific Grove, California In Program
and abstracts: 98-99.

Cawthorn MW. 1985. Entanglement in and ingestion of plastic litter by
marine mammals, sharks, and turtles in New Zealand waters. In Shomura RS,
Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fa@e- and
Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:336-343.

Coleman FC, Wehle DHS. 1983. Caught by accident: The fishermen's unwanted
harvest. oceans 16: 65-69.

Coleman FC, Wehle DHS. 1984. Plastic pollution: A worldwide oceanic
problem. Parks �:9-12.

Colton JB, Knapp FD, Burns BR., 1974. Plastic particles in surfac e waters
of the North Atlantic. Science 185:491-497.

Convention for the protection and development of the marine environment of
the wider Caribbean region. Done at Cartagena, 1983. 22 I.L.M. 227(1983).

Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and
aircraft. Done at Oslo, Feb. 15, 1972. 11 I.L.M. 262(1972).

110

Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and
other matter. Done at London, Dec. 29, 1972. 26 U.S.T. 2406, TIAS.
8165(1972).

Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. Done
at Canberra, Sept. 20, 1980. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1980.

Dahlberg ML, Day RH. 1985. Observations of man-made objects on the
surface of the North Pacific Ocean. In Shomura RS, Yoshida Yo (editors),
Proceedings of the Workshop on the F@_te and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29
November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS
NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:198-212.

Day RH, Wehle DHS, Coleman FC. '1985. Ingestion of plastic pollutants by
marine birds. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of
the Workshop on-the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:344-386.

Dennis JV. 1985. The relationship of ocean currents to oil pollution off
the southeastern coast of New England. American Petroleum Institute.
Division of Transportation. Washington, D.C.

DeGange AR, Newby TC. 1980. Mortality of seabirds and fish in a lost
salmon driftnet. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:322-323.

Ditton RB. 1985. Trash and debris on Texas coastal Beaches: The
recreational and tourism industry perspective. In Sixth Annual Minerals
management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional office, Information
Transfer Meeting. Session IV.E. Trash and Debris on Gulf of Mexico
Waterfront Beaches. 23 October 1985, Metairie, Louisiana. (unpublished
manuscript).

Eisenbud R. 1985. Problems and prospects for the pelagic driftnet.
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law.Review 12(3):473-490.

Environmental Defense Fund. 1985. To Burn or Not to Burn: The Economic
Advantage of Recycling Over Garbage Incineration for New York City.

Evans WE. 1971. Potential hazards of non-degradable materials as an
environmental pollutant. Naval Underwater Center Symposium on
Environmental Preservation, 20-21 May 1970, Naval Underwater Center, San
Diego, California:125-130.

Federal Register. 1985. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of
Environment. 40 C.F.R. (1985).

Federal Register. 1985. Code of Federal Regulations. Conservation. 50
C.F.R. (1985).

Feldkamp SD. 1983. The effects of net entanglement on the drag and power
output of swimming sea lions. Final report to the National Marine
Fisheries Service Contract Number: NOAA-82abc-02743.

Fowler CW. 1982. Entanglement as an explanation for the decline in
Northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. A report submitted to the 25th
Annual Meeting of the standing Scientific Committee, March 1982, Natl. Mar.
Mammal Lab., Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv.,
NOAA, Seattle, Washington:24 pp.

Fowler CW. 1985. An evaluation of the role of entanglement in the
population dynamics of Northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. In
Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate
and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:291-307.

Fowler CW, Kozlof f P. 1985, Introduction. In Kozlof f P , (editor), Fur
seal investigations, 1982. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Northwest and
Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-7l.

Fowler CW, Merrell TR. 1986.. victims of plastic technology. Alaska Fish
and Game 18(2):34-37.

Fowler CW, Scordino J, Merrell TR, Kozloff, P. 1985. Entanglement of fur
seals from the Pribilof Islands. In Kozloff P (editor), Fur seal
investigations, 1982. National Mari-ine Mammal Laboratory, Northwest and
Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-71:22-33.

Fry DM, Fefer SI. 1986. Ingestion of floating plastic debris by seabirds
in the Hawaiian islands. Paper presented at Sixth International ocean
Disposal Symposium, 21-25 April 1986, Pacific Grove, California In
Program and abstracts: 73-74.

Galt JA. 1985. oceanographic factors affecting the predictability of
drifting objects at sea. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors),
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of marine Debris, 27-29
November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS
NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:497-507.

Gaynor K. 1977. The Toxic Substances Control Act: a regulatory morass.
30 Vanderbilt L.Rev. 1149(1977).

Gerrodette T. 1985. Toward a population dynamics of marine debris. In
Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate
and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:508-518.

Gress F, Anderson DW. 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish Wild. Serv. Portland, Oregon.

Gordon W. 1985. Letter from National Marine Fisheries Service to
Congresswoman Barbara Boxer. Sept. 27, 1985.

112

Gosliner M. 1984. Legal authorities Pertinent to entanglement by marine
debris. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop
on the Fat:e-and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu,
Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54: 15-
33.

Gregory MR. 1978. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic
granules on New Zealand Beaches. N.Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 12:399-414.

Gregory MR. 1983. Virgin plastic granules on some beaches of eastern
Canada and Bermuda. Mar. Environ. Res. 12:399-414.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1979. Final Environmental
Impact Stament for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Tampa,
Florida.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981. Final. Amendment Number
1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the stone crab f ishery of the Gulf of
Mexico. Tampa, Florida.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1984a. Amendment Number 2 to
the Fishery Management Plan for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico and Amendment Number 3 to the Fishery Management Pl4n for the shrimp
fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. March 1984. Tampa, Florida.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1984b. Environmental
Assessment and Supplemental Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of Amendment Number 2 to the Fishery Management Plan
for the stone crab f ishery of the Gulf of Mexico and of Amendment Number 3
to the Fishery Management Plan for the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico. March 1984. Tampa, Florida.

Guillet JE. 1974. Plastics, energy, and ecology-a harmonious triad.
Plast. Eng..30:48-56.

Hays H, Cormons G. 1974. Plastic particles found in tern pellets, 'on
.coastal beaches, and at factory sites. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 5:44-46.

Heimonen KC. 1985. Gillnets: 0, what a tangled web-. oceans 18(6):62-67.

Henderson JR. 1984. Encounters of Hawaiian monk seals with fishing gear
at Lisianski Island, 1982. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(3):59-61.

Henderson JR. 1985. A review of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements in
marine debris. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of
the Workshop on @h_e Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:326-335.

High WI. 1976. Escape of Dungeness crabs from pots. Mar. Fish. Rev.
38(4):19-23.

113

High WL. 1985. Some consequences of lost f ishing gear. In Shomura RS,
Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:430-437.

High WL, Worlund DD. 1979. Escape of king crab, Paralithodes
camtschatica, from derelict pots. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS
SSRF-734:11 pp.

Horsman PV. 1982. The amount of garbage pollution from merchant ships.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13(5):167-169.

House of Representatives, 94th Congress. 1976. Toxic Substances Control
Act: report by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 2nd ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing, office. 1976: 421-22.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Done
at London, Nov. 2, 1973. 12 I.L.M. 1319(1973).

Japan Chemical Fibers Association. 1971. Synthetic fibers used in Japan
for purse seines and trawls. In Kristjonsson H (editor), Modern fishing
gear of the world: 3. Fish. Ne'ws Int. London:258-260.

Jones LL, Ferrero RC. 1985. observations of net debris and associated
entanglements in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 1978-84. In
Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate
and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:183-196.

Jones SC, Tarpley RJ, Fernandez S. 1986. Cetacean strandings along the
Texas coast, U.S.A. Paper presented at llth International Conference on
marine Mammals, 2-6 April 1986, Guaymas, Mexico.

Kartar S, Milne RA, Sainsbury M. 1973. Polystyrene waste in the Severn
Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 4:44.

Kartar S, Milne RA, Sainsbury M. 1976. Polystyrene spherules in the
Severn Estuary-a progress report. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 7:52.

Keough C. 1980. Water fit to drink. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press, P. 51.

King B. 1985. Trash and debris on the beaches of Padre Island National
Seashore. In Sixth Annual Minerals management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Regional OR-ice, Information Transfer Meeting. Session IV.E. Trash and
Debris on Gulf of Mexico Waterfront Beaches. 23 October 1985, Metairie,
Louisiana. (unpublished manuscript).

King WB. 1984. Incidental mortality of seabirds in gillnets in the North
Pacific. In Croxall JP, Evans PGH, Schreiber RW (editors) Status and
conservation of the world's seabirds. International Council for Bird
Preservation. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2:709-715.

Kristjonsson H. 1959. Introduction--Modern trends in fishing. In
Kristjonsson H (editor), modern fishing gear of the world. Fish. News Int.
London.

114

Leitzell T. 1973. The Ocean dumping convention-7a hopeful beginning. 10
San Diego L.Rev. 502(1973).

Low LL, Nelson RE Jr., Narita RE. 1985. Net loss from trawl fisheries off
Alaska. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:130-153.

Lukens WM. 1985. Where does the beach litter come from? Is it really that
big a problem? Padre Island National Seashore, Tiexas. (unpublished
manuscript) 5 pp.

Lukens WM. 1986. Hazardous waste problem Padre Island National Seashore.
February 10, 1986. Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. (unpublished
manuscript) 12 pp.

Lumsdaine JA. 1976. Ocean dumping regulation: an overview. 5 Ecol. L.Q.
753(1976).

Mate BR. 1985. Incidents of marine mammal encounters with debris and
active fishing gear. In . Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of
the Workshop on the Fit-e and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NCAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:453-457.

Merrell TR Jr. 1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of
Amchitka Island Alaska. Mar. Environ. Res. 3:171-184.

Merrell TR Jr. 1984. A decade of change in nets and plastic litter from
fisheries off Alaska. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15:378-384.

Merrell TR Jr. 1985. Fish nets and other plastic litter on Alaska
beaches. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the
Workshop (;n-the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984,
.Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFC-54:160-182.

Morris RJ. 1980. Plastic debris in the surface waters of the South
Atlantic. 'Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11(6):164-166.

National, Academy of Sciences. 1975. Marine litter. In Assessing
potential ocean pollutants. A report of the study panel on assessing
potential ocean pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission on
Natural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.:405-438.

Natio nal Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. 1981. The Role of the
Ocean in a Waste Management Strategy. 43.

National Wildlife Federation. 1986. Conservation Directory 1986.
National Wildlife Federation. Washington, D.C. 302 pp.

115

Neilson J. 1985. The Oregon experience. In Shomura IRS, YO
Yoshida (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA--TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:154-159.

Neilson J. 1986. Get the drift and bag it. Final Report. Northwest and
Alaska Fisheries Center. National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Dept.
Commerc. NWAFC Processed Report 86-11.

New England Fishery Management Council. 1983. Final environmental impact
statement and regulatory impact review for the America lobster (Homarus
americanus) Fishery Management Plan. Saugus, MA.

Page T. 1978. A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. 7
Ecol. L.Q. 207(1978).

Parker NR, Yang RJ. KVB Inc. 1986. Development of methodology to reduce
the disposal of nondegradable refuse into the marine environment. Paper
presented at the Sixth International Ocean Disposal Symposium, 21-25 April
1986, Pacific Grove, California. unpublished manuscript. 19 pp.
Paul T. 1984. A plague of plastics. Alaska Fish and Game 16(3):2-5.

Plastic Bottle Information Bureau. 1986. Recycled PET bottles used in
manufacturing strapping. Society of'the Plastics Industry: The Plastic
Bottle Reporter 4(l):l.

Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. I.M.C.O. Document TSPP/Conf/11,
Feb. 16, 1978. 17 I.L.M. 546(1978).

Reed DK, Schumacher JD. 1985. On the general cir culation in the subarctic
Pacific. In Shomura RS, YO Yoshida (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop
on the FatTand Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu,
Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:
483-496.

Richey G. 1986. Ring around the rainbow is seen. Great Lakes
Steelheader. March 1986.

Rogers JA. 1976. Ocean dumping. 7 Env. L. 1(1976).

Scott G. 1972. Plastics packaging and coastal polluticn. Int. J.
Environ. Stud. 3:35-36.

Scordino J. 1985. Studies on fur seal entanglement, 1981-1984, St. Paul
Island, Alaska. In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings
of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of marine Debris, 27-29 November
1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-
NMFS-SWFC-54:278-290.

Shaugnessy PD. 1980. Entanglement of Cape fur seals with man-made
objects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11;332-336.

Shaw DG, Mapes GA- 1979. Surface circulation and distribution of pelagic
tar and plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 10(6):160-162.

116

Shepard FP, Wanless M 1971. Our changing coastlines. McGraw-Hill,
Inc., p.16.
Sigo S. 1986. Keys fishermen suffer heavy.loss. Organ ized Fishermen of
Florida 18(l):11-12.

Sleeper P. 1984. Ban on plastic tampon applicators sought. Boston Globe.
9 August 1984.

Slesin L. and Sandler R. 1976. Categorization of chemicals under the
Toxic Substances Control Act. 7 Ecol. L.Q. 753(1976).

Smolowitz RJ. 1978a. Trap design and ghost fishing: An overview. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 40(5-6):2-8.

Smolowitz RJ. 1978b. Trap design and ghost fishing: Discussion. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 40(5-6):59-67.

Squire D. 1982. The dumping quandry: Waste disposal in the New York
Bight. New York: State University of New York Press. pp 161-175.

Stevens 1.. 1985. Will tougher licensing ease gear,conflict? Comm. Fish.
News 13 (6) :21.

Stevens T. 1985. Hearing on Pelagic Driftnet Fisheries Before the
National ocean Policy Study/Full Commerce Committee, 9 October, 1985.

Stewart BS, Yochem PK. 1985. Entanglement of pinnipeds in net and line
fragments and other debris in the Southern California Bight. -In Shomura
RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on the F-a-te and Impact
of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS N0AA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:3l5-325.

Swanson RL, Stanford HM, O'Connor JS et al. 1978. June 1976 pollution of
Long Island beaches. J. EnvironiFe-nEa-1 Engineering Division, ASCE,
104(EE6), Proc. Paper 14238, December 1978:1067-1085..

Texas Coastal Marine Council. 1985. Litter on Texas Coastal Beaches.
,.Status report and recommendations, January 1985. Austin, Texas. 32 pp.

Tiedemann JA. 1983. ocean dumping in the New York Bight: Beyond the 1981
deadline.' New Jersey Sea Grant Pub. No. NJSG-83-125. NOAA Sea Grant No.
NA83AA-D-0034. lopp.

Uchida RN. 198.5. The types and estimated amounts of fish net deployed
in the North Pacific. In Shomura RS, Yoshida Yo (editors),
Proceedings of the Worki-hop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29
November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS
N0AA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:37-lO8.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1982. Done at Montego
Bay, Dec. 10, 1982. 21 I.L.M. 1261.
U.S.' Code Annotated. 1985. Titles 15, 16, '33 and 42. West Publishing Co.

117

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985. Fisheries of the United States 1984.
Fishery Statistics No. 8360. U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA, NMFS. 121 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior. Minerals Man agement Service. 1985. Final
environmental impact statement. Proposed oil and gas leases.Sales 104 and
105, Gulf of Mexico, OCS region. Metairie, Louisiana.

USEPA. Guidance Memorandum on use and issuance of administrative orders
under Section 106(a) of CERCLA. Date illegible. From acting assistant
administrator for solid waste emergency response to regional
administrators.

Van Dolah RF, Burrell VG Jr., West SB. 1980. The distribution of pelagic
tars and plastics in the South Atlantic Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
11(12):352-356.

Wallace N. 1985. Debris entanglement in the marine environment: A review.
In Shomura RS, Yoshida YO (editors), Proceedings of the Workshop on
the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu,
Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54:259-
277.

Winston JE. 1982. Drift plastic-an expanding niche for a marine
invertebrate? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13(lo):348-351.

Wong CS, Green DR, Cretney Wi. 1974. Quantitative tar and plastic waste
distributions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature (Lond) 247:30-32.

118

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

John Abbett, Acting Supervisor, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore,
Frankfort, MI 49635

Glen Alexander, Acting Supervisor, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
Porter, IN 46304
Dennis Allen, Assistant Director, Belle Baruch Marine Laboratory, Baruch
Marine Field Lab, Georgetown, SC

Anthony Amos, Research Associate, The University of Texas, Marine Science
Institute, Port Aransas Marine Lab, Port Aransas, TX 78313-1267

spencer Appollonio, Director,, Maine Department of Marine Resources,
Augusta, ME 04333

connie Awkmann, Hydrologist, Hiawatha National Forest, Escanaba, MI 49829

Bruce Baker, Director, Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53707

Clay Beal, Forest Supervisor, Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN 55801

Victor Bell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
Providence, RI 02907

Dave Bengston, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner, Department of
Agriculture, Mendocino County, Ukiah, CA 95482

Ponald Bisbee, Refuge Manager, Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge, Angleton,
TX 77515

Ed Blackmore, President/Executive Director, Maine Lobstermen Association,
Damascotta, ME 04543

Bobby Brown, Refuge Manager, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Lake
Arthur, LA 70549

james Browning, Assistant Refuge Manager, Cape Romain National Wildlife
Refuge, Awendaw, SC 29429

H. Arnold 'Carr, Division of Marine Fisheries, The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, East Sandwich, MA 02537

Jerome Carroll, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Gulf Shores, AL 56542

Paul Caldwell, Manager, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge,
Brigatine Division, Oceanville, NJ 08231

Darryl Clark, Marsh Management Specialist, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, Coastal Management, Baton F@ouge, LA 70895

119

John Clarke, CtM Coordinator, Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission, Barnstable County, Boston, mA 02202
Jay Critchley, Director, TACKI ('Tampon Applicators Creative Klub
International), Provincetown, mA 02657

Tom Crowley, Community Development Agentp Marinette County Extension
office, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI 53706

Paul Daly, Manager, Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, Smyrna, DE 19977

Rick Dawson, Resource Management Specialist, Everglades National Park,
Homestead, FL

Theodore M. Denning, Manager Chicago Area Region, Field operations -Section,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Maywood, IL

Donna Dewhurst, Assistant Refuge Manager, Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge, Virginia Beach, VA 23456

John Bdmonson, Assistant to the Council, Terrebonne Parish Council, Parish
of Terrebonne, Houma, LA 70361

John Fillio, Manager, Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, Plum Island,
Newburyport, MA 01950

Michael Fogarty, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA 02543

Barbara Ford, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, Washington, DC 20235

Charles W. Fowler, National marine Mammal Lboratory, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115

Bruce Freeman, Marine Fisheries Administrator, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ 08625

Jil Marie Gahsman, Toxic Chemical Evaluation Section, Surface Water Quality
Control, Michigan water Resources Commission, Lansing, MI 48909

Bob Garabedian, Forsythe Barnegat Division, Barnegat National Wildlife refuge,
Barnegat, NJ 08005

Barry Gibson, Editor, Saltwater Sportsman Magazine, Boston, MA

Bill Giese, Biological Technician, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge,
Cambridge, MD 21613

Eugene Giza, Superintendent, Presque Isle State Park, Erie, PA

Arthur Graham, Superintendent, Canaveral National Seashore, Titusville, FL
32782-6447

120

Gary Graham, Marine Fisheries Specialist, Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, Sea Grant College Program, Freeport, TX 77541 (letter to Linda
Maraniss, Director, Center for Environmental Education, Texas office,
Austin, TX, April 3, 1986)
Barbara Gray, Recreational Boating Branch, Accident Review, U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, DC 20593
Paul Groll, Graduate Research Assistant, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
John Hardaway, Acting Advisor, Public Beach Commission, Virginia Department
of Conservation and Historic Resources# Richmond, VA 23219
Larry Hartis,, wildlife Biologist, Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge,
Homosassa, FL 32646

Thomas Hartman, Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, Nc
27964

J.M. Hatcher, Pollution Control Specialist, Environmental Science and
Pollution Control Department, Board of County Commissioners, Collier
County, Naples, FL 33962-4977

Ralph Hawse, Watercraft, Litter Coordinator, Division of Watercraft, Office
of Litter Prevention and Recycling, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Columbus, OH 43224

David Heiser, Chief, Environmental Ooordination, Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission, Olympia, WA 98504-5711

Tbomas Hill, operations Manager, The Yankee Fleet, Interstate Party Boat
Association (member), Gloucester, MA 01930

Dennis Holland, Refuge Manager, Chincoteague National Wildlife refuge,
Chincoteague, VA 23336

Atra Holzaetafel, New Hampshire LeagLe of Women Voters, Portsmouth, NH
03801 (League helped organize State beach cleanup)

Anne Johnson, Maine Audubon Society, Falmouth, ME

E. Frank Johnson, Manager, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Austwell, TX
77950

Bruce Kaye, Acting Superintendent, Kenai Fjords National Wildlife Refuge,
Seward, AK 99664

Roger Kenyon, Lake Erie Unit Leader, Fishery Biologist, Pennsylvania Fish
Commission, Fairview, PA

Larry Koss, Head, Ship and Aircraft Branch, OP-452, Office of Chief'of
Naval Operations, Washington Navy Yard, Department of Defense, Washington,
DC 20374

121

Stephen Labuda, Jr., Assistant Refuge Manager, Laguna Atascosa National
wildlife Refuge, Rio Hondo, TX 78583

Thomas Larkin, Environmental Specialist II, Florida Department of EL='alth
and Rehabilitative Services, District Six, Manatee County Public Health
Unit, Bradenton, FL 33508-1986

Charles LeBuff, Biological Technician, J.N. "Ding" Darling National
Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, FL 33957

Wayne Mann, Superintendent, Huron-Manistee National Forest, Cadillac, MI
49601

Stewart Marcus, Assistant Refuge Manager, Hobe Sound National Wildlife
Refuge, Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Thomas Martin, Director, office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI 48909

Robert McIntosh, Jr., Superintendent, Gateway National recreation Area,
Brooklyn, NY 11234

Alice McCurdy, Senior Environmental Planner, Santa Barbara County, Santa
Barbara, CA

John McHugh, County Administrator, Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of
Middlesex, New Brunswick, NJ 08903

Burton Mead, Regional Engineer for Environmental Quality, Region 6, New
York Department of Environmental Conservation, Watertown, NY 13601

John Melbourn, Public Health Engineer, Department of Health Services, San
Diego County, San Diego, CA 92101

Pat Miller, Superintendent, Apostle Island National Lakeshore, Bayfield, W1
54814

Steven Moylan, Aquatic Biologist, Environmental Engineering, Division of
Environmental Health, Lake County Health Department, Waukegan, IL 60085

Judie Neilson, Executive Assistant, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Portland, OR 97208

Walter Newman, Senior Technical Advisor, Water Quality Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA

Jim Northrope, Fire Island National Seashore, Patchogue, NY 11772

Barbara O'Bannon, National Fishery Statistics Program, F/S21, National
Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Washington, DC 20235

Herbert Olsen, Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, South Wellfleet,
MA 02663

122

Paul O'Neill, Mackay Island National Wildlife. Refuge, Knotts Island, NC
27950

Nancy R. Parker, KVB Inc., Irvi ine, CA 92714 (working on contract for NDAA
on ocean vessel disposal technologies)

Larry Penny, Environmental Protection Director, Town of East Hampton East
Hampton, NY

Tom Petton, Chief, Marine Safety Evaluation Branch, Commercial Vessel
Casuality Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC 20592

Bill Purtell, Manager, Ketcham Traps, New Bedford, MA

Ralph Rayburn, Executive Director, Texas Shrimp Association, Austin, TX

Roger Rector, Superintendent, AssateagLe Island National Seashore, Berlin,
MD 21811

'Jim Rindlefleish, Biologist/Mosquito Cbntrol, York County, Yorktown, VA
23690

Salavator Seditap Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,
Stickney, IL 60650

John Simpson, Director, Division of Water, Indiana Department of mtural
Resources, Indianapolis, IN 46204

Larry Sha nnon, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN 55146

Rich Shaw, Resource Evaluation Cbnsultant, Division of Coastal Management,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Raleigh, NC 27611

Carroll Shell, Chief, Resource management, Acadia National Park, Bar
Harbor, ME 04609

James Singleton, Refuge Manager at Warsaw National Wildlife Refuge, Savannah
Coastal Refuges, Savannah, GA 31412

ronald Joel Smolowitz, Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, Woods Hole, MA 02543

Tom Sommers, Cyklops Strapping Corporation,,Dowingtown, PA

Victor Spurri Supervisor of Research, Fisheries Division, New Hampshire
Fish and Game Department, Concord, NH 03301

Paul Stacey, Environmental Analyst, Water Compliance Unit, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT 06115

Sherman Stairs, Refuge Manager, Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife
Refuge, Cape Charles, VA 23310

123

David Steed, Director, Professionals in Sea Concerned with 1hterprises
(PISCES), Austin, TX

Robert Stulqu.ist, Director, Arthur D. Feiro Marine lab, Peninsula College,
Port Angeles, WA 98362

Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, Tampa, FL 33609

Buck Thackeray, Assistant Chief Ranger, Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

John A. Tiedemann, Marine Extension Agent/Recreation, Southern 0:)unty
Resource Center, New Jersey Sea Grant Extension Service, Manahawkin,
NJ 0 80 50

David Treen, Environmental Specialist, Cumberland County Improvement
Authority, Bridgeton, NJ 08302

U.S. maritime Administration, Office of Trade Studies and Subsidy
Contracts, Division of Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590

Letitia Uyehara, Director, Hawaii office of Environmental Quality Control,
Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Vivion, Wildlife Biologist Pilot, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge,
Kodiak, AK 99615

Edward M. Wagner, Jr., Administrator, Fishermen's Gear Compensation Fund,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Gail Walder, Co-chairman, Environmental Management Council, Niagara County,
Lockport, NY 14094

Alice Weber, Marine Biologist, New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, Stony Brook, NY 11794

Rhett White, Director, Marine Resources Center/Roanoke Island, North
Carolina Department of Administration, Manteo, NC 27954@

Dorn Whitmore, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Merritt Island National Wildlife
Refuge, Titusville, FL 32780

Asa Wright, Great Lakes Program, Manager, Fisheries Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI 48909

John Zarudsky, Conservation Biologist, Town of Hempstead, Department of
Conservation and waterways, Point Lookout, NY 11569

Cindy Zipf, Coordinator, Clean Ccean Action, Seabright, NJ 07760

124

Appendix 1. Nationalmarine Fisheries Service
Entanglement Research Program FY86 and FY85
FEMMMDMCNS SUMMARY FOR TM FISCAL 1986
NMFS ENVOGLEHM/WBRIS PROGRAM
NO. TASK DESCRIPTION FUNDING LEVEL
1. Marine Debris Education (cont.) $12OK
By contract

2. Disposal Technology Development 60K
By contract

3.' Degradable Materials Applications not funded
solicit in-house/contract;
travel less than $lK

4. Benthic Debris Impacts Review 20K
By contract

5. Fur Seal Pup Entanglement (cont.) 35K
NWAFC, NMML; travel, $7.5K

6. Hawaiian Islands Entanglement Monitoring 10K
SWFC, Hawaii Lab; travel, $0.0

7. Gillnet Dynamics (cont.) 10K
SWFC, Hawaii Lab; travel, $0.0

8. Large Debris Impacts on Fur Seals, Pilot 35K
NWAFr, NMML; travel, $7.OK

9. Net Fouling and Sinking Rates not funded
Solicit in-house/contract; travel
less than $lK

10. Hawaiian Seabird Ingestion Studies 20K
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Hawaii

11. Fur Seal Site*Clean-up 5K-
NWAFr, R14L in cooperation with iapanese,@
,travel $2.OK

12. Beach Debris Survey Methods (cont.) 25K
NWAFC, Auke Bay Lab.; travel $5.OK

13. Female Fur Seal Entanglement (cont.) 25K
NWAFC, NMML; travel $5.5K

125

Appendix 1. (continued).

14. Spectrophotometrics of Debris 27K
NWAFC, Auke Bay Lab; travel $0.0

15. Program Management 78K
NWAFC; travel-$9.OK

16. High Seas Squid Fisheries Investigation 250K
NWAFC, Auke Bay Lab; travel $9-OK

126

Appendix 1. (continued).

16TS MRRIM ANGLEMERr FaMEARCH PROGRAM# FY 85

Appropriation: $1,000,000 in FY 85 (ref. Senate Report 98-514, calendar no. 980,
P. 18).

Related Legislation: (from Bean, 1984)
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act
Clean Water Act
Endangered Species Act
Marine Mammal.Protection Act
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
National Sea Grant Program Act
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act
Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Fisherman's Protective Act
American Fisheries Promotion Act
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MARPOL Convention, Annexes

Program Management:
James M. Coe, Program Manager $56.6K
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center
7600 Sand Point Way, NE BIN C15700
Seattle, WA 98115
Telephone: (206) 526-4009, FTS 392-4009

Research Tasks:

Education
Marine Debris.Education in the North Pacific (RFP) $173.OK
Beach Ciean-up Programs (RFP) 35.OK

Information Collection
Workshop on Fate and Impact of Marine Debris (done) $50.OK
Northern Fur Seal Entanglement (NMML) 45.OK
Northern Sea Lion Entanglement (NMML) 81.4K
Debris Identification & Reference Collection (RACE) 28.OK
Beach Accumulation & Loss Rate Estimation (ABL) 32.OK
Foreign Fishery Observer Data Summary (REM 23.OK
Squid Gillnet Fishery observations (ABL) 95.OK
Analysis of Debris Threats to Monk Seals (SWFC) 13.OK
Dynamics of Derelict Gillnet (SWFC) . 27.OK
Sea Turtle Debris Ingestion Impacts (SEC/RFP) 27.OK
At-Sea Debris Survey Methodology (RFP) 18.OK
Stranding Program Information Expansion (RFP) 9.OK

Mitigation
Disposal Methods Development (RFP) 37.OK

Total $750.OK

RFP: work to be contracted for. NOC: National Marine Mammal Laboratory
ABL: Auke Bay Laboratory, Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Center (MWAFC)
RACE: Resource Assessment & Conservation Engineering Division, (NWAFC)
RM: Resource Ecology & Fisheries Management Division, (NWAFC)
SEC: Southeast Fisheries Center. SWFC: Southwest Fisheries Center

127

Appendix 2. Programs Related to Entanglement

The Marine Mammal Coemission (MMC) -has supported research into the marine
debris problem for many years. They originally recommended and provided
the seed money for the Hawaii Workshop on the Pate and Impact of Marine
Debris; they supported a review of the problem in Australia and Asia, they
convinced the State Department to focus on the issue, through the Inter-
national Maritime Organization; and they have presented the issue to a
number of other organizations, including the Intergovernmental oceanic
Commission, and the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources. They recently subcontracted with the Center for Environ-
mental E)ducation to examine the marine debris problem in the North A@lantic
and other areas outside the United States.

The Center for Environmental Education (CEE) in Washington, DC has a
comprehensive program concerning the entanglement of marine animals in
plastic debris and active f ishing gear. CEE's activities include research
on techniques for saving entangled animals, providing technical advice to
federal and state agencies, and promoting beach cleanups by private
citizens.

A number of Washing ton-based conservation organizations participate in
the Entanglesent Network, a cooperative effort to facilitate the exchange
of information on the problem of marine debris entanglement and incidental
take.

Cmxm,. Inc. is seeking to reduce the amount of marine pollution from oil
and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Conoco's Fisheries Advisory
Subcommittee is supervising the production of a 12-minute f ilm on beach
litter aimed at educating rig workers about pollution problems and how to
prevent them.

The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), a trade organization of more
than 1800 members representing all segments of the plastics industry in the
United States, has begun an educational campaign on the problems caused by
the improper disposal of plastics in the marine environment. Dow Chemical
USA, a member of SPI, has produced a 4-minute video on Dow's waste reduction
program on dealing with lost plastic resin pellets during production and
handling.

128

Center for Env tal Education
1725 DeSales St., NW * Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 e (202) 429-5609

lil[Ifl FIIIIIII[Ifllil[
3 _