Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 210
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea 8 Measuring Progress in Implementation of Annex V Regardless of what steps are taken to improve implementation of Annex V, it is important to be able to measure any resulting progress, not only to determine which interventions are effective but also to enhance scientific understanding of the oceans. A progress assessment would have two primary components. The first would involve record keeping to gauge Annex V compliance rates among vessels. The second component would involve environmental monitoring to determine whether the flux of vessel garbage to the marine environment is being reduced. To provide the data needed for these two types of evaluations, appropriate record-keeping practices and environmental monitoring techniques would need to be developed and employed. This chapter examines possible approaches to record keeping and environmental monitoring from the perspective of measuring progress in implementation of Annex V. The first half of the chapter addresses the collection of records on compliance. There are numerous opportunities for routine collection of such information (as suggested at various points earlier in this report), but few data are compiled or analyzed systematically. The second half of the chapter outlines the options for environmental monitoring. It should be noted that this approach cannot be employed as the sole measure of progress in Annex V implementation, because vessel garbage is only one source of debris in the marine environment. Thus, although the committee concentrated on the problem of vessel garbage, this aspect of the analysis focuses on the broader problem of marine debris.
OCR for page 211
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea RECORD KEEPING AS A MEASURE OF IMPLEMENTATION The committee's work has revealed that information is available that could be used to measure Annex V compliance but, for a variety of reasons, it is not yet put to that use. Progress in U.S. implementation of Annex V could be measured in a straightforward manner if comprehensive data were collected over time on numbers of vessels discharging garbage at ports, amounts of garbage discharged, numbers of complaints about garbage reception facilities, and numbers of repeat violations by vessels and ports. Such data would enable the federal government to conduct meaningful analyses of compliance that are not now possible. Such information also would support strategic planning and program evaluation showing, for example, the statistical relationship between educational programs and Annex V compliance, and between the status of port reception facilities and local levels of marine debris. Moreover, the agencies involved in Annex V implementation could identify weak spots where resources should be directed and gain access to useful data collected by other departments. If a comprehensive record-keeping system were desired, then it would be necessary to develop a government-wide format for Annex V data, collect systematically various types of information from myriad sources, and then combine it all in an electronic database. The Coast Guard could input information from vessel garbage logs, Annex V enforcement reports, and the Certificate of Adequacy program. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) could input the data it collects on vessel compliance and amounts of garbage off-loaded. Similarly, the Minerals Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and all other agencies involved with Annex V could collect and input their own data. Such a task would be enormous. The work involved could not be justified for years—until enough data had been collected to enable meaningful analysis. In addition, there is the question of who would oversee such an interagency effort. If a national commission were established to oversee Annex V implementation (as suggested in Chapter 7), perhaps it could coordinate the development of a comprehensive database. In the meantime, a smaller-scale record-keeping regime might be feasible, particularly if it made use of records already available. The most easily implemented and potentially most useful system might be a combined Coast Guard/APHIS record-keeping program on vessel garbage handling. APHIS retains but apparently makes little use of records of vessel boardings and garbage off-loading. One research team (Hollin and Liffman, 1993) had to collect manually the information recorded on more than 1,500 vessel boarding cards in order to identify an apparent trend in use of shipboard equipment to comply with Annex V. This type of information could be logged into a unified system. The Coast Guard and APHIS would have to agree to cooperate, establish a common reporting format, convert their data into electronic form, and input it into a database. Apart from providing benchmarks for measuring Annex V imple-
OCR for page 212
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea mentation, this strategy could be extremely useful in suggesting where the two agencies' monitoring and enforcement efforts should be directed. In selecting the types of data to be recorded, it would be important to go beyond numbers of violations, prosecutions, or permits and attempt to document the process of building a permanent Annex V implementation regime—that is, to collect data reflecting why compliance problems arise. For instance, did a vessel fall to off-load garbage in a particular port because the reception facilities were full or not available? Did the crew discharge plastics overboard because they didn't know this practice was illegal? Routine collection of information about mariners' attitudes and behaviors would be useful in identifying where interventions were needed, and in satisfying the need (documented in Chapter 6) for evaluation of Annex V education programs. The data bank could be enhanced further if cargo and cruise ships were required to off-load garbage at all U.S. port calls, and these discharges were recorded. (Surveys might be a more effective tool for small vessels.) At present, few ports are recording information on total weight of debris and usage of dumpsters. While neither Annex V nor the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act require vessels to off-load garbage, some other nations do mandate it upon both arrival and departure. Another approach would be to model and then monitor vessel-port garbage transactions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a computer model for solid waste management and might adapt it for ships or ports. The amounts of garbage off-loaded from ships in ports could be sampled or audited, and these data could be entered into the model to provide, over time, some indication as to whether the amounts were consistent based on days at sea, crew size, and vessel type. This approach would need to be applied to all sizes and types of ports, including small piers and marinas. In fact, it would be more important to conduct such studies in smaller ports, where there are no other methods for examining garbage disposal (such as routine Coast Guard and APHIS boardings and inspections). Assessing Annex V Implementation Internationally Both the International Maritime Organization and the U.S. government have mandated that potential polluters document their actions. Recently, some governments also have obliged waste management companies to "manifest" garbage shipments just as shippers keep records of cargos and shipping transactions. Such data could be useful in measuring Annex V implementation internationally. However, the history of international agreements shows that reporting—even when mandated—is generally poor, casting doubt on the effectiveness of such an approach. In 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) was asked by the Congress to assess compliance with reporting requirements in a number of interna-
OCR for page 213
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea tional agreements. The purpose was to determine whether international environmental agreements are effective, and whether nations are living up to their obligations. What the GAO discovered was reflected in the title selected for the report, International Agreements Are Not Well Monitored (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992). Reporting mandates often are placed in international treaties. The purpose of such mandates is to prompt compliance: Nations may risk international disapproval and retaliation if evidence reveals numerous violations and weak enforcement responses. Reporting requirements also give the international community a way to quantify over time any trends in compliance (i.e., the overall efficacy of multilateral arrangements). But, as the GAO report points out, compliance with reporting requirements is not a reliable indicator of compliance with international standards. Similarly, failure to report does not indicate the nation is violating the substantive obligations of the agreement. Record keeping to fulfill treaty reporting requirements may be beyond the administrative capacity of a government for a variety of reasons. While the reports submitted to international secretariats are not a perfect measure of the efficacy of international agreements, they are the sole evidence of what is actually happening worldwide in fulfillment of treaty obligations. Equally importantly, these reports are indicative of the practical limits of government surveillance of, and control over, the behavior of seafarers while at sea. The GAO studied the following eight agreements: the Montreal Protocol (which addresses ozone depletion), the Nitrogen Oxides Protocol (acid rain), the Basel Convention (transport of hazardous wastes), the London Dumping Convention, MARPOL (Annex I only), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the International Whaling Convention, and the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA). Seven of the eight currently require that members report annually on implementation (although the information requested usually is limited to numbers of permits issued, violations detected, or inspections conducted). The GAO found that reporting fell far short of what was mandated, and the few reports that were submitted often were incomplete and late. The GAO determined that, in most cases, the respective secretariat is ill equipped to press for better performance. Furthermore, because of their small size, lack of authority, and scant resources, secretariats are equally unable to assess implementation independently. Most of the agreements examined provide measurable performance standards. CITES, for example, creates a permit system to ban trade in endangered species and control trade in threatened ones. The International Whaling Convention sets annual harvest quotas. MARPOL Annex I establishes specific limits on the amount of oil that can be discharged: Yet high rates of reporting on compliance were found for only three of the conventions studied: the Montreal Protocol, the Nitrogen Oxides Protocol, and the International Whaling Convention. Less
OCR for page 214
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea than half the membership of CITES, the London Dumping Convention, MARPOL, and ITTA filed their required reports. A mere 13 of the then-57 signatories to MARPOL had provided the secretariat with the required information on violations and penalties imposed. Only 59 percent of the parties had reported on the availability of (Annex I) oily waste reception facilities as mandated. With regard to CITES, only 25 of the 104 parties had delivered their annual reports containing information on trade in listed species. The GAO stated that "most parties either submit reports that are late, incomplete, or in the wrong format, or do not submit any report at all." The GAO noted that secretariats are limited in authority and ability to assess compliance independently. CITES stands as the only agreement that specifically grants the secretariat the role of assessing compliance. Through a contract with a private organization, the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, CITES data are analyzed and the violations summarized in a report. The secretariat then can recommend trade sanctions. Most secretariats are not positioned to verify information received from member governments; rather, they act as facilitators and information clearinghouses. The GAO study also concluded that secretariats are typically small with very limited funding and lacking in the resources to undertake more systematic monitoring. No matter who does it, monitoring of international agreements is a major assignment. The Committee on Shipborne Wastes certainly has been challenged by the task of assembling the information needed to report on Annex V implementation across all fleets in the United States. To do so on an annual basis would require a level of organization and effort that does not now exist anywhere for collecting data on any international agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Environmental monitoring is an important aspect of environmental management. A monitoring system involves not only field assessments and data analysis but also integrated and coordinated activities with "the specified goal of producing predefined management information; it is the sensory component of environmental management" (National Research Council, 1990). Of great significance in the present context is the high cost of not monitoring; failure to monitor adequately poses a serious impediment to efforts to protect marine environmental quality (National Research Council, 1990). Surveys of Beach Debris Progress in implementation of Annex V could be measured most directly by changes in the flux of vessel garbage to beaches and the sea floor. Obtaining precise data is difficult. Two criteria govern the validity and utility of such measurement. First, the materials surveyed must be identifiable as vessel-gener-
OCR for page 215
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea ated garbage. Second, quality assurance and quality control practices are essential to assure scientifically valid results. There are few, if any, surveillance programs designed to test the effectiveness of Annex V implementation. One that has some relevance is a monitoring program on a remote island in the South Atlantic, Inaccessible Island of the Tristan da Cuna group, where an exponential increase in the amount of beach litter was noted between 1984 and 1990 (Ryan and Moloney, 1993). Eighty percent of the debris was plastic, with most items having a source in South America, more than 3,000 kilometers away. The amount of debris originating from vessels was not ascertained. (Even when debris can be traced, it is difficult to use this information to determine whether a violation of Annex V occurred [Amos, 1993].) While current surveillance programs are not oriented specifically to Annex V, extensive activities are devoted to studying the types, amounts, and sources of debris on coastal beaches and to heightening awareness of the marine debris problem. Much of the data has been gathered by the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), which launched a beach cleanup campaign in 1986 in Texas. The effort has evolved into the annual International Coastal Cleanup Campaign, which relies on a network of state and country coordinators to organize thousands of citizens.1 The purpose of the event is not only to clean the beaches but also to collect data on the types and amounts of debris. The CMC produces an annual report, which provides data broken down at the national, state, and local levels. Reports of wildlife entangled or otherwise affected by debris are compiled. While identifying sources of debris is difficult even for trained experts, citizens have provided useful information, such as findings of debris traceable to cruise lines based on company names on product labels. The use of volunteers to gather data is attractive from both an economic and a social perspective. However, whether volunteers can gather scientifically sound data is subject to debate. Amos (1993) noted a marked difference between beach surveys done by volunteers and those by scientists. In this single experiment, the volunteers appeared to under-count debris items by about 50 percent. A similar problem was reported at Padre Island (Miller, 1993). If volunteers are to be used to gather data for scientific purposes, then they need to be trained in data collection techniques. There also needs to be scientific oversight to assure adherence to research protocols (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988). In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to standardize monitoring methods. Without such standards, there is no baseline to which new data can be compared, and data cannot be shared among the various monitor- 1 In 1992, this one-day event involved more than 160,000 volunteers in 33 countries (Hodge et al., 1993). Since then, the effort has expanded to include more than 222,000 volunteers in 40 countries.
OCR for page 216
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea ing groups. In 1989, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) entered into an agreement with the National Park Service to conduct a five-year pilot study using a standard methodology for marine debris surveys2, tested on beaches within nine national seashores. Recently, the EPA has been leading an effort to improve on the methodology. The EPA is working with NOAA, the National Park Service, the CMC, the Coast Guard, the Marine Mammal Commission, and selected scientists to establish a method for determining inputs of debris from specific ocean- and land-based sources and identifying trends. The EPA methodology has been tested at pilot sites in Maryland and New Jersey. A draft methodology has been developed and reviewed by all federal agencies that monitor marine debris, and final approval was expected by the end of 1994. A long-term marine debris sampling program, carried out by trained volunteers, is to be implemented at selected U.S. beaches in 1995. Monitoring Trends in Biological Impacts Another approach to measuring progress in Annex V implementation would be to monitor for trends in ecological effects, such as injury or mortality among species of wildlife. As discussed in Chapter 2, available information on the impacts of debris on marine organisms consists primarily of baseline studies. Trends might be determined if long-term studies were initiated focusing on groups and populations of marine species. However, despite widespread observations of marine debris, only a few animal populations are monitored so closely that the effects of such debris could be discerned among all the other influences on the population. The potential for using this type of research to measure Annex V implementation is suggested by the ongoing northern fur seal studies, which provide a continuing census of a legally protected marine species. Through close and repeated observations, researchers are able to record information on the effects of fishing debris on seal colonies. A recent assessment notes a 50 percent decrease between 1981 and 1989 in the number of seal reported entangled in trawl webbing, possibly due to a reduction in the amount of net fragments discarded by fishing vessels (Fowler and Baba, 1991). That data set, initiated long before Annex V came into force, provides a record of the harm caused by uncontrolled vessel garbage. Continued collection of such data—particularly if the researchers were asked specifically to also record debris entanglements—might provide an 2 The methodology was based on early drafts of a marine debris survey manual developed with the support of the Marine Entanglement Research Program. The manual (Ribic et al., 1992) was adopted for publication in 1993 by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission's Working Committee on the Global Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment, which had launched the initial standardization effort in 1986 by agreeing to develop such a guide.
OCR for page 217
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea indication of whether the harm is abating. It is important to remember, however, that the fur seals are studied on land only, so the results may not reflect the total effects of marine debris, and that the case for population-level effects on these animals, whale the strongest data available, is only circumstantial. One group of researchers has recommended that all future studies of wildlife interactions with debris include statistically adequate sampling schemes designed to test hypotheses that the prevalence of debris is either increasing or decreasing in given areas or for specific taxa (Sileo, 1990). Monitoring Plastics in the Marine Environment As discussed in Chapter 2, plastics are the most abundant and most harmful type of marine debris. Their persistence in the marine environment is virtually infinite, according to some environmental scientists, and the solids can cause considerable harm in addition to aesthetic insults. Plastics can kill marine animals through ingestion or entanglement and inflict costly damage to vessel operations through fouling of propellers, water intake pipes, and fishing gear. Another threat may lie in the accumulation of plastics on the sea floor. Although plastics are buoyant when introduced to the marine environment, they quickly sink to the bottom, where they may inhibit gas exchange between the overlying waters and the pore waters of the sediments. Hypoxia or anoxia could result. Therefore, for purely ecological reasons, it would be advisable to conduct long-term monitoring programs to measure amounts of plastics in the marine environment, both on beaches and on the coastal sea floor. The data also could provide a measure of progress in Annex V implementation, because plastic is the one material for which all overboard discharge is banned. The committee, drawing on the personal experience of several members and relying heavily on Ribic et al. (1992) and Amos (1993), devised a basic monitoring strategy that would be useful from both an Annex V and a scientific standpoint and therefore make the best possible use of resources. The strategy borrows from the basic methodology of the EPA's planned marine debris monitoring program but is different in three important respects: The committee's model focuses on plastics rather than all marine debris, attempts to isolate vessel garbage from land-source debris, and includes both beach and benthic surveys. The goal would be to determine the fluxes of plastics through the marine environment as a function of time. The focus could be expanded to include other particularly harmful and problematic debris items, such as fishing gear. It might be appropriate to incorporate such an effort into NOAA's Status and Trends Program, which has been described as ''the closest current approach to a standardized national assessment of marine pollution'' (National Research Council, 1990). The NOAA program measures contaminants such as metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons at over 100 sites on an annual basis. Bottom-feeding fish, mussels, oysters, and sediments are collected. The goal is "to create, maintain,
OCR for page 218
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea and assess a long-term record of contaminant concentrations and biological responses to contamination in the coastal and estuarine waters of the United States" (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1988). Beach Surveys of Plastic Debris To date, most studies of plastics accumulating on beaches have two deficiencies with respect to pinpointing the flux of materials regulated by Annex V. First, these surveys may not be conducted often enough, in that the residence time of debris on beaches appears to be only a matter of months or, in some cases, days. If these estimates are accurate, then the results drawn from less-frequent sampling probably underestimate the true fluxes. Second, these studies record the incidence of all debris on a beach and may include plastic discards from non-ship sources such as storm drains, recreational activities, and sewers, thereby confusing the results. To assure uniformity in data gathering, a dedicated collection team could be employed.3 An alternative would be to train volunteers to identify debris items in a uniform manner, perhaps by using a manual such as the Pocket Guide to Marine Debris (Center for Marine Conservation, 1993). As data were collected, all debris would be removed from each sampling site. Materials to be counted would in-elude all plastics and, in some areas, non-plastic debris such as waste from fishing activities. For the program to be thorough, all U.S. coasts would have to be monitored. Monitoring sites might be designated on each coast and the Gulf of Alaska, where large amounts of debris from fishing activities accumulate. The collection team could survey each site on a regular basis. Because Annex V regulates only vessel garbage, monitoring sites could be sought that receive minimal discards from land sources. Perhaps uninhabited offshore islands would provide the most reasonable monitoring sites4; another possibility would be beaches closed to public use due to their association with active or abandoned naval target ranges. Beach Surveys of Plastic Debris The objectives of benthic surveys would be to measure the amounts and 3 Such a strategy was employed during the EPA-sponsored National Mussel Watch from 1976 to 1978, in which sentinel organisms were collected at over 100 stations on the East, West and Gulf coasts (Goldberg et al., 1983). Two scientists acted as a dedicated collection team. The program has been continued and expanded under NOAA's Status and Trends Program. 4 Data collected on Sable Island provides ample evidence of the transport of human-generated garbage across vast expanses of water onto a sparsely inhabited, windswept island (Lucas, 1992). Copious amounts of debris from ships also have washed up on remote Hawaiian island beaches (Marine Mammal Commission, 1992).
OCR for page 219
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea types of plastic and other debris on the sea floor, the area covered by such materials, and any changes with time. Surveys can be conducted in a variety of ways, using trawls, submersibles, divers, side-scan sonar imaging, or underwater cameras. All these strategies are expensive and can cover but a small area of the ocean bottom. Trawl surveys appear to be the preferred as well as the least expensive strategy (Ribic et al., 1992), although the cost and efficiency of trawl and electronic surveys have not been assessed. Clearly, the trawl surveys would best be made in conjunction with the beach surveys at each site. Ribic et al. (1992) identified the variables to be considered in trawl surveys. One variable is vessel capability to tow effectively. The mesh size of the net governs the sizes of particles captured. Fluctuations in survey depth provide a sense of whether the trawl is following the bottom. Sampling Sites and Frequencies Because all plastic material within a given stretch of beach is to be both counted and collected, a beach site must be both short enough that a survey can be executed and long enough to provide suitable statistics. Amos (1993) suggests a minimum length of one kilometer. Whatever the length, a site needs to encompass the total beach area so there are no difficulties with lateral transport of debris. Sampling frequencies would be developed in line with quality control and quality assurance criteria. Quality control relates to the quality of the data itself, usually defined by statistical parameters, standard deviations, and precision. Quality assurance relates to the adequacy of the data to satisfy the goal of the project (i.e., whether the data reflect statistically valid changes with time in the flux of plastics from vessel discards to the coastal zone). Sampling frequency would depend in part on how often the physical oceanographic properties of a site change. In this as well as other aspects of sampling design, a statistician is crucial, as emphasized by both Ribic et al. (1992) and Amos (1993). The former asserts that "a statistician should be consulted at the onset of survey planning and be involved through the completion of the study." Data Collection and Management The survey team would employ multiple data units, such as site-by-site volume, weight, and number of debris articles. In addition, other information would be collected with each site visit, including current patterns, weather, and some measure of vessels transiting nearby shipping lanes. At certain sites, measures of commercial and recreational fishing intensity also could be important. Plastic containers often are imprinted with the year and even month of manufacture, country of origin, and manufacturer. Such information is extremely useful in associating the debris with a given source, such as a vessel as opposed to a
OCR for page 220
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea land-based source. What is more, this information can establish recent use, suggesting the approximate time of discard (e.g., after ratification of Annex v). Because the plastics survey project would be narrow in scope, the data gathered might be of only limited value. Still, this type of data, given appropriate quality control parameters, could be useful to national and international agencies implementing Annex V. Therefore, the data might be stored in a readily accessible computer for use in other marine debris research programs. SUMMARY Progress in implementation of Annex V could be measured through record keeping reflecting vessel compliance and, as a supplementary measure, environmental monitoring. The most easily implemented record-keeping program might be a combined Coast Guard/APHIS system on vessel garbage handling, making use of existing APHIS records of vessel boardings and garbage off-loading, and information from Coast Guard enforcement reports and vessels' garbage logs. Apart from providing benchmarks for measuring Annex V implementation, the database could be used to determine where the two agencies' monitoring and enforcement resources should be directed. Both the data-gathering and enforcement efforts also could benefit if cargo and cruise ships were required to off-load garbage at all of their U.S. port calls. An environmental monitoring program could be designed to determine the fluxes of plastics through the marine environment as a function of time. Such an effort might be incorporated into NOAA's Status and Trends Program. A collection team could collect plastic debris from selected beach sites on all U.S. coasts, in conjunction with trawl or electronic surveys of the coastal sea floor. The EPA could have some involvement, in order to capitalize on the experience and expertise gained in developing its beach monitoring program. REFERENCES Amos, A.F. 1993. Technical Assistance for the Development of Beach Debris Data Collection Methods. Final Report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, New Orleans, La. TR/93-002. May 31. Center for Marine Conservation (CMC). 1993. Pocket Guide to Marine Debris. Washington, D.C.: CMC. Fowler, C.W. and N. Baba. 1991. Entanglement studies, St. Paul Island, 1990 Juvenile Male Northern Fur Seals. AFSC Processed Report 91-01. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Goldberg, E.D., M. Koyde, V. Hodge, A.R. Flegal, and J. Martin. 1983. U.S. Mussel Watch: 1977-1978 results on trace metals and radio nuclides. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (U.K.) 16:69-83.
OCR for page 221
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hodge, K., J. Glen, and D. Lewis. 1993. 1992 International Coastal Cleanup Results. Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine Conservation. Hollin, D. and M. Liffman. 1993. Survey of Gulf of Mexico Marine Operations and Recreational Interests: Monitoring of MARPOL Annex V Compliance Trends. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Gulf of Mexico Program by Dewayne Hollin, Texas A&M University Sea Grant College Program, and Michael Liffman, Louisiana State University Sea Grant College Program. Lucas, Z. 1992. Monitoring persistent litter in the marine environment on Sable Island, Nova Scotia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(4): 192-199). April. Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 1992. Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1991, a report to Congress. Washington, D.C.:MMC. Jan. 31. Miller, J. 1993. Marine Debris Investigation: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Corpus Christi, Tex.: National Park Service. December. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1988. National Marine Pollution Program: Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and Monitoring Fiscal Years 1988-1992. Rockville, Md.: NOAA. Cited in National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring. Marine Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring. Marine Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Ribic, C.A., T.R. Dixon, and I. Vining. 1992. Marine Debris Survey Manual. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Ryan, P.G. and C.L. Moloney. 1993. Marine litter keeps increasing. Nature 361:23. Jan. 7. Sileo, L. (chair). 1990. Report of the working group on ingestion. Pp. 1226-1231 in Proc. of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. II), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring: Summary Proceedings of a Workshop. EPA 503/9-89-001. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water. September. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1992. International Environment: International Agreements are Not Well Monitored. GAO/RCED-92-43. Washington, D.C.: GAG Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. Jan. 27.
Representative terms from entire chapter: