2
Sources, Fates, and Effects of Shipborne Garbage

Full implementation of Annex V depends in part on the development of a comprehensive understanding of the sources, fates, and effects of vessel garbage, because this information suggests where interventions are needed. To date, scientific understanding of these phenomena is uneven, and certain aspects have yet to be examined at all. This chapter outlines what is known and identifies important gaps in knowledge.

The chapter opens with an overview of techniques for identifying and monitoring vessel garbage in the marine environment. The heart of the chapter is divided into three sections. The first describes the nine fleets examined by the committee as sources of vessel garbage. The second section outlines what is known about the fate of vessel garbage discarded into the marine environment. The last section and a supporting appendix summarize the effects of vessel garbage and other marine debris on aesthetic enjoyment of oceans and beaches, human health, and the ecology of the marine environment. Although the ill effects of such debris are acknowledged and often visible, they are often difficult to quantify and understand in terms beyond the harm inflicted on marine life. Information on effects is included not only for the sake of completeness, but also because it may be useful in development of educational programs (Chapter 6) and benchmarks for measuring progress in Annex V implementation (Chapter 8).

In tracking vessel garbage, it is important to recognize that an estimate of the quantity of garbage generated is not a measure of the amount handled by onboard treatment technologies or port reception facilities. Annex V permits vessel operators to discharge into the oceans non-plastic materials that float, food wastes, and other garbage, so long as the vessel is the prescribed distance from shore



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea 2 Sources, Fates, and Effects of Shipborne Garbage Full implementation of Annex V depends in part on the development of a comprehensive understanding of the sources, fates, and effects of vessel garbage, because this information suggests where interventions are needed. To date, scientific understanding of these phenomena is uneven, and certain aspects have yet to be examined at all. This chapter outlines what is known and identifies important gaps in knowledge. The chapter opens with an overview of techniques for identifying and monitoring vessel garbage in the marine environment. The heart of the chapter is divided into three sections. The first describes the nine fleets examined by the committee as sources of vessel garbage. The second section outlines what is known about the fate of vessel garbage discarded into the marine environment. The last section and a supporting appendix summarize the effects of vessel garbage and other marine debris on aesthetic enjoyment of oceans and beaches, human health, and the ecology of the marine environment. Although the ill effects of such debris are acknowledged and often visible, they are often difficult to quantify and understand in terms beyond the harm inflicted on marine life. Information on effects is included not only for the sake of completeness, but also because it may be useful in development of educational programs (Chapter 6) and benchmarks for measuring progress in Annex V implementation (Chapter 8). In tracking vessel garbage, it is important to recognize that an estimate of the quantity of garbage generated is not a measure of the amount handled by onboard treatment technologies or port reception facilities. Annex V permits vessel operators to discharge into the oceans non-plastic materials that float, food wastes, and other garbage, so long as the vessel is the prescribed distance from shore

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea (disposal requirements are outlined in Chapter 1, Figure 1-1). Therefore, an unknown amount of garbage continues to be discharged overboard legally, adding to the accumulation of debris already in the marine environment. IDENTIFYING VESSEL GARBAGE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT The amounts and precise characteristics of garbage thrown overboard, either before the ratification of Annex V or since, are unknown. Vessel discards are difficult to isolate and identify in the marine environment, due to the littering of coastal waters by land-generated wastes left on beaches, continuing domestic and industrial sewer discharges, and previously discharged waste transported via offshore winds, rivers, and coastal runoff. However, there is at least one way to approximate the level of vessel debris as distinct from other waste—by selecting particular types of sampling sites and then monitoring certain types of debris appearing there. Plastics, which for all practical purposes are indestructible1 under marine environmental conditions, may provide a reliable measure of vessel discards if sampled in sediments and on beaches distant from the influences of recreational activities and sewer outfalls. However, because newly discarded plastic items float, they may be transported to locations far from the site of discharge, confounding attempts to identify vessel-generated debris on the basis of location alone. Plastics also may sink over time as they break apart, weather, or accumulate organic coatings, tar, shells, or sand. Sunken items may not be observed. To complicate monitoring efforts further, it is impossible to distinguish plastics tossed overboard lawfully before 1989 from those discarded illegally since then. Still, worldwide, there probably has been a meaningful (albeit unknown) level of compliance with the ban on discharge of plastics. The types of items discarded from vessels are reflected in beach debris, which encompasses a wide variety of materials. The characteristics of debris items larger than 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) have been summarized from the literature by Ribic et al. (1992). These items include glass, plastic, metal, paper, and a telling variety of fisheries gear, cloth, foodstuffs, wood, rubber, and packaging materials. With the exception of plastics, all these materials may be discharged overboard in certain areas under Annex V. The selection of indicator items for 1   At present, biodegradable plastics are used only on a very limited basis and their ultimate fates in the marine environment are unknown (Palmisano and Pettigrew, 1992). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published rules setting standards of degradability for plastic six-pack rings (40 C.F.R. §238), and commercial ring carriers appear to meet the standards (Craig Vogt, EPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, personal communication to Marine Board staff, July 7, 1994). Even so, overboard disposal of all plastics, including biodegradable varieties, is prohibited.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea One way to estimate amounts and types of vessel garbage thrown overboard is to examine beach debris, which may vary by geographical area. Milk jugs are a common sight along Gulf of Mexico beaches. Credit: Tony Amos. measuring vessel discards depends in part on the location of the debris sampling site. Table 2-1 lists items that might be used as indicators for vessel discards washed ashore in the Gulf of Mexico; it should be possible to identify comparable indicator items for vessel garbage in other regions. To date, the monitoring of debris under the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) has been confined to beach surveys and near-shore urban surveys of harbors, where debris may include materials from wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows and stormwater drains (Trulli et al., 1990). The literature includes occasional reports on underwater surveys or cleanups of sunken debris from harbors or around oil platforms (Debenham and Younger, 1991; Minerals Management Service, 1992). Sinking debris receives little attention, yet the long-term and perhaps most insidious effects may be upon the benthic biota. Plastics and other wastes are entering the benthos in continuous fluxes. The material may reside for a near-infinite time in the surface sediments. Debris on the coastal sea floor could be monitored by divers or through the use of side-scan sonar imaging, photographic surveys, submersibles, or trawls. In summary, techniques for monitoring vessel garbage in the marine environment have not been well defined. Improvements are in the offing (Miller, 1993, 1994). Systematic efforts have been made to monitor marine debris2, but to 2   For example, the National Park Service conducted a five-year sampling program at selected parks (Cole et al., 1990, 1992; Manski et al., 1991; Miller, 1993), and sampling programs have been carried out in Alaska (Merrell, 1980, 1985; Johnson and Merrell, 1988; Johnson, 1990a, 1990b), Hawaii (Henderson et al., 1987), and Texas (Amos, 1993b).

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 2-1 Indicator Items That May be Used to Identify Sources of Beach Debris in the Gulf of Mexico SOURCE ITEMS OTHER SOURCES Offshore oil and gas operators Pipe-thread protectors; 55-gallon drums; 5-gallon pails; large white plastic sheets Fishing; merchant mariners Fishing (shrimpers, long-liners) Rubber gloves; 5-gallon pails, milk jugs; egg cartons; onion sacks; light sticks; plastic sheets Recreational boaters Merchant mariners Galley-waste containers with non-U.S. labels None Recreational boaters Outboard motor oil containers Fishing; beach goers Beach goers Beverage cans; fast food containers Fishing; recreational boaters; merchant mariners   Source: Amos, 1993a. date the results have been disappointing in terms of the failure to detect clear trends. The federal government plans to put a new national monitoring program in place in 1995. The program will make use of a statistical methodology for monitoring marine debris that was developed and reviewed by federal agencies and environmental organizations. Applications for this methodology also are being studied by Latin American and Caribbean countries. SOURCES OF SHIPBORNE GARBAGE Information about sources of shipborne garbage is useful because it can suggest where Annex V implementation efforts should be directed. The sources of garbage regulated by Annex V are ''all ships,'' where a ship is defined as "...a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms." (See Appendix B.) Thus, many diverse fleets and vessels are potential sources of garbage. The true sources, of course, are the persons aboard these vessels who generate garbage as a normal consequence of all the sundry activities they pursue. The quantity and nature of vessel discards depend in part on the standards of crew or passenger accommodations. The amount of garbage is proportional to the community's standard of living; the higher the standard, the more seafarers are likely to use packaged prepared foods, supplies, and single-use items rather than provisions requiring added preparation and cleanup. (Moreover, the use of dis-

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea posable items and packaging has been encouraged by changes in ship practices, sanitation concerns, and a desire for convenience.) The result is added waste. When an individual is accustomed to a high standard of living on shore, he or she expects similar conveniences on a vessel, despite the cramped living space. Modem vessels are capable of providing many conveniences, even on long voyages. The task of measuring the amounts of garbage produced during normal voyages is not well supported by present Annex V compliance and enforcement programs. The committee was unable to locate or develop any precise data for any phase of the garbage cycle.3 There are no reliable data on the characteristics and amounts of vessel garbage generated by all the maritime sectors to which Annex V applies. Nevertheless, drawing on numerous sources, the committee sought to characterize as completely as possible the various fleets and the garbage they generate. Nine major maritime sectors are addressed in this report.4 The information presented in this chapter is deliberately brief; additional details about each fleet and its garbage management practices are provided in Chapter 4. The only all-inclusive estimates of amounts of garbage generated by U.S. maritime sectors were developed in support of MARPOL/MPPRCA rule making for the Department of Transportation by the Eastern Research Group (1988) and later revised (Cantin et al., 1990). (See Table 2-2.) These estimates, while based on some flawed assumptions, provide an initial perspective on sources of vessel garbage. The Cantin data identified recreational boaters as generating the largest amount of garbage (by weight), more than 50 percent of the total. Day boats and fishing vessels each were thought to contribute close to 20 percent of the total. The Cantin data must be employed carefully because they are based on some fleet-specific assumptions that are either outdated or, in the committee's judgment, questionable. The former problem is obvious with regard to the merchant marine, for example. The maritime industry has changed considerably in recent years. Environmental awareness has increased within the industry, while the continued depression in worldwide shipping has spurred operators to reduce crew sizes, change organizational structures and voyage patterns, and expand shoreside responsibilities for vessel garbage management. These factors can influence the amounts of garbage generated. An example of a questionable assumption may be found in the Cantin calculations for the recreational boating sector, in which per-person garbage generation was presumed to be similar to that for cargo ships. This correlation seems doubtful, considering that boaters generally eat only one meal per voyage, while merchant mariners may consume three meals daily and generate additional garbage from food preparation. Thus, the Cantin estimate for 3   A now-outdated study by the National Research Council (1975) estimated that ocean-going vessels discard 635,000 MT (14 billion pounds) of wastes every year. 4   Each sector reflects a general type of vessel; most surface vessels would fit into one of the nine categories (the committee did not examine submarines). Any omissions of specific sectors or vessels are due only to limits on the committee's time and resources.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 2-2 Annual Garbage Generation by U.S. Maritime Sectorsa,b Sector Garbage Generated (MT) Percent of Total Recreational Boats 636,055 51.4 Day Boats 245,108 19.8 Fishing Vessels 233,177 18.8 Small Public Vessels   3.2 U.S. Navy 34,611   U.S. Coast Guard 4,317   U.S. Army: 490   Schools 266   Cargo Ships 30,949 2.5 Navy Surface Combatant Vessels 21,968 1.8 Offshore Industry   1.4 Platforms 14,721   Service 1,989   Passenger Cruise Ships 13,347 1.1 Miscellaneous Vessels 1,161 0.1 Research Vessels   <<0.1 NOAA 317   Other 213   Total 1,238,689 99.99 a This garbage is not necessarily discharged overboard. b The original presentation of the data has been revised to conform with the committee's maritime sectors. Source: Cantin et al., 1990. boaters' garbage seems high. Other salient observations on the Cantin data may be found in the forthcoming descriptions of each sector. The data presented in Table 2-2 reflect garbage generation. The Cantin study also estimated amounts of garbage discharged ashore and overboard by each maritime sector, both before and after ratification of Annex V. These estimates were incorporated into a congressionally mandated study of plastic waste materials, including marine debris (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). In the committee's judgment, neither the Cantin nor the EPA results with respect to garbage discharged overboard can be relied on, even to gain an initial perspective on disposal practices. The committee's misgivings are due primarily to the absence of any way to know whether the estimates are even reasonable. Indeed, little is known about the amounts of garbage discarded at sea, or, correspondingly, whether these disposal levels are environmentally acceptable. Examination of these issues is beyond the scope of the present report. However, recognizing the shortcomings of available data, the committee developed its own estimates of vessel garbage generation based on weighting factors obtained from a variety of sources (see Table 2-3). These rough approxi-

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 2-3 Characterization of Vessel Garbage Generated in U.S. Maritime Sectorsa   Estimate of Annual   Average Crew/Passengers     Number of Vessels Low Average High Vessel Utilizationc Recreational Boats 7,300,000 1 2 6 0.06 Fishing Vessels 129,000 1 4 200 0.66 Cargo Ships 7,800 17 20 25 0.96 Day Boats 5,200 6 46 330 0.66 Small Public Vessels 3,194         U.S. Navy 284 25 150 300 0.33 U.S. Coast Guard 2,316 5 8 140 0.3 U.S. Army 580 5 6 40 0.2 Schools 14 50 100 150 0.35 Offshore Industry 2625         Platforms 1125 15 22 40 1 Service Vessels 1500 3 7 20 1 Navy Combatant           Surface Vessels 360 200 436 5900 0.33 Passenger Cruise Ships 128 125 2,250 3,300 0.96 Research Vessels 125         NOAA 25 10 90 110 0.75 Othere 100 10 30 50 0.5 Miscellaneous Vesselsf 85 7 23 30 1 Total   a U.S. maritime sectors include foreign-flag vessels that call at U.S. ports as well as all U.S.-flag vessels. b Domestic garbage includes food waste and personal care items; operational/maintenance wastes include fuel oil and fishing wastes; cargo-related garbage includes packaging materials and dunnage. c Vessel utilization is an estimate of the number of days per year vessels are used (1.00 = 365 days). d Day use is an estimate of how long vessels operate during a day of use (1 = 24 hours). e Other research vessels include those operated by private institutions or by federal agencies other than NOAA (e.g., EPA). f Miscellaneous vessels include those operated by private industry. Sources: All figures are based on the best information available to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes. Estimates of garbage generation (shown in the column entitled "Total [metric tons]") were derived by multiplying together all the preceding figures in each row (using only the average number of crew/passengers). The committee relied on the following sources in developing the table: Recreational Boats: Cantin et al., 1990; American Red Cross, 1991; U.S. Coast Guard, 1992a. (The total number of vessels is all boats registered in coastal states or in states bordering the Great Lakes. Fishing Vessels: Cantin et al., 1990; National Research Council, 1991. Cargo Ships: U.S. Maritime Administration, 1992a, 1992b; 1992 data obtained from the Maritime Administration's Office of Trade Statistics and Insurance, Washington, D.C.; 1993 data obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Information Management System database. (The total number of cargo ships is the number of different ships of all flags calling at U.S. ports annually.) Day Boats: U.S. Coast Guard, 1994a. Small Public Vessels: U.S. Coast Guard, 1992b. Offshore Oil Industry: U.S. Coast Guard, 1994b; Minerals Management Service, 1992; .1994 data obtained from Offshore Marine Services Association, New Orleans, La. U.S. Navy Surface Combatant Vessels: cantin et al., 1990; Polmar, 1992; Forecast International, 1992; 1994 data obtained from U.S. Navy International Programs Office, Washington, D.C. Passenger Cruise Ships: Cantin et al., 1990; Cruise Lines International Association, 1994. Research Vessels: Cantin et al., 1990; National Research Council, 1994. Miscellaneous Vessels: Cantin et al., 1990.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea   Garbage Generation     Character of Typical Voyage Types of Garbageb Day Used Per Capita Garbage (kilograms/ person/day) Total (metric tons) A= Nearshore B= Offshore Operational/ Domestic Maintenance Cargo Related Recreational Boats 1 0.5 159,900 A x     Fishing Vessels 1 1.85 230,500 A, B x x   Cargo Ships 1 2 111,700 B x   x Day Boats 0.5 2 57,623 A, B x     Small Public Vessels     14,932 A, B x x x U.S. Navy 1 2 10,262         U.S. Coast Guard 1 2 4,058         U.S. Army 0.5 2 254         Schools 1 2 358         Offshore Industry     25,733   x x x Platforms 1 2 18,068 B       Service Vessels 1 2 7,665 A, B       Navy Combatant 1 2 37,812 B x x   Surface Vessels 1 2 201,830 A x     Passenger Cruise Ships     1,779 A, B x x   Research Vessels 1 2 1,232         NOAA 0.5 2 548         Othere 1 2 1,427 A, B x     Miscellaneous Vesselsf     843,236        

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea mations, which seem reasonable to the committee, suggest that fishing vessels produce the most garbage (by weight), followed by passenger cruise ships and then recreational boaters. Tile major differences between the committee's and Cantin's estimates illustrate how seemingly minor changes in assumptions can skew the data, thereby casting doubt on the utility of such exercises. It must be emphasized, once again, that the data provide only an initial perspective on where Annex V implementation problems may lie. In any case, the precise numbers become less important in light of the committee's determination that amount is only one of several factors related to garbage sources that are significant from the standpoint of implementing Annex V. Several other key factors are reflected in Table 2-3. Of special interest are the numbers of vessels in each sector, the duration of voyages, and the nature of the garbage generated. The number of vessels reflects the quantity of isolated points at which garbage is generated and must be handled properly. The huge number of recreational boats poses a unique challenge in this respect. Voyage duration is also a significant factor. Some Navy ships face extreme challenges in managing garbage because they remain at sea for weeks or even months, so shoreside disposal is a rare option. The problems are fewer on day boats, which easily can store garbage for the duration of their brief voyages. And the nature of the garbage is important because some materials can be disposed of more easily than can others. Vessels that produce multiple types of garbage (especially when many different materials are involved) may requite unusually involved Annex V compliance strategies. Thus, a complex of factors must be considered in identifying which fleets pose the greatest challenges in terms of garbage management. None of the key factors—amounts of garbage, numbers of vessels, duration of voyages, or types of garbage—can be defined with precision across all sectors, because reliable data are scarce and vessel characteristics, even within a single sector, vary widely. Each sector presents unique issues and must be examined individually. The following presentation is organized according to the number of vessels in each sector (the most objective factor), beginning with the largest fleet. Recreational Boats Recreational boats produce relatively small amounts of garbage per person and per vessel, due to the short duration of voyages. However, there are an estimated 7.3 million recreational boats in the United States, far more than in any other sector. This sector therefore poses unique challenges in Annex V implementation. Still, the total amount of garbage generated is probably lower than the Cantin estimate, which the committee believes was based on inflated assumptions for numbers of passengers per vessel and, as noted earlier, per-person garbage generation. Recreational boats produce mainly domestic garbage. Most of these boats

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Although many recreational boaters are concerned about the marine environment, there is visible evidence that Annex V compliance levels need to be improved. Even when marinas have reception facilities, garbage still may end up in the water or on the shore. Credit: Coastal Resources Center. operate within 3 nautical miles of shore, so they are supposed to store all garbage for disposal ashore. Actual disposal practices are difficult to ascertain; the discards are virtually indistinguishable from those of land-side sources, and boats may use innumerable docks and launch ramps that are exempt from requirements for port reception facilities. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that less garbage is thrown overboard today than was in the past. Mudar (1991) has documented a 91 percent Annex V compliance rate among Nantucket boaters using a public marina. Commercial Fisheries The United States supports a large and diverse fishing industry that makes a significant contribution to the national and regional economies.5 The fleets are unique to each catch, and a wide variety of gear is employed. Vessels range from small powered craft and row boats to those over 1,000 tons. In 1990, some 30,000 fishing vessels over S net tons were documented by the federal government and 5   In 1992, the United States ranked sixth in total world harvest behind China, Japan, Peru, Chile, and the former Soviet Union. U.S. fishermen landed 4.7 million metric tons (MT) (10.5 billion pounds [lbs.]) of fish valued at $3.5 billion, and the U.S. vessels transferred to foreign ports or vessels an additional 216,000 MT (476.8 million lbs.) valued at $195.4 million (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1994).

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 2-4 Estimated Number of Fishing Industry Vessels Active During 1987 (by Region Fished)a Region Documented Vessels State-Numbered Vessels North Atlantic New England 1,800 16,500 Mid-Atlantic 800 5,500 Chesapeake Bay 2,500 3,500+b South Atlantic 2,700 13,500 Gulf/Caribbean Gulf Coast 10,000 26,500c Caribbean d 1,500 Great Lakes e e West Coast 5,000 6,000 Alaska 8,000 9,000 Hawaii/Southwest Pacific 200 200 Total 31,000± 80,0005±f a Numbers are composite estimates from regional sources. Principal sources include records of fish landings maintained by National Marine Fisheries Service regional offices, permit data maintained by the Commercial Fishing Entry Commission in Juneau, Alaska, and regional assessments commissioned for this study, and economic analyses available for some fisheries. b Based on 1986 estimate of Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery (Sutinen, 1986). c Includes a large number of small boats engaged in shrimp fisheries in bays, sounds, and estuaries. d Negligible. e Current information is not available. f The number of commercial fishing vessels bearing state numbers is not known. West Coast and Alaska figures are close approximations. All other data presented are general estimates. Source: National Research Council, 1991. about 80,000 vessels were registered by the states (a breakdown by region is provided in Table 2-4). Trip length varies; most smaller craft take day trips, but the largest vessels, such as tuna seiners, may be at sea for two or three months at a time. In addition to vessels used by professionals who catch fish for sale as food, there are significant numbers of smaller craft known as charter or head boats, which carry recreational fishermen offshore. Most operate as day boats, rarely venturing beyond 12 miles from shore. A few operate up to 2,500 nautical miles from port for 15 to 20 days. Most use marinas or small docks (as opposed to fishing piers) to support operations. Garbage generally is stored on board and disposed of ashore. Fishing vessels generate significant amounts of garbage, as is evident from both Cantin's and the committee's estimates (they are nearly identical). Equally notable is the type of garbage, which can include fishing nets, monofilament

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea These types of studies suggest that the arbitrary Annex V disposal demarcations of 12 and even 25 miles from land may not protect coastal areas fully against pollution from vessel garbage. Initial research in the Gulf of Mexico indicates that floating plastic sheets (used by the offshore oil industry to cover materials in transit) persist and remain a nuisance as long as they remain anywhere in the water (Lecke-Mitchell and Mullin, 1992). ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF MARINE DEBRIS Marine debris may accumulate on beaches, on the surface waters, and in the benthos. The potential environmental and physical effects13 of this debris, whether from vessel or land-based sources, include. aesthetic degradation of surface sea waters and beach areas; physical injuries to humans and life-threatening interference with their activities; ecological damage caused by the interference of plastics with gas exchange between overlying waters and those in the benthos; alterations in the composition of ecosystems caused by debris that provides habitats for opportunistic organisms; entanglements of birds, fish, turtles, and cetaceans in lost or discarded nets, fishing gear, and packing materials; and ingestion of plastic particles by marine animals. The aesthetic problems are obvious to anyone who has visited a debris-littered beach or observed garbage floating in the sea. Indeed, the aesthetic degradation that is evident when a beach is littered may be more compelling to the public and to policymakers than is any number of numerical analyses of debris levels, animal mortality, or other effects. Yet these other effects are significant. Following is a summary of what is known about the health and ecological effects of marine debris, including vessel garbage. Additional details concerning ecological effects may be found in Appendix F. Human Health Problems Aside from the potential for beach goers to step on or in some other way be injured by pieces of glass, metal, or other sharp objects, the most widely perceived threat has been from the fear of contamination by medical waste washed 13   Marine debris also has economic effects, as noted in Chapter 1 and implied in the forthcoming discussion of ghost fishing. The committee did not examine this aspect of the problem in detail.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea up on beaches14. Public health officials believe the risk of contracting blood-home diseases from exposure to medical wastes found on beaches is low, but the EPA has asserted that "inadvertent exposure is publicly unacceptable and should be prevented" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). A similar threat is posed by debris items containing hazardous waste. At Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, hazardous wastes such as acids have been found in bottles and other containers washed up on beaches. Although no serious incidents have occurred, National Park Service employees consider themselves lucky (John Miller, National Park Service, personal communication to member of the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, November 1, 1993). Marine debris also has been known to disable divers and vessels, with potentially life-threatening results. Divers sometimes become entangled in pieces of monofilament fishing line that have snagged on reefs or other underwater structures. Fishing has been banned from some oil platforms in the North Sea because of related problems experienced by divers (Borne, 1990). In addition, large debris items have caused boat collisions, while smaller items have been reported to wrap around propellers or clog cooling water intakes, causing engine failure. These problems have not been studied in detail. To improve understanding of the magnitude of the problem, incidents involving debris could be coded and recorded in the Coast Guard's accident database; insurance agencies might be another source of information. Ecological Effects Little scientific information is available concerning how debris may affect marine invertebrate species, plant life, or marine habitats in general, aside from observations that debris damages coral reefs, is ingested by squid (Array, 1983; Machida, 1983), and may offer a new habitat niche for encrusting marine species (Winston, 1982). Concern has been expressed about the biological uptake of minute suspended particles possibly contaminated with heavy metals or other toxic substances. Such particles may result from the degradation of large plastic items, cosmetic additives (minute plastics are added as abrasives), and aeroblasting (use of plastic "sand" to remove paint from ship hulls) (Gregory, 1994). Also, concern has been expressed that floating plastics may facilitate the 14   During the summers of 1987 and 1988, medical wastes appearing on beaches in the Northeast raised concerns over the potential threat of exposure to diseases such as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). In fact, several syringes, needles, and blood vials that were found tested positive for the AIDS antibodies and the hepatitis B virus, and there were reports of persons being punctured by these items. But the majority of the items reported were syringes generated by land-based sources, not ships (ICF, 1989).

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea transoceanic or regional introduction of aggressive alien taxa into new areas (Winston et al., 1994). Many questions remain concerning effects of plastics and other debris on the benthos. When they accumulate, these materials can interfere with dissolved gas exchange between the pore waters of the sediment and the overlying waters, potentially leading to hypoxic or anoxic environments15 that can kill some organisms. Community structure may be altered further by opportunistic organisms that may colonize plastic debris. There has yet to be any systematic and continuous surveillance to determine how the increasing coverage of the sea floor with plastics and other indestructible materials affects the functioning of ecosystems. Entanglement of Marine Animals Plastic debris causes considerable mortality of marine wildlife. Entangled animals may be unable to breathe, swim, feed, or care for their young properly (Laist, 1987, 1994). Studies have indicated that each year as many as 50,000 northern fur seals were becoming entangled and dying in plastic debris, primarily fishing nets and strapping bands (Fowler, 1982). Indeed, marine debris is blamed for a significant decline in the fur seal population (Laist, 1994). Research continues to show that plastic also causes widespread mortality among other marine mammals, turtles, birds, and fish, either through entanglement or ingestion (Laist, 1987, 1994). Even land-based creatures, including foxes and rabbits, become ensnared in plastic debris on coastlines (Fowler and Merrell, 1986; O'Hara and Younger, 1990). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a key resource for biologists and others documenting wildlife interactions with debris; NMFS workshops and the resulting proceedings are important mechanisms for exchange of information on the subject among researchers and agencies.16 For example, the NMFS collected most of the information available on pinniped interactions with debris. The agency also conducted the first comprehensive assessment of turtle entanglement, compiling a list of 60 cases of sea turtle entanglements worldwide involving green, loggerhead, hawksbill, olive ridley, and leatherback turtles (Balazs, 1985). While pinniped and sea turtle entanglement in plastic debris has been documented, no agency has collected extensive data on bird mortality due to entanglement in debris, even though entanglements have been reported for at least 51 (16 percent) of the world's 312 seabird species. Likewise, little is known about the 15   An hypoxic environment is oxygen deficient; anoxia results when oxygen is absent entirely. 16   Other resources include a growing body of papers in journals such as the Marine Pollution Bulletin and conferences such as the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris (Alverson and June, 1988).

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea extent of entanglement among cetaceans, perhaps because these animals are found only on occasions when they wash ashore, and necropsies are done only when adequate expertise and funding are available. Entanglements have been reported for 10 (13 percent) of the 75 cetacean species (Laist, 1994). Information on the entanglement of fish in marine debris is also largely anecdotal. Ingestion of Plastics by Marine Species The most highly publicized example of plastic ingestion may be the consumption of plastic bags or sheeting by sea turtles, which are thought to mistake these items for jellyfish, squid, and other prey. Turtles, especially hawksbills, also eat encrusting organisms that grow on floating plastic and ingest plastic pieces as a ''by-product'' (Plotkin and Amos, 1988). The effect of plastics ingestion on sea turtle longevity and reproductive potential is unknown. It is thought that ingested plastics may cause mechanical blockage of the digestive tract, starvation, reduced absorption of nutrients, and ulceration. Buoyancy caused by plastics also could inhibit diving activities needed for pursuit of prey and escape from predators (Balazs, 1985; Lutz, 1990). Birds and fish also ingest plastics. At least 108 of the world's 312 seabird species are known to ingest plastic debris (Laist, 1994). Individuals from 33 fish species have been reported to ingest plastics (Laist, 1994); a list compiled by Hoss and Settle (1990) included larva, juvenile, and adults from benthic to pelagic habitats. Limited information is available concerning ingestion of plastic debris by marine mammals, although information from marine parks and zoos suggests that debris ingestion has the potential to be a direct cause of mortality (Walker and Coe, 1990). A dying pygmy sperm whale rescued by the National Aquarium in Baltimore had ingested several pieces of plastic bags and balloons (Craig Vogt, EPA, personal communication to Marine Board staff, August 4, 1994). The Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network has records of necropsies revealing debris ingestion by several cetaceans. In one highly publicized case, a rough-toothed dolphin died of peritonitis (inflammation of the abdominal lining) attributed to ingestion of a plastic snack food bag, while a 4-ton minke whale died with a plastic bag in its stomach. This information demonstrates that data on the effects of marine debris can be obtained through existing research mechanisms designed to achieve other goals. It might be feasible to expand other research projects focusing on non-Annex V topics, such as fish feeding behavior, to record any ingestion of plastics and other debris. Data also could be gathered by conducting regular necropsies on dead, stranded marine mammals and other animals. The value of using existing procedures to compile and maintain a database on debris interactions with wildlife is demonstrated by a report on plastic ingestion by the West Indian manatee, an endangered species. In the southeastern United States, manatee carcasses routinely are salvaged to determine cause of

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea death and collect biological information. In Florida, personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the University of Miami have performed systematic necropsies on dead manatees. Based on this information, Beck and Barros (1991) found that of 439 manatees necropsied between 1978 and 1986, 63 (14.4 percent) had ingested debris. Pieces of monofilament fishing line were the most common debris items ingested. (Marine debris is not, however, the leading cause of manatee deaths, which are attributed most often to collisions with vessel propellers.) Ghost Fishing Ghost fishing—a term referring to lost or discarded fishing gear that continues to catch finfish and shellfish species indefinitely—may significantly reduce some commercial stocks and ultimately could affect marine ecosystems. This is a difficult problem to study. Few data are available on the number of gear units deployed in various fisheries, the number lost, or the capability of various types of gear to ghost fish (Natural Resources Consultants, 1990). Nevertheless, available estimates suggest that ghost fishing could be a significant problem. Lobster and crab traps and gillnets have been found to have a significant potential to ghost fish. For the inshore lobster fishery of Maine, it has been estimated that 25 percent of all traps are lost each year, and that each lost trap can continue to catch lobsters up to 1.1 kg (2.5 lbs.) (Smolowitz, 1978). An estimated 10 to 20 percent of traps used in the coastal Dungeness crab and American lobster fisheries are lost each year; many crab and pot fisheries now are required to mark traps and use timed-release devices on panels to minimize ghost fishing (Breen, 1990). Lost gillnets can capture many fish and shellfish over long periods of time. According to one estimate, lost gillnets can fish at a 15 percent effectiveness rate for up to eight years (Natural Resources Consultants, 1990). A 24-day gillnet retrieval project in 1976 recovered 176 nets containing 4,813 kg (10,611 lbs.) of groundfish and 2,593 kg (5,717 lbs.) of crab (Brothers, 1992). A report of 10 lost nets found in 37.5 hours of searching off Massachusetts (Cart, 1986) suggests there may be numerous lost nets in some sink gillnet fishing areas in the northeastern United States (Laist, 1994). SUMMARY This chapter yields four basic findings, which provide the foundation for the remainder of the report. The first three findings are straightforward. First, considerable amounts of garbage are generated by seafarers in most if not all maritime communities. Second, garbage discarded into the sea can be transported far from the point of discharge. Third, the disposal of plastics in the marine environment is causing considerable harm, including mortality among marine mammals, turtles, birds, and fish, either through entanglement or ingestion.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea The fourth finding, which is multifaceted, is that available data on the sources, fates, and effects of marine debris—particularly vessel-generated debris—are often of poor quality, incomplete, and out of date. Because this problem may be too diffuse to be obvious, the specific deficiencies are enumerated here: Sources: Detailed, comprehensive data on garbage generation have been collected only for the Navy, and neither U.S. nor international Annex V compliance and enforcement regimes support the gathering of such data for other maritime sectors. Amounts of garbage generated and discarded overboard by the various fleets can only be estimated. Fates: Knowledge concerning the fates of vessel garbage is derived primarily from beach surveys, and the percentage of beach debris that comes from vessels is unknown. Few data are available on debris that ends up in sediments or the benthos. Effects: Although the harm to individual animals is apparent, the ecological effects of marine debris (including frequency of harm to wildlife and population impacts) cannot be established on the basis of surveys and other information gathered to date. Even for endangered species subject to continuous monitoring, cause-effect relationships have yet to be established. Part of the problem is that data on effects of marine debris have been gathered largely by individual researchers, working without an overall program of data collection. There is little centralized data analysis, and reporting on wildlife interactions with debris is not standardized. The value of systematically compiling and maintaining a database on debris interactions with wildlife is demonstrated by the information collected on West Indian manatees. Another problem is that no systematic effort coordinates the exchange of information on wildlife interactions with marine debris, other than through NMFS workshops and proceedings, and published literature on the topic remains scarce. There are fundamental barriers to the development of comprehensive knowledge about the effects of marine debris on wildlife. It is and will remain difficult to detect entangled and dead animals at sea and to distinguish the effects of marine debris from other impacts. Indeed, the true magnitude of the effects of marine debris on wildlife may never be defined absolutely. REFERENCES Alig, C.S., L. Koss, T. Scarano, and F. Chitty. 1990. Control of plastic wastes aboard naval ships at sea. Pp. 879-894 in Proceedings 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.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Alverson, D. and J.A. June, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris. Seattle, Wash.: Natural Resources Consultants. American Red Cross. 1991. American Red Cross National Boating Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Red Cross. Amos, A.F. 1993a. Technical Assistance for the Development of Beach Debris Data Collection Methods. Final Report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Dallas, Tex. TR/93-002. May 31. Amos, A.F. 1993b. Solid waste pollution of Texas beaches: a Post-MARPOL Annex V study, Vol 1: Narrative. OCS Study MMS 93-0013. Available from the public information unit of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. July. Araya, H. 1983. Fishery biology and stock assessment of Ommastrephes bartrami in the North Pacific Ocean. Mem. of the National Museum in Victoria (Australia). 44:269-283. Art Anderson Associates. 1993. NOAA Fleetwide Shipboard Waste Management. Report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Art Anderson Associates, Bremerton, Wash. Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impacts of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. Pp. 387-429 in Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii, R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds. NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Beck, C.A. and N.B. Barros. 1991. The impact of debris on the Florida manatee. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22(10):508-510. October. Bourne, W.R.P. (chair). 1990. Report of the working group on entanglement of marine life. Pp. 1207-1215 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. Breen, P.A. 1990. A review of ghost fishing by traps and gillnets. Pp. 571-599 in Proc. of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. Brothers, G. 1992. Lost or abandoned fishing gear in the Newfoundland aquatic environment . Paper presented at the C-Merits Symposium: Marine Stewardship in the Northwest Atlantic. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St Johns, Newfoundland, Canada. November. Cited in. Laist, D.W. 1994. Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris (draft). Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. Butler, J.N., B.F. Morris, and J. Sass. 1973. Pelagic Tar from Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea. Bermuda Biological Station Report No. 10. Available from the librarian, Bermuda Biological Station for Research, St. George's West, Bermuda. Cantin, J., J. Eyraud, and C. Fenton. 1990. Quantitative estimates of garbage generation and disposal in the U.S. maritime sectors before and after MARPOL Annex V. Pp. 119-181 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. December. Cart, H.A. 1986. Observation on the occurrence of impacts of ghost gillnets on Jeffrey's Ledge (abstract). Pp. 134-135 in Program and Abstracts, Sixth International Ocean Disposal Symposium, April 21-25, 1986, Pacific Grove, Calif. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmo-

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea spheric Administration. Cited in. Laist, D.W. 1994. Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris (draft). Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, May 8-13, 1994, Miami, Fla. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. Cole, C.A., J.P. Kumer, D.A Manski, and D.V. Richards. 1990. Annual Report of National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1989 Marine Debris Survey. Tech Rpt. NPS/NRWV/ NRTR-90/4. Available from the Natural Resources Publications Office of the National Park Service, Denver, Colo. Cole, C.A., W.P. Gregg, D.V. Richards, and D.A. Manski. 1992. Annual Report of National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1991 Marine Debris Surveys with Summary of Data from 1988 to 1991. Tech. Rpt. NPS/NRWWNRT-92/10. Available from the Natural Resources Publications Office of the National Park Service, Denver, Colo. Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). 1994. The CLIA Fleet: Post 1987. New York: CLIA. Debenham, P. and L.C. Younger. 1991. Cleaning North America's Beaches: 1990 Beach Cleanup Results. Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine Conservation. May. Eastern Research Group. 1988. Development of Estimates of Garbage Disposal in the Maritime Sectors. Final Report prepared for the Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation by ERG, Arlington, Mass. (now Lexington, Mass). December. Ebbesmeyer, C.C. and W.J. Ingraham Jr. 1992. Shoe spill in the North Pacific. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union 73(34):361,365. Aug. 25. Ebbesmeyer, C.C. and W.J. Ingraham Jr. 1994. Pacific toy spill fuels ocean current pathways research. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union 75(37):425,427,430. Sept. 13. Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. 1993. The Cruise Industry's Role in Waste Management. Paper prepared by the association, Miami, Fla. April. Forecast International. 1992. Warships Forecast, Appendix V: U.S. Navy Force Levels. Newtown, Conn.: Forecast International/DMS Market Intelligence Report. August. Fowler, C.W. 1982. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. Pp. 278-292 in Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute. Cited in. Laist, D.W. 1994. Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris (draft). Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, May 8-13, 1994, Miami, Fla. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. Fowler, C.W. and T.R. Merrell. 1986. Victims of plastic technology. Alaska Fish and Game 18(2):34-37. Garrity, S.D. and S.C. Levings. 1993. Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 26(6):317-324. June. Gregory, M.R. 1994. Plastic micro-litter: an underestimated contaminant of global oceanic waters. Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994. Henderson, J.R., S.L. Austin, and M.B. Pillos. 1987. Summary of webbing and net fragments found on Northwestern Hawaiian Islands beaches, 1982-1986. Rpt. H-87-11. Southwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Honolulu Lab. Long Beach, Calif.: NMFS. Hoss, D.E. and L.R. Settle. 1990. Ingestion of plastics by fishes. Pp. 693-709 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. ICF, Inc. 1989. Inventory of Medical Waste Beach Washups, June-October 1988. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C. March 13. Johnson, S.W. and T.R. Merrell Jr. 1988. Entanglement debris on Alaskan beaches, 1986. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NEC-126. Auk Bay, Alaska: National Marine Fisheries Service, North-

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea west and Alaska Fisheries Center. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Johnson, S.W. 1990a. Entanglement Debris on Alaskan beaches, 1989. NWAFC Processed Report 90-10. Auk Bay, Alaska: Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Johnson, S.W. 1990b. Distribution, abundance, and source of entanglement debris and other plastics on Alaskan beaches, 1982-1988. Pp. 331 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. December. Laist, D.W. 1987. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18 (6B):319-326. Laist, D.W. 1994. Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris (draft). Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. Landsburg, A.C., E. Gabler, G. Levine, R. Sonnenschein, and E. Simmons. 1990. U.S. commercial ships for tomorrow. Marine Technology. 27(3): 129-152. May. Lecke-Mitchell, K.M. and K. Mullin. 1992. Distribution and abundance of large floating plastic in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(12):598-601. December. Lutz, P.L. 1990. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. Pp. 719-735 in Proc. of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. December. Machida, S. 1983. A brief review of the squid fishery by Hoyo Maru No. 67 in southeast Australian waters in 1979/80. Mere. of the National Museum in Victoria (Australia). 44:291-295. Cited in. Walker, W.A. and J.M. Coe. 1990. Survey of marine debris ingestion by odontocete cetaceans. Pp. 747-774 in Proc. of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. Manski, D.A., W.P. Gregg, C.A. Cole, and D.V. Richards. 1991. Annual Report of the National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1990 Marine Debris Surveys. Tech. Rpt. NPS/NRWW/ NRTR-91/07. Available from the Natural Resources Publications Office of the National Park Service, Denver, Colo. September. Maritime Reporter. June 1993. Cruise Shipping—Recent Orders Help to Buoy Market. 31. Merrell, T.R. Jr. 1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of Amchitka Island, Alaska. Mar. Env. Res. 3:171-184. Merrell, T.R. Jr. 1985. Fish nets and other plastic litter on Alaskan beaches. Pp. 160-182 in Proceedings of a Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii, R. Shomura and H. Yoshida, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. Miller, J.E. 1993. Marine Debris Investigation: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Corpus Christi, Tex.: National Park Service. December. Miller, J.E. 1994. Marine Debris Point Source Investigation: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994. Resource Management Division, Padre Island National Seashore, Corpus Christi, Tex.

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Minerals Management Service. 1992. Federal Offshore Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1992. Proceedings: Twelfth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, Nov. 5-7, 1991, New Orleans, La., compiled by Geo-Marine Inc. OCS Study MMS 92-0027. New Orleans: U.S. Department of the Interior, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. December. Mudar, M.J. 1991. Reducing Plastic Contamination of the Marine Environment under MARPOL Annex V: A Model for Recreational Harbors and Ports. Ph.D. dissertation. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. February. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1994. Fisheries of the United States: Current Fisheries Statistics 9,300. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. May. National Research Council (NRC). 1975. Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. Ocean Affairs Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Printing and Publishing Office (now National Academy Press). National Research Council (NRC). 1991. Fishing Vessel Safety: Blueprint for a National Program. Marine Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Review of NOAA's Fleet Replacement and Modernization Plan. Marine Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Natural Resources Consultants. 1990. Survey and Evaluation of Fishing Gear Loss in Marine and Great Lakes Fisheries of the United States. Report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Entanglement Research Program, Seattle, Washington. O'Hara, K.J. and L.C. Younger. 1990. Cleaning North America's Beaches: 1989 Beach Cleanup Results. Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine Conservation. May. Palmisano, A.C. and C.A. Pettigrew. 1992. Biodegradability of plastics. BioScience 42(9):680-685. October. Plotkin, P.E. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris by sea turtles stranded along the south Texas Coast. Pp. 79-82 in Proc. of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SEFC-214. Available from the Southeast Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Fla. Polmar, N. 1992. Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, 15th ed. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. Ribic, C.A., T.R. Dixon and I. Vining. 1992. Marine Debris Survey Manual. NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS 108. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Wash. Schultz, J.P. and W.K. Upton, III. 1988. Solid Waste Generation Aboard USS O'Bannon (DD 987). DTRC/SME-87/92. Bethesda, Md.: U.S. Navy, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center. Smolowitz, R.J. 1978. Trap design and ghost fishing: Discussion. Marine Fisheries Review 40(5-6):59-67. Sutinen, J.G. 1986. Enforcement Issues in the Oyster Fishery of Chesapeake Bay. Paper presented at the Conference on Economics of Chesapeake Bay Management, Annapolis, Md., May 28-29, 1986. Swanson, R.L. and R.L. Zimmer. 1990. Meteorological conditions leading to the 1987 and 1988 washups of floatable wastes on New York and New Jersey beaches and comparison of these conditions with the historical record. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (U.K.) 30:59-78. Cited in. Swanson, R.L., R.R. Young, and S.S. Ross. 1994. An Analysis of Proposed Shipborne Waste Handling Practices Aboard United States Navy Vessels. Paper prepared for the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Swanson, R.L., R.R. Young, and S.S. Ross. 1994. An Analysis of Proposed Shipborne Waste Handling Practices Aboard United States Navy Vessels. Paper prepared for the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Trulli, W.R., H.K. Trulli, and D.P. Redford. 1990. Characterization of marine debris in selected

OCR for page 32
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea harbors of the United States. Pp. 309-324 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. December. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1992a. Boating Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Consumer and Public Affairs Division of the USCG Office of the Boating Safety. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1992b. Register of Cutters of the U.S. Coast Guard. Washington, D.C.: USCG. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1994a. Draft Regulatory Evaluation for Revision of 46 CFR Subchapter T. Washington, D.C.: USCG Vessel Documentation Branch. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1994b. Offshore Statistics. Washington, D.C.: USCG Office of Fishing Vessel Safety and Offshore Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Medical Waste: Environmental Backgrounder. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107). March. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Wastes—Report to Congress. EPA/530-SW-89-051. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste (OS-300) and Office of Water (WH-556). February. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994a. Pollution Prevention: Chronology of Navy Ship Waste Processing Equipment Development. GAO/NSIAD-94-221FS. Washington, D.C.: GAO National Security and International Affairs Division. August. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994b. Pollution Prevention: The Navy Needs Better Plans for Reducing Ship Waste Discharges. GAO/NSIAD-95-38. Washington, D.C.: GAO National Security and International Affairs Division. November. U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 1992a. Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: MARAD. U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 1992b. Merchant Marine Data Sheet. Aug. 14. Washington, D.C.: MARAD Office of Public Affairs. Walker, W.A. and J.M. Coe. 1990. Survey of marine debris ingestion by odontocete cetaceans. Pp. 747-774 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. December. Williams, A.T., S.L. Simmons, and A. Flicker. 1993. Offshore sinks of marine litter: A new problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(7):404-405. July. Winston, J.E. 1982. Drift plastic—an expanding niche for a marine invertebrate? Marine Pollution Bulletin 13(10):348-351. Winston, J.E., M.R. Gregory, and L.M. Stevens. 1994. Encrusters, epibionts, and other biota associated with pelagic plastics: a review of biographical, environmental, and conservation issues. Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994.