Marine vessel debris: A north American perspective

Marine Pollution Bulletin Chodosh, Hiram (1991). Neither Treaty nor Custom: The Emergence of Declarative International Law. Texas International Law Journal 26, 87-124. Feuer, Guy (1987). The Role of Resolutions in the Formation of General Rules of the International Law of Development. In Inter-

national Law of Development." Comparative Perspectives (Francis Snyder & Peter Slinn, eds). Professional Books, Abingdon, Oxon. Nonkaemper, Andre (1992). Marine pollution from land-based sources: Towards a global approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24, 8-12.

MarinePollutionBulletin,Volume24, No. 12,pp. 586-592, 1992. Printedin GreatBritain.

Marine Vessel Debris: A North American Perspective JOHN B. PEARCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA

In the early 1970s, national and international attention was directed to the problem of floatable marine debris and how to contain it. The issue was discussed in national newspapers frequently, and it was identified as a world-wide major marine pollution problem. While there had been isolated reports of various floatables and 'ghost-nets' found in water columns or snagged in benthic/demersal habitats, the paper by Colton et al. (1974) was one of the first to point out possible relationships between marine fishes and floating debris. Various federal and state laws and treaties cover persistent marine debris. Certain of these are concerned directly with marine debris while others address the issues indirectly. The following is summarized from a review provided in the Interagency Task Force Report on persistent marine debris (DOC, 1987). The International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, London, 1972, and entered into force 1975 (London Dumping Convention, LDC) prohibits dumping into the sea of "... persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials: such as netting and ropes, which float or remain in suspension causing them to interfere with fishing, navigation, or other legitimate uses of the seaY It defines dumping as "... any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea" but specifically excludes "... disposal at sea of wastes or other matter incidental to or derived from the normal operations of vessels .. "'. Therefore, plastics and other persistent synthetics may not be 586

transported to sea for the purpose of dumping or dumped at sea. This prohibition does not reach the synthetic marine debris which is disposed of in the course of normal vessel operations; such disposal is instead subject to the later drafted MARPOL Annex V. The purpose of MARPOL (Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973/1978, 17 LL.M. 546, 1978 [MARPOL]) is to prevent ships from polluting the marine environment by discharging harmful substances. Annex V of MARPOL restricts atsea discharge of garbage and bans at-sea disposal of plastics and other synthetic materials such as ropes, fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags with limited exceptions. Plastics may be disposed at sea when: 1. it is necessary for the safety of the ship or to save lives; 2. the disposal results from damage to the ship provided all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent or minimize the escape; or 3. when nets or other synthetic net repair items are accidentally lost, provided all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent such losses. Finally adequate port or harbour facilities capable of handling garbage from ships are required. MARPOL Annex V has a direct effect on plastic pollution in the marine environment because it prohibits disposal of plastic wastes generated during the normal operation of vessels everywhere in the ocean. Annex V does not completely alleviate the problem, however, since its prohibition applies only to synthetic material discarded from vessels, not land-based sources of synthetic debris which travel to the ocean.

Volume 24/Number 12/December 1992

There are numerous 'regional' conventions which indirectly prevent such pollution and encourage or mandate the conservation and protection of the marine environment. These include, for instance, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource, 1980; Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, 1970; Convention for the Protection of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 1972; and the United Nations Regional Seas Program which has several associated conventions. In spite of scores of major conferences and hundreds of recent reports and published papers, including a special issue of the Marine Pollution Bulletin (18(6B), 1987, Plastics in the Sea), the problem of floatable debris continues. The questions remain: what has been done and actually accomplished, and what remains to be done to end this form of pollution?

The Earlier History Early on, and based on a USA or 'Developed World' Perspective, it was decided that the best way to counteract such pollution was to develop national programmes to educate the users of estuarine, coastal, and oceanic waters. Centaur Associates (1986) drafted one of the first major North American documents to deal with this issue. Entitled "Issue Report and Workplan for the Development of a Marine Debris Education Program for Northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico", it provided the historical background and approaches needed to resolve the problem. It indicated the effects of marine debris as well as its sources. The document also highlighted the educational programme that was required to come to grips with the issue. Within a few months other reports (Parker et al., 1987; New Jersey DEP, 1987) outlined methodologies that might be useful in reducing at-sea and coastal disposal as well as defining further the sources, transport, and effects of waste materials within specific areas, i.e. the New Jersey shore. Major international meetings, including those of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) provided a forum for identifying what the various issues were in relation to marine debris (Pruter, 1986). Federal agencies responded with technical documents concerned with how to control various floating debris (Perham, 1987) and interagency boards were formed to deal with the issue (DOC, 1987). These interagency groups made suggestions and provided the basis for citizenry volunteer beach clean-ups. Guides to marine debris were prepared and heavy stock data cards were printed and provided to organizations interested in beach clean-ups. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Coast Guard (USCG) worked with the Center for Environmental Education (CEE) to distribute the data or information collection cards for use in the field. Citizen clean-ups continued to the present time but have tended largely to mitigate or 'restore' habitats that have already been degraded because of at-sea disposal

of various solid waste, including floatables. The results of these local and national clean-up efforts are consolidated nationally and will provide eventually a substantive report documenting the efficacy of such clean-ups as well as an indication as to whether or not national clean-up programmes do have worthwhile positive results. These issues came to the head when the media, including publications from national organizations, such as the League of Women Voters (LWV, 1989), ran articles on the massive problem of waste in the environment. In 1988, NOAA printed a brochure entitled "Persistent Marine Debris; Challenge and Response, the Federal Perspective". This document provided accurate information on the scope of the problem, sources of waste, threats to wildlife that floatable debris presented, effects on humans, and information on who is doing what, and how people could help? It was directed to the general public and educational institutions. The Center for Environmental Education (CEE) also produced a small book entitled A Citizen's Guide to Plastics in the Ocean: More than a Litter Problem

(CEE, 1988). This document was well received locally and brought to the attention of the public what the issues were and how they should be dealt with. Around the same time, studies funded by NOAA resulted in regional reports such as the one on coastal Alaskan communities (Northwest Alaska Fisheries Center, 1989). It indicated that coastal Alaskan communities had been affected by activities broadly addressed by MARPOL as well as other agencies and media; this was principally manifested by an increased public concern and "voluntary compliance by many of us". The report noted that no person can walk even a remote Alaskan beach without being "appalled by the plastic trash underfoot". It further stated that "... onshore, the potential for recycling and energy recovery of MARPOL wastes and related fishery waste appears greater than for normal solid waste". The study recommended that Kodiak and other Alaskan fishing fleets could benefit from a public education programme to heighten awareness about marine debris issues and that feasibility studies be done for incinerator disposal options. Moreover, a key focus should be on present modes of harbour garbage collections, cost of such collections, and the issues associated with a regional transportation system necessary to handle various solid wastes coming forth from fishing and commercial transport vessels. The report further noted that the recycling of metals and plastics, and the creation of a regional infrastructure for recycling, would set an example for solid waste management given new federal, state, and international regulations and recommendations. At the same time that this regional (Alaskan) report was produced, the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior (DOI), produced an annual report, "National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1989 Marine Debris Survey" (DOI, 1989). It reported that, nationwide, plastic bottles were the most abundant packaging items found in beach waste, with fishing gear the second greatest category of plastic; gillnet floats and 587

Marine Pollution Bulletin

rope fragments constituted most debris at several sites. So-called 'personal' items made up less than 10% of the plastic debris at most parks; of these, balloons, condoms, and tampon inserters comprised about half the debris found. The report noted that various entangling debris was the "... most menacing threat to wildlife"; sources responsible for the latter were primarily commercial and recreational fisheries. The perception was given that such activities could be managed best through proper educational programmes, an action on the part of the individual citizens and businesses. The results from various assessments of beach 'cleanups' has changed with time. Originally many tabulations included a relative ranking of various categories of debris, by numbers or as a percentage of the total number of pieces of debris (see Table 1). Categories such as fishing gear might include, however, a 'unit' of recreational tackle or a piece of commercial netting or a lobster float. It has become obvious to managers and researchers that a greater array of categories was essential, as well as tabulating various items by weight, composition, and units per linear distance or per area. Subsequently, investigators have depicted the distribution and abundance of debris in several formats (see Figs 1 and 2). Such data thus becomes of increasing value in managing vessel and other floatable debris. The questions now are: what are the sources? Where does it go? Which states or regions have the greatest problem? Which political entities and activities have had the greatest efficacy in mitigating effects? And so on. The findings of Table 1 and Figs 1 and 2 resulted in studies to develop new ways forward in terms of controlling the 'release' of floatables. The Kearney/Centaur Division (1989) produced a report for NOAA entitled 'Model Plastics Refuse Control and Minimization Plan for Ships'. The report detailed techniques to control and minimize plastics, especially their use and disposal from vessels. It also endorsed a 'Marine Debris Education Program' for the maritime industries. The report was followed by another from Kearney/Centaur Division (1990) entitled 'Development and Evaluation of Education Techniques to Eliminate At-Sea Disposal of Plastics'. Again, this report suggested that it was necessary to establish baseline data for commercial fishermen and recreational boaters in regard to their garbage disposal practices and to formalize citizenry perception of problems of marine debris and entanglement. It was also deemed necessary to target a marine debris education programme at various sites located in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southeastern coastline of the United States. Results from censuses at four principal harbour areas were provided. Concern was expressed that relatively few fishers, of any background, were willing to admit that they disposed of material at sea and those who did probably chose not to respond to the survey. Most fishers indicated they had considerable experience with plastic marine debris, usually observing that plastic debris was floating about in the ocean; moreover, they felt that plastic trash caused problems in the marine environment. Finally, the results of the study also 588

TABLE I Debris items collected in the 1985 beach clean-up in Maine (30 linear miles at sites from Kennebunk to Eastport), ranked by order of abundance. A total of 1560 pounds ( - 7 5 0 kg) debris in total.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Debris category

% of total

Glass pieces/bottles Styrofoam Household items/clothes Plastic sheeting, bags Cigarette butts Fishing gear Cans Plastic containers Plastic strapping 6-pack rings

31.4 11.6 11.2 10.5 10.5 8.4 8.2 6.1 1.4 0.6

included opinions on the best way to encourage shoreside disposal of floatable waste including fines, provision of dock-side disposal facilities, brochures, posters, word-of-mouth, and trade magazine and newspaper articles. Formal presentations were seen as a form of education that would yield results. Most persons interviewed felt that brochures and posters, magazine and newspaper articles, and presentations would result in word-of-mouth information spreading rapidly throughout a maritime community. As noted by Pruter (1986) earlier, this is a form of pollution that can be controlled by the citizenry of any region or nation, including fishers and commercial vessel operators. Finally, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans sponsored a workshop in Halifax in 1989. Its proceedings, entitled 'Plastic Debris in the Aquatic Environment--Halifax Workshop Report', was distributed widely and has played an important role in the implementation of debris recovery programmes in Canada. It reported that a national concern for marine plastic debris resulted from the Canadian 1987 Oceans Policy. As in the US, the Canadian national report took note that plastic and other persistent debris is a serious issue and that it must be addressed by all levels of government, as well as private environmental groups and individuals. It also noted that there are certain key legal and policy issues that can be addressed only by the Canadian or other federal governments, that research was needed, and that there should be proper facilities in each port and harbour where vessel wastes could be deposited or recycled. It further reported that there are extensive needs for developing a "coherent information activity" as well as establishing policies for compliance and enforcements. Finally, it noted that there is a need to "forge links between specific efforts to deal with the problem of debris in aquatic environments.. :'. All of the foregoing historical reports were taken into consideration as the Gulf of Maine Council implemented its Regional Action Plan through its principal Working Group, and formulated a programme that would involve at least two case studies of vessel debris in joint United States and Canadian waters. The communities of Portland, Maine and St. John, New Brunswick have been targeted for intensive efforts. The present Gulf of Maine efforts address most of the concerns expressed by federal governments in the United States and Canada and various international

Volume 24/Number 12/December 1992 N u m b e r of p l a s t i c i t e m s f o u n d 0 Hard hats Syringes Buoys Tampon applicators Buckets Fish nets Shoes/sandals Diapers Vegetable sacks Computer rings Lighters Straws Toys Egg cartons Gloves Light sticks Fish lines Large sheeting Strap bands Bottles-soda Bottle-green Milk jugs C~p-utensils roam cups Beer rings Bottles-other Rope Misc. plastic pieces Misc. foam pieces Caps/lids Bags

5000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

I

I

I

I

~v^^a

I

30,000 35,000

[

Paper

I

Dlattic foam ,655

Data arc from the 1987 Texas coastal clean-up Fig. 1 Types of debris found.

Alaska--~ Clean-up held in spring AlabamaPl'-t~127 California']r_ • 4.,000 Connecticut"~ Delaware~ 0 Florida~ 1,232 G e o r g i a ~ 20 m 2 726 Hawaii ,. - ' Louisiana-It • 3,300 Maine1'350 Massachusetts- P 391 Mississipp! 100 N u m b e r of New Hampshire 112 volunteers New lerse ~ 1,250 80

New Y o r k ~ 1,000 North Carolina Oregon_ ~ 450 ~ 2,600 Rhode Island TexasWashington-

•7,132

21,ooo

2000

Alaska" Alabama" California', Connecticut" Delaware" Florida" Georgia" Hawaii Louisiana"

.

/

4000

6000

8000

Clean-up held in spring NR 75.0 0.1 1.5 P4.0 0.5 -

f 200.0

Tons of debris collected

• 306.5 I

I

I

100

200

300

Clean-up held in spring '3 • 1,000 '1 7 50

NR ~31

~39.5 P5 P3

Miles cleaned 100

2

15o - 120 40

" " ~ . 154

~r_

1oo i

i

t

f

i

(

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Clean-up held in spring Alaska" Alabama" California" .~0.075 0.100 Connecticut" Delaware- ' 0.030 P0.080 FloridaGeorgia~ Hawaii Louisiana10.097 MaineMassachusetts" ~0.7 Mississippi .-';O.667 T o n s of N e w Hampshire " ' ' ' ' " ~ 0 . 4 0 0 debris per mile N e w Jarse p0.75o N e w York 0.067 North Carolina7o.142 OregonRhode Island" Texas" Washington" ~P-O.06 i i ,

36.s

Maine" '3.0 Massachusetts" 1.9 Mississippi 3.5 2.0 New Hampshire --'~. 40.0 New Jerse New York II1.5 lO.O North Carolina P 17.o Oregon qR Rhode Island Texas" Washington- L6.0

AlaskaAlabamaCaliforniaConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaii LouisianaMaineMassachusettsMississipp New Hampshire New /erse New York_ North Carolina Oregon_Rhode Island TexasWashington-

400

0.5

1.0

1.5

1.99

( 2.0

Source: Center for Environmental Education, 1987 Fig. 2 'Coastweek 1987' beach clean-up results.

agencies and organizations. The Gulf of Maine Program proposes an extensive information programme to inform the public, vessel operators, fishers, and harbour masters of the need to control wastes, both at sea as well as when materials are offloaded from vessels in port. It is also addressed to the general citizenry,

especially those using beaches and other coastal waters. The format for action is similar to the West coast Marine Debris Recovery Project (Recht, 1988, 1990) funded by NOAA. Finally, its endeavours may well parallel those expedited in developed and developing regions that might serve as a model programme. 589

Marine Pollution Bulletin

The Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Agency, Habitat Management Branch, has been involved actively in implementing a plastic debris study. It has queried vessels of several nations to see how much plastic is actually jettisoned directly into the sea over the period of the study. It was reported that plastic waste discarded from vessels consists mostly of bottles, cups, bags, styrofoam, packing bands and rope, fish nets, and food wrappings. The study found that fish nets were thrown over the side from 6% of the vessels discarding materials at sea; this resulted in significant 'ghost' fishing by monofilm and nets. Further, the report noted that a total of 260 marine organisms were observed to have been externally or internally affected by plastic debris; 98% of these involved fish, many of them (over 50%) larger fish such as porbeagle sharks. It was further noted that among Canadian fishers, there was an increase in the percentage returning garbage and debris to shore, reflecting a recent change in attitude by much of the fishing industry as well as the provision of additional wharf-side garbage facilities and public demand for environmental clean-up.

Future Plans As part of the Gulf of Maine Council's Vessel Debris Program, and based upon the plethora of investigations and research accoplished in recent decades, in the US, Canada, and world-wide, a programme is planned in which certain specifics will be carried out at two principal ports which will constitute case studies from which generic findings can be developed. From an overall point-of-view, the Gulf of Maine Program has hired a Project Coordinator who is responsible for doing 'local research' in the two case study ports of Portland, Maine, and St. John, New Brunswick. The Coordinator interfaces with individuals already in place and carrying out activities. The Coordinator will be responsible for determining the existing situations in Portland, especially, but also in St. John and other Maritime Provincial ports. In the Portland Harbour area the Programme personnel will be looking at existing disposal facilities as well as the types and quantities of refuse that are presently being handled locally. Additional data will be developed on the refuse typically generated by categories of vessels operating in the Gulf and will include the type of refuse as well as approximations of the amounts being generated and disposed of. Perhaps even more important, the Coordinator will be responsible for investigating the willingness of individuals and groups to participate in the present project, as well as future efforts; much of this effort will be based information, policy, and programmes from studies done at west coast harbours and ports (Recht, 1988, 1990). The Coordinators will develop a series of options for marine vessel debris recovery, especially in Portland but will full attention to the situation in St. John, New Brunswick and other areas. At the end of approximately 6 months of investigation during summer and autumn seasons, recommendations will be developed for the Gulf of Maine Council and a Maine 590

State task force concerned with vessel debris. This will include a written strategy on how to control, recycle, and properly dispose of unrecyclable materials from vessels and harbour activities in Portland and in St. John, New Brunswick. Again, such data and information should be of immediate applicability to all developing and developed nations. Are current efforts and educational programmes capable of producing results? To back up the Gulf of Maine Council's Vessel Debris Committee and Coordinator, a task force of local 'stake holders' has been formed. These are people who are affected by harbour and at-sea debris and dedicated to reducing vessel debris within various harbour areas and will assist in the development of marine vessel debris reduction strategies, overall implementation of the strategy, and other aspects involved with networking and public relations with the so-called 'user groups' who are also principal stake holders in the matter. Options involve 1. increasing public awareness, 2. the tactics necessary to the development of a Marine Vessel Debris Collection and Disposal Program, and 3. advice on funding necessary for short-term and longer-term activities. In the latter instance, budget requirements would be investigated and recommendations made as to how to sustain the funding for a Portland, Maine and Gulf-wide programme. All of the foregoing would be with the intent of transferring the information from the Portland Harbor and St. John Harbor case studies for use in other communities within the Gulf of Maine and world-wide. Finally, the proposed Programme would highlight continuing education of the general citizenry but especially the recreational and commercial fishers, operators of commercial maritime vessels, and the people responsible for day-to-day operations within harbours and ports. Again, this was a responsibility highlighted by Pruter (1986) in his paper to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. In advance of the actual implementation of the Gulf of Maine Program, with coordinated studies ongoing in Portland and St. John, the Bay of Fundy Project (an undertaking of the Canadian Conservation Council and Huntsman Marine Centre) started a programme to Clean the Bay of Fundy. The objectives are much the same as have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs but with a concentration on the southwestern region of the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Fundy. Mr. David Thompson, Chance Harbour, who is working with both the fishers and environmental groups, is acting as the Coordinator for the 'Clean the Bay' campaign. At the moment participating organizations include various associations and federations as well as environmental groups that are concerned with the quality of the environment. Work from this 'Clean the Bay' campaign will, again, provide information and methods for use in the larger Gulf of Maine Program Vessel Debris efforts. According to R. Barnaby (pers. comm., University of New Hampshire (UNH) Cooperative Extension Program), the U N H Sea Grant Program has been involved

Volume 24/Number 12/December 1992

with implementing several activities concerned with the issue of marine debris. Sponsored by NOAA Sea Grant, two local marinas have conducted a 'Trash Master Program'; this activity is supported by the Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.,* a waste vessel operator with trash bags to be used to return materials to the coastline. As an incentive, each person returning a bag of trash, appropriately sealed, is given a raffle ticket that will be drawn, eventually, for fuel and services. In addition, the U N H Sea Grant has marine educational programmes that are being conducted by docents who participate in the public schools and teach students, faculty, and general citizenry about the various issues associated with marine debris. Beyond this, the NH state fish piers have been furnished with dumpsters for receiving trash and receptacles for disposal of used motor oil. Port authorities in New Hampshire are being developed with receiving facilities to meet USCG regulations. Finally, the New Hampshire Fishermens' Association has sponsored a Spring Clean-up along the New Hampshire coastline. Several thousand traps, rope, and line, and associated fishing gear, as well as general debris, have been recovered each year. Before the implementation of the Gulf of Maine Vessel Debris Program, the State of Maine targeted the annual Coast Week/Coastal Clean-up as an activity to encourage volunteers to recover trash along the shore and to record their findings on data cards. This information goes into a national data base being maintained by the Center for Marine Conservation. Each year that collections have been made, volumes of trash have increased; this does not necessarily mean there is more trash but simply a greater effort was made to recover it. It has been noted that recycling in Maine involves individual towns, but it is not yet a predominant disposal method being used at dockside. In 1991, during the Annual Coastal Clean-up, recycling coordinators were contacted and six volunteered to take marine debris from volunteers conducting the Coast Walk clean-ups. The results from these activities will again be documented, analysed and used by the Gulf of Maine Coordinator(s) as first steps in beginning clean-ups in coastal states and maritime provinces. Such local activities are common; early in April it was announced that the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) was beginning a serious effort to reduce the amount of pollution entering the ocean at fishing harbours in southern New Brunswick. Waste containers at nine harbours are being furnished to collect waste oil for recycling in Nova Scotia and the DFO has received requests from 19 more harbours for waste oil tanks; these will be provided as soon as funds are available. Another agency, the Department of Small Craft Harbors Branch (SCH) is installing large garbage collection drums at 25 key locations to receive debris for recycling. Individuals responsible for these activities are being identified. Research efforts are being conducted by government *Any mention of trade or brand names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation.

agencies as well as private groups including the Canadian Seabed Research Limited.* This organization, working in a pilot programme with the scan sonar techniques to identify 'ghost' gillnets. This presents a first-time opportunity to map the distribution of such nets and to encourage recovery of the nets or avoidance by fishermen. This key activity will contribute greatly to reducing amounts and effects of marine debris on the fisheries. Research in the United States concerned with the effects of ingestion of plastic debris by fishes was reviewed by Hoss and Settle (1990). Many of the papers cited came from the 1970s and early 1980s. Experimental work by Hoss and Settle, using juvenile and adult fishes, resulted in findings that were somewhat equivocal; while fish may ingest debris, they often reject it. Moreover, these authors concluded that "... the overall ingestion of inert plastic by larval and juvenile fish is probably not a significant mortality factor at this time" While fishes may not suffer significant mortality, plastic debris constitutes one of scores of contaminant categories which collectively may affect standing stocks of marine fishes, their growth and recruitment, and thus their total distribution and abundance (Pearce, 1992). Moreover, there has been a relationship between debris and the presence of other, more toxic contaminants; therefore debris may provide an early 'signal' of change due to pollution abatement and mitigation, or increased release of contaminants. Finally, debris is an insult to aesthetics and results in a public perception that "the marine environment is heavily polluted, as are living marine resources". More to the point, Duronslet et al. (1991) noted that many forms of marine life are affected by 'man-made marine debris' and that such debris may cause mortality or illness, especially in certain endangered species. Their paper is important--as they suggest, "the loss of one endangered or threatened animal is unacceptable, possibly affecting the species' ultimate survival, .. ". The authors also state that 59% of all beached turtle carcasses contained debris in their intestinal tracts. Obviously, this situation must be better understood and additional research results as well as assessments based on the present literature, will lead to such an understanding. Until the final judgement is drawn, however, it remains for society to counteract those activities which lead to floatable and drifting marine debris. At the moment, it is difficult to judge the absolute relevance of the plastics debris issue; however, beach clean-up data and research on effects of plastics will allow national and international organizations to make conclusions in regard to whether the problem is one that is increasing in areal scope and volume, and whether living aquatic resources are seriously affected. All the foregoing will be considered as the Gulf of Maine Vessel Debris Committee formalizes its strategies and options based on scores of past clean-up efforts and historical documentation. Canada Fisheries and Oceans (1989). Plastic Debris in the Aquatic Environment--Halifax Workshop Report (16-18 May, 1989). Prepared by DPA Group Inc., Halifax (Project #: DFO 085214). Canada Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario.

591

Marine Pollution Bulletin Centaur Associates (1986). Issue Report and Work Plan for the Development of a Marine Debris Education Program for the Northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service by Centaur Associates and the Center for Environmental Education (Contract No. 50-ABNF-600192), Washington, DC. Center for Environmental Education (CEE) (1988). A Citizen's Guide to Plastics in the Ocean: More than a Litter Problem. Center for Environmental Education. Washington, DC. 131 pp. Cole, C., Dumer, J., Manski, D. & Richards, D. (1989). Annual Report of National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1989 Marine Debris Survey. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Technical Report NPS/NRWV/NRTR-90-04. Washington, DC. Colton, J., Knapp, E & Burns, B. (1974). Plastic Particles in Surface Waters of the Northwestern Atlantic. Science 185,491-497. Department of Commerce (DOC) (1987). Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. Duronslet, J., Revera, D. & Stanley, K. (1991). Man-Made Marine Debris and Sea Turtle Strandings on Beaches of the Upper Texas and Southwestern Louisiana Coasts, June 1987 through September 1989. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-Z79. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, TX (February 1991). Hoss, D. & Settle, L. (1990). Ingestion of plastics by teleost fishes. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989. Honolulu, Hawaii (R. Shamura & M. Godfrey, eds), pp. 693-709. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154 (1990). Kearney/Centaur Division (1989). Model Plastics Refuse Control and Minimization Plan for Ships. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Contract No. 52ABNF800132). Kearney/Centaur Division, Alexandria, VA. Kearney/Centaur Division (1990). Development and Evaluation of Education Techniques to Elimiante At-Sea Disposal of Plastics. Kearney/Centaur Division, Alexandria, VA. Executive Summary.

592

Loveland, D. (1989). It Won't Go Away. The National Voter 38(4), 4-9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1988). Persistent Marine Debris: Challenge and Response, the Federal Perspective. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of the Chief Scientist, Rockville, MD. New Jersey DEP (1987). New Jersey Floatables Study: Possible Sources, Transport, and Beach Survey Results. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). Trenton, NJ. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center (1989). Final Report on the Impact of MARPOL Annex V Upon Solid Waste Disposal Facilities of Coastal Alaskan Communities. NWAFC Processed Report 89-20. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Entanglement Research Program, Seattle, WA. Parker, N., Hunter, S. & Yang, R. (1987). Development of Methodology to Reduce the Disposal of Non-Degradable Refuse into the Marine Environment. KVB Inc., Engineering and Research Division for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. Pearce, J. (1992). Communicating Cumulative Effects. A Guest Editorial. Common Ground, the Conservation Fund 3(4), 2. Perham, R. (1987). Floating Debris Control; A Literature Review. Technical Report REMR-HY-Z. Department of the Army, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Pruter, A. (1986). Marine Debris--a Growing Problem. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Marine Environmental Quality Committee, C.M. 1986/E:49. Recht, E (1988). Dealing With Annex V--Reference Guide for Ports. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS F/NWR-23. Cooperative Agreement No. NA-86-ABH-00022, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Recht, F. (1990). Summary Report; West Coast Marine Debris Recovery Project. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Award NA89AA-HSK003, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Marine Debris Project, Depoe Bay, Oregon.