[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
'Ao ei: v 51 Morine PlosticDebris for Woshington Stote TD 427 Marine Plastic Debris Task Force T59 M37 October 1988 1988 c2 WASHNGTON STATE DEPARTMDU OF Natural Resources Briari Boyle - Co-ner of Public Lcmds ACTION PLRH Art Stimrrns - Supervisor COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER MUM FnAFMFNTS ME 0 'Wor Members AAa e Plastic Debris Task Force AGENCY/ ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE AGENCY/ ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE FEDERAL Natural Resources Consultants Jeff June Department of Commerce Alan Bunn, LCDR R. W. Beck and Associates David E.B. Nightingale National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Interior Society of Plastics Engineer Chal B. Rogers Fish and Wildlife Don Kane CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS National Park Service Chuck Janda Adopt-A-Beach, Ken Pritchard Department of Transportation Stephen D.Heath, LCDR c/o Volunteers for Outdoor Washington 13th Coast Guard District The Mountaineers Margaret Hansen Environmental Protection Agency, Michael Rylko Region X Washington Citizens for Recycling Nancy Pearson STATE Washington Environmental Council Lisa Macchlo Department of Community Development Sandi Benbrook EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS George Turnbull, Jr. Friday Harbor Laboratories of Dr. Prederick E. Ellis Department of Ecology Mikel DeBuse University of Washington Brad Everson Rhonda Hunter Poulsbo Marine Science Center Laurie Durndie Dennis Johnson Pain Miller Seattle Aquarium John McMahon Leighton Pratt Cherie Williams Department of Fisheries Sally Hicks University of Washington/Sea Grant Xan Augerot Phil Kauzlorlc Jim Humphreys Sandra O'Neill Patti Mullin Department of Natural Resources David G. Bortz Margie Reed Bob Rose, Chairman Other Participants Glenn Yeary American President Lines, Ltd. Department of Wildlife Steve Jeffries Board of Clallarn County Commissioners Office of the Governor Gerard (Sid) Sidorowicz Board of Grays Harbor County Commissioners Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Sarah Barton Board of Jefferson County Commissionem Richard Tucker Board of Pacific County Commissioners State Parks and Recreation Commission Nina Carter Board of San Juan County Commissioners LEGISLATIVE Board of Wahkiakum County Corturnissioners Rep. Nancy Rust, House Environmental Ya-Yue J. Van Affairs Committee Marine Resources Company Joint Select Committee Marine and Bob Butts Northwest Marine Trade Association Ocean Resources Superintendent of Public Instruction Senate Environment and Laurie Schock Natural Resources Corrunittee Washington Association of Counties LOCAL Project Staff Association of Washington Cities Andrea Dahl Department of Natural Resources John Bergvall Northwest Indian Fisheries B. J. Whitener Mars a Rixson hl Design Jane Grobins Port of S cattle Linda Cox Editors Carol Lind Camille Blanchette Washington Public Ports Association Eric Johnson Illustrations Gall S. Weir PRIVATE Darrell Russell Word Processors Karen Wood Marie Oles Battelle Marine Research Laboratory Betsy Brown Jacque Encarnacion Photos courtesy of: Dolco Packaging Raye Little Center for Environmental Education C.E. O'Clair Cynthia Foutch Groebel Inter Club Boating Association of Ray Nelson Chuck Fowler Bill High Washington Tom Paul Maxine Digest Donna Mooney Special thanks to the Department of Ecology Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program for supporting the work of this task force by underwriting the mailing of these documents. WASFMGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources BRIAN BOYLE Commissioner of Public Lands OLYMPIA, WA 98504 October 10, 1988 Dear commissioner Boyle: In February, you appointed the Marine Plastic Debris Task Force (MPDTF) to develop a state action plan to address the growing pollution problem in the waters of Washington. X, Representatives of state agencies and organizations developed the following consensus report for your review and implementation. In the course of our work, we have discovered a common purpose a desire to protect the state's aquatic lands from marine debris pollution. The Task Force reviewed current activities and legal authorities. out of this review and subsequent discussions, we identified the Mission, Goal, objectives and Policies to guide future state actions. Twenty specific action recommendations were developed from this overall framework. The Task Force -members recognize that these action recommendations will require commitments by agencies and organizations preceeded by independent budget and policy analysis. In order to encourage adoption and implementation of these recommendations, the MPDTF recommends designation of an overall coordinating agency. Our state has not been affected by the major health problems and economic impacts of plastic medical debris which plagued east coast beaches this past summer. Nor have our beaches been buried under tons of plastic garbage found on Texas beaches. We are in the enviable position of confronting this problem before it reaches a crisis stage. As the first state in the country to develop such an action plan, Washington is setting a national example of stewardship. It has been our pleasure and privilege to work together on this report. The Marine Plastic Debris Task Forces urges your prompt review, distribution and adoption of the attached Action Plan. Sincerely, Iq R VA IS Bob Rose, Chairman Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer Marine PlosticDebris for Washington State Marine Plastic Debris Task Force October 1988 ACTION PLAN WASHNG70N STAM DEPARTNEM OF Natural Resources Brim BoYle: Conmsmoner of Pubhc Lmds Art St@ns Supemsor LIST OF ACRONYMS ALEA - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account CCE - Center for Environmental Education CZM - Coastal Zone Management CG - Coast Guard DCD - Department of Community Development DNR - Department of Natural Resources DOL - Department of Licensing DOR - Department of Revenue EPA - Environmental Protection Agency G.R.T. - gross registered tonnage IAC - Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation MARPOL Annex V - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (for "Marine Pollution!) MERP - Marine Entanglement Research Program MOA - Memorandum of Agreement MPD - Marine Plastic Debris MPPRCA - Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS - National Park Service OFM - Office of Financial Management Parks - State Parks and Recreation Commission PIE - Public Involvement and Education Fund P.L. 100-220 - Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 PSA - Public Service Announcement PSWQA - Puget Sound Water Quality Authority SPI - Superintendent of Public Instruction SEPA - State Environmental Policy Act U.N. - United Nations USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service UTC - Utility and Transportation Commission WDF - Washington Department of Fisheries WDOE - Washington Department of Ecology WEC - Washington Environmental Council WDW - Washington Department of Wildlife vi TARI F fIF WINUNTS MMUMWEEME Page Acknowledgements inside front cover List of Acronyms vi Preface ix Part I Marine Plastic Debris Defined 3 Introduction 3 Marine Plastic Debris 3 1 Sources and Quantities 3 Ocean Sources 4 Merchant Vessels 4 Military Vessels 4 Cruise Ships 5 Commercial Fishing Vessels 5 Recreational Boats 6 Land Sources 6 1 Cleanup Efforts 6 The Effects of Marine Debris 7 What is Being Done 8 1 Federal Programs 8 1 State Programs 9 1 Washington State Programs 10 I Private Industry Efforts 10 I National Public Interest Group Efforts 10 I Washington State Public Interest Group Efforts I I Conclusion Part H Marine Plastic Debnris Task Force 15 MPD Mission Statement 15 MPD Goal and Objectives 16 MPD Policies 17 Summary of Action Recommendations 18 Environment 18 Education 18 Govemment/Economic Impact 19 Required Legislative or Administrative Initiatives 20 Part III MPD Task Force Action Recommendations 23 Environment 24 Education 31 Govenunent/Economic Impact 40 Required Legislative Administrative Initiatives 45 Part IV Marine Plastic Debris Appendixes Appendix A - Agency Status Reports A-1 Appendix B - The MPD Pollution Research Control Act B-1 Appendix C - Development of Washington State Marine Plastic Debris Task Force C-1 Bibliography vii Tables B-1 MARPOL Annex V: Garbage Disposal Restrictions B-2 B-2 Impacts of Marine Plastic Control, P.L. 100-200 B-3 C-1 Existing Authorities and Agencies Dealing with MPD C-3 C-2 Recommendations and the Lead Agenices Involved C-8 Viii FF1WF MEMO "'WME Marine Plastic Debris Task Force In February 1988 Commissioner of Public Lands Brian Boyle appointed a task force of agency and organization representatives to develop a state action plan to address the increasingly important issue of marine plastic debris (MPD). The initiative was inspired by several events including: aggressive beach cleanup efforts in Texas promoted by Land Commissioner Gary Mauro, the recent passage of federal legislation to prevent dumping plastic into the nation's coastal waters, and a recognition that these persistent materials ultimately pollute the aquatic lands of the state. The following action plan is the result of the task force's efforts over the past six months. The task force recognizes that marine plastic affects fisheries and wildlife resources, endangers boaters and divers, and diminishes aesthetic enjoyment of our shorelines. Increasing public awareness and interest about the specific issue of marine plastic debris is a key element of the plan, with a strong emphasis on educa- tion. The task force recommendations emphasize recycling and proper disposal of potential MPI) materials. In addition, the coordination of present and future clean- up efforts is critical to efficiently use federal, state, local and citizen resources. Because this issue involves so many agencies and organizations and will involve a commitment of resources over time, the task force recommends designation of an overall coordinating agency. Three organization options are suggested. The task force recommends that the attached recommendations be thoroughly examined by the affected agencies and incorporated into future work plans and budgets. This report is organized into three major sections and appendices. Part I is an overview of the marine plastic debris problem. The sources of marine plastic debris are reviewed with special attention to the types and quantities generated from merchant, military, commercial and recreational vessels. The effects of marine debris on human activities and wildlife are briefly examined. The scope of activities at the national and state level is also discussed. Part II present the mission statement for the Marine Plastic Debris Task Force, followed by the Goal and Objectives for a state action plan. Following 11 policies to guide and coordinate future activities are 20 action recommendations designed to implement the policy statements. These recommendations are divided into three sections: environment, education and government/economic impact. Part III contains the full text for each of the action recommendations, including a short narrative explaining the background of the issue. This section presents the specifics of the State Action Plan including a series of detailed tasks designed to carry out the proposed action. For each action recommendation, a lead agency is designated as well as a listing of agencies likely to participate in carrying out the action. A suggested time frame for implementation and an estimate of the duration of the action are proposed for each of the 20 action recommendations. The section closes with a matrix that arrays the action recommendations along the top and the affected agencies on the left side. This matrix will allow an agency director or employee to easily determine those issues for which they are the recommended lead or participating agency. ix The appendices contain the necessary background for understanding the legal and institutional framework for this issue. Appendix A is a compilation of data sheets outlining the current status (as of September 1988) of agency and organization activities, authorities, current and proposed programs. These narrative sheets are followed by a matrix containing the legal authorities and programs available to each agency for addressing the MPD problem. Appendix B contains an overview and explanation of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987. In addition to clearly displaying (in tabular form) the penalties required by this act, this section also explains the research on recycling and environmental effects to be carried by EPA and NOAA. A brief review of Washington State law completes this section. Appendix C presents a brief description of how the task force was formed and how it developed its work products. CP X I I I I nnnv I rRH 1 1 Morin Plastic Debrl"S Defined I ART I "ME M M Marine Plastic Debris Defined INTRODUCTION Society has long been concerned about pollution of the marine environment. Oil pollution was aggressively addressed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, hazardous wastes were identified as a potential problem in the 1970s, and marine debris recently has been identified as a problem. MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS Marine debris is any manufactured object of wood, metal, glass, rubber, cloth, paper, plastic or other material accidentally or purposely put into the marine environment. Of all these materials, plastic is considered one of the most serious contaminants. The properties of strength, durability, lightweight and low cost make plastic ideally suited for the manufacture of a growing number of products. These same proper- ties also make plastic potentially harmful to the marine environment. Lightweight plastic floats, becoming widespread at sea and on beaches where it threatens marine mammals and birds by entanglement or ingestion. Other plastic sinks, but still endangers marine life and threatens the safety of divers. The persistence of plastic presents another problem in the marine environment. Most plastic resists natural decay. Although it may break down smaller and smaller, those particles may affect the marine environment for years or even decades. SOURCES AND QUANTITIES Marine debris can be divided into ocean and land-based sources. Major dumping into the oceans comes from ship-generated garbage, litter carried to sea by rivers and municipal drainage systems, and debris left by beach users. Comprehensive data on quantities and sources of marine debris are quite limited. Marine debris varies widely by, area, depending on local beach and ocean use, season, weather and public awareness of the problem. Packaging materials, fishing gear and convenience items comprise most of the plastic entering the oceans. 3 L7 Ocean Sources A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that people aboard passen- ger, merchant, commercial, recreational and military ships dispos6d 6.4 billion pounds of marine debris into the world's oceans in a single year. Of this, approxi- mately 44.8 million pounds (0.7 percent) was plastic. MERCENIT VESSELS The world merchant fleet has increased from 182 million gross registered tonnage (G.R.T.) in 1967 to 425 million G.R.T. in 1982 (U.N. Statistical Re- port). The 1975 National Academy of Sciences study estimated merchant ships worldwide generated 110,000 metric tons of crew-associated liner and 5.6 illion metric tons of additional cargo-associated litter each year. Although containerized. shipping has reduced the number of crew members on each vessel, a 1982 study (Horsman, 1982) estimated that crew members aboard the 71,000 merchant vessels operating in 1979 dumped 639,000 plastic containers into the sea each day. A recent study by R.W. Beck and Associates (D. Nightingale, pers. comm.) for the Port of Seattle estimated a potential of 13,700 pounds of crew and passen- ger-associated litter would come ashore each day if 90 percent of the 1,302 vessels (expected to call during 1988) dispose of all their garbage ashore. Vessels using Washington ports are expected to import and export over 32 million metric tons of products by 1990. Currently, most vessel-generated litter is dumped at sea and becomes marine debris, some of it drifting in coastal waters or becoming trash on Washington beaches. A Japanese study conducted in the North Pacific in 1986 (Mio and Takehama, 1987) reported some of the highest concentrations of marine debris, particularly plastic, off the Washington Coast. These high concentrations were attributed to merchant and commercial fishing vessel activity and prevailing eastward currents in the North Pacific between 40 and 50 degrees which concentrate marine debris off the Washington coast. MILITARY VESSELS 1975, the world's military fleets were estimated to have dumped 74,000 metric tons of marine debris into the ocean (National Academy of Sciences, 1975). In 1985, approximately 2.75 million personnel were estimated to be aboard the world's military vessels. This figure included the U.S. Navy, which operated 600 vessels with 285,000 personnel (Jane's Fighting Ships, 1985- 1986). Washington hosts a large U.S. Navy fleet with facilities at Bangor, Bremerton d possibly Everett. U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other research vessels use Washington ports and sail the waters off Washington. Each potentially contributes to local marine debris. 4 CRUISE SHIPS Cruise ships generate primarily domestic garbage, part of which is plastic pack- aging. Currently, 15 cruise ship companies operate out of six major and 32 smaller U.S. ports of call. No accurate estimates exist of the number of passen- gers or crew members at sea each year, but most ships each carry 200 to 1,000 passengers and crew members. Several cruise lines use incineration and others grind garbage before dumping at sea. Alaska-bound ferries and cruise ships call at Washington ports, and other pas- senger lines transit off the coast of Washington-all potentially contribute to marine debris. In 1987 three cruise lines made 21 ship calls at the Port of Seattle alone. I COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS Commercial fishing vessels also contribute to ocean sources of marine debris through disposal of galley wastes and by accidental loss or purposeful disposal of fishing gear. Since the late 1960s, synthetic fishing gear has almost com- pletely replaced natural fiber-based gear. The strength and durability of this fishing gear, lost accidentally or disposed of purposely, continues to entrap marine wildlife and threatens the safety of mariners and divers. In areas of intensive commercial fishing, such as the North Pacific, fishing equipment represents a large portion of the marine debris found at sea and on beaches (Johnson, 1987). In 1986, Parker and Yang estimated approximately 125,700 commercial fishing vessels with 223,000 crew members operated in the U.S. They estimated each crew member generated 3.04 pounds of solid waste per day, of which 0.01 pound was plastic, for a total of 245 tons of plastic disposed of by the U.S. commercial fishing fleet each year, excluding fishing gear. Natural Resources Consultants (1986) estimated 11,072 crew members worked aboard 5,747 vessels operating in Washington waters in 1985 and an additional 1,371 Washington-based vessels with 6,088 crew members operating in distant water fisheries outside state waters. Each of these vessels is a potential con- tributor to marine debris along the waterways of Washington. Gillnetting, trawling, purse seining, longlining, trolling and pot fisheries all operate in Washington waters and contribute lost and discarded fishing gear to the marine environment. Washington's ocean beaches receive lost and discarded fishing gear, primarily gillnets, from foreign fisheries operating in the central North Pacific. Recently, the commercial fishing industry in Washington has taken an active role to reduce their contribution to marine debris and have sponsored seminars and programs to educate those who fish in neighboring states and countries. SW 5 RECRFATIOM BOATS Recreational boaters, including those who fish, contribute by generating and disposing of domestic wastes and lost gear. About 16 million people are recrea- tional boaters in the U.S. (U.S. Coast Guard Statistics, 1987). In 1977 the U.S. Coast Guard estimated that 50.5 million people participated in boating in the U.S., and each generated about 1.5 pounds of garbage per day for a total of over 75 million pounds of garbage. Washington has one of the largest and most active recreational boating commu- nities in the United States. Nearly 160,000 vessels plied Washington State waters during 1987. Further, Washington has one vessel for every 30 to 40 state residents (U.S. Coast Guard boating statistics, 1987). The Washington Department of Licensing reports 170,000 recreational vessels 16 feet and larger are registered in Washington in 1988 and possibly an additional 100,000 recrea- tional vessels are not. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission reported over 45,700 people used overnight moorages in marine parks during 1987. The Washington Department of Fisheries issued over 390,000 sport fishing licenses in 1986 and reported over one million marine angler trips (State of Washington Data Book, 1987). Each recreational vessel potentially contrib- utes to marine debris in Washington State. Land Sources Much of the litter entering the oceans from land is similar to that coming from ocean sources. Beach users are the primary source of marine debris in most areas. Over 39 million people visited Washington State coastal parks in 1987. Another 12 million visited state parks with lake or river access. Many other people visited federal, county and private coastal beaches. How much litter visitors to Washington sites left has not been documented or estimated. Other land-based sources of marine debris include inadvertent release of materials from coastal landfills, roadside litter, illegal deliberate dumping of garbage, and debris associated with run-off from municipal drainage systems shunted from sewage treatment plants during periods of heavy rainfall. Almost no information exists on the quantity of debris from these sources, nationwide or for Washington State. CLEANUP EFFORTS Cleanup operations can give an indication of the amount of marine debris accumu- lating on our beaches. In 1987, 7,132 volunteers collected 306 tons of litter from 154 miles of Texas beaches for an average of 2,000 pounds of debris per mile. Peart (1987) estimates the Padre National Seashore in Texas receives 580 tons of marine debris per year, over 10 tons per mile of beach. Oregon beaches had 142 pounds of debris per mile and California beaches 75 pounds per mile. 6 In comparison to Texas beaches, Washington's are relatively clean: 1,000 volun- teers cleaned six tons of litter from about 100 miles of beach, or about 60 pounds per mile in 1987. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, a joint sponsor of the beach cleanup program with the Department of Ecology for the past 17 years, estimates that 40 percent of the debris collected was plastic and 70 percent of all debris was from ocean sources (Ms. Camille Johnson, pers. comm.). Volunteers collected 20 cubic yards of floating debris from Elliot Bay during one day in April 1986. A joint project between the City of Seattle and Metro during the summers of 1986 and 1987 collected floating debris from a litter trap installed near the Seattle Aquarium. Ten dump truck loads of marine debris were removed during August and September in 1986 and 30 dump truck loads from June through September in 1987. Processed wood represented 80 percent of the material collected, 10 percent was natural driftwood and 10 percent was other material including plastic. THE EFFECTS OF MARINE DEBRIS Plastic marine debris causes damage to commercial and recreational vessels through fouling of steering, propellers, and cooling water intakes. Interviews with those who fish commercially in the Port of Newport, Oregon, reported losses of nearly $1,000 per vessel per year from marine debris-related damage. Marine debris financially effects seaside communities. These coastal communities spend millions of dollars yearly to maintain clean beaches to attract visitors. When the beaches become fouled, visitors are unwilling to linger. Keeping the beaches clean or not keeping the beaches clean is a financial blow to these recreational communities. Marine debris can kill. Submerged fishing gear can entangle divers, causing them to drown. Marine wildlife can be injured or killed from ingesting or becoming entangled in marine debris. No one knows how many birds, marine mammals, turtles, fish and invertebrates are killed each year because of marine debris. We do know that individual animals are affected by marine debris. Northern fur seal populations on the Pribilof Islands are declining, and death from entanglement in marine debris, particularly fishing gear and strapping bands, contributed signifi- cantly to this decline (Fowler, 1985, 1987). Up to 40,000 northem fur seals a year may die because of marine debris entanglement. Whales, porpoises and otters also become entangled in marine debris, but effects on population level are not known. Of the 280 worldwide species of sea birds, 50 species are known to have ingested plastic. Other birds become entangled in six-pack yokes, monofilament fishing line and other debris, and die. Sea turtles have been observed eating plastic bags and sheeting, apparently mistaking these for their favorite food-jellyfish. 7 Lost or discarded fishing nets (often called "ghost nets") lines and crab pots continue to catch and kill fish and invertebrates and endanger lives for days, months or even years. Volunteers for Outdoor Washington report ten fishing nets were found abandoned or lost in Puget Sound during the last year (Ken Pritchard, pers. comm.). When the nets were removed, it was found they were still catching and killing marine wildlife. High (1985) reported a lost gillnet continued fishing in Puget Sound for six years. In contradiction, other studies show that gillnets collapse on themselves reducing their catching effectiveness after only 30 minutes (Gerrodette et al., 1987). High (1985) also estimated that crabbers lose 10 percent of their crab pots each year, up to 1,200 crab pots annually. Until recently these crab pots were not required to have degradable panels; since most are constructed of metal and synthetic materials, they may continue to fish for years. Almost no information is available about the effects on the environment of plastic and other marine debris as they slowly degrade while buried in the sediment, lying on beaches or the ocean floor, floating in the water, or buried in land fills. Debris present in the environnient toda ,y could affect our lives for years. WHAT IS BEING DONE FEDERAL PROGRAMS President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 100-220, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987, on December 30, 1987. This law implements an international agreement among merchant shipping nations to prevent pollution from ships. This act will ban the disposal of all plastic from ships plying U.S. waters. Many other international treaties, U.S. federal laws, and state and local regulations directly or indirectly address the disposal of marine debris. The U.S. Department of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries (NMF) Service began the Marine Entanglement Research Program (MERP) in 1985. This program has sponsored education, research and mitigation programs nationwide about marine debris. The U.S. Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have all done research on ocean transport of marine debris, cleanup operations in parks and refuges, and research on the effects of marine debris on wildlife. The Take Pride In America campaign participated in beach and water cleanup projects. The U.S. Coast Guard will develop and enforce federal regulations concerning marine debris. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will be responsible for assuring the prevention of disease from foreign garbage offloaded at U.S. ports. The Environ- mental Protection Agency is involved with marine debris on a national level in its 8 toxic substances, water quality, ocean dumping and Superfund programs. The Marine Mammal Commission collects information about the effects of marine debris on marine mammals. The nationwide Sea Grant prograrn has exchanged marine debris information among local programs and is developing local programs of its own. Earlier this year the federal Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris issued a report which represents a star-dng point for increased federal interagency cooperation for addressing the problem of persistent marine debris. STATE PROGRAMS State programs include an aggressive education and cleanup program in Texas led by Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro. Similar programs have begun in New Jersey and Oregon. In Oregon, the Port of Newport conducted a pilot marine debris collection project sponsored by National Marine Fisheries Service. This program included commercial and recreational vessel litter collection, disposal, and recycling, along with public education programs. . . .. . . .......I....... ..... W7. VOW pow-, Vft At 9 WASHINGTON STATE PROGRAMS The Washington State Legislature passed a memorial resolution in 1987 (House Joint Memorial 4037) encouraging the U.S. Congress to ratify an international treaty prohibiting disposal of plastic at sea (MARPOL Annex V), provide funds to the U.S. Coast Guard to implement the public law ratifying the treaty, and to recognize Washington State marine waters as a special area. 'fhe Department of Ecology and the State Parks and Recreation Commission have sponsored September beach cleanup operations on the coast for the past 17 years. The Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with NOAA and private volunteer organizations, is developing a program for removing derelict fishing gear. The Washington Department of Ecology supports cleanups, education, and public involvement projects statewide. The Coastal Zone Management program (CZM) administered by WDOE is curTently sponsoring a beach survey effort involving volunteers through Adopt-A-Beach. These surveys will provide information on the nature and extent of the marine plastic debris problem in the state. Sea Grant, with support from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, is con- ducting a pilot port marine debris collection project in Bellingham, Washington. In February 1988, Washington Commissioner of Public Lands Brian Boyle organ- ized the Washington State Task Force on Marine Plastic Debris to coordinate federal, state, local and private efforts to address marine debris. The attached report contains their recommendations. PRIVATE INDUSTRY EFFORTS The members of the Society of the Plastics Industry are active in preventative measures through developing degradable plastic, promoting recycling plastic and providing public education programs about the proper disposal of plastic products. Fishing industry associations, primarily from Pacific Rim countries, have promoted education programs about marine debris. NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP EFFORTS The Center for Environmental Education (CEE) in Washington, D.C. has been designated the nationwide clearinghouse for information about marine debris. CEE has been active in education, research and mitigation activities throughout the coastal states. 10 The nationwide Entanglement Network is a group of conservation and environ- mental organizations that exchange information about the effects of marine debris on wildlife. The Marine Debris Roundtable is a national group of experts from industry, government, and environmental organizations that meet to evaluate strategies for future research and mitigation measures on marine debris. WASHINGTON STATE PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP EFFORTS In Washington State public interest groups active in the marine debris issue in- clude: Volunteers for Outdoor Washington sponsors cleanup operations in Puget Sound; the Seattle Aquarium educates the public about marine debris; and numer- ous recreational clubs participate in cleanup operations and public awareness campaigns. The Four-Wheel Drive Association has participated in the Department of Ecology/Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission-sponsored coastal beach cleanups each year for 13 years. Individuals participated in organized beach cleanups. Over 26,585 people partici- pated nationwide in beach cleanups during Coastweeks in 1987. The Washington Department of Ecology reported 3,500 volunteers participated in Washington State @41 during the September 1987 coastal beach cleanup. People attend meetings and seminars to become aware of the problem and then inform their families and friends. Teachers are developing curriculums for elementary and secondary schools to educate youth about marine debris. CONCLUSION Marine debris is part of two larger problems: marine pollution and solid waste management. The ocean environment currently receives pollutants from industrial, agricultural, and urban sources. Cities, counties and states now face serious issues about solid waste management. Certainly, recycling and alternative disposal technologies will have to be addressed. Recent federal and international regula- tions prohibiting disposal of plastic into the marine environment (MARPOL Annex V and Public Law 100-220) will require mariners to dispose of plastics at marinas and ports, thus adding to land-based solid wastes. This report does not attempt to address the broader issues of marine pollution and solid waste management. Persistent marine debris causes problems worldwide. The problems differ, depend- ing upon the region, source and type of debris and effects on humans and wildlife. The problem may not yet have reached a crisis level in most areas. Serious deci- sions need to be made on how best to allocate available resources to protect the environment. By dealing with this issue now through current programs and following the recommendations presented in this report, it should be possible to reduce or eliminate marine debris as a problem for the aquatic environment in Washington. 12 I I I I nnv g rjIH 1 d Morin Plastic D bri"S Task Forc Summary Action Plan PART 11 E MUMEN En Marine Plastic Debris Task Force MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the task forre is to increase public awareness and interest about marine plastic debris and to develop a framework for coordinating public and private efforts to ensure an effective response. Plastic debris in the aquatic envi- ronment has an adverse impact on wildlife, aesthetics, navigation and overall environmental quality. The task force recognizes that this material is part of a larger problem of waste generation and management. The Washington State plan will link private, local, state and federal efforts in managing the plastic waste stream as it affects the shorelines and aquatic environment. AW AI AC_ 4F 'Ilk 15 Marine Plastic Debris Task Force COAL AND OBJECTIVES Goal: To develop a state action plan to address the marine plastic debris issue as it affects Washington's shorelines and aquatic environment. Objectives: (1) Identify plastic debris in the aquatic environment as a distinct issue. (2) Develop and support mechanisms to reduce or eliminate marine plastic debris. (3) Focus primarily on marine resources affected by plastic debris, with attention to impacts on other aquatic environments in the state. (4) Provide input to and develop steps for emerging private, local, state and federal policies and actions. (5) Develop and implement mechanisms that will coordinate actions by agencies and organizations. (6) Encourage and support private and public policy to increase awareness through education efforts in Washington State. if 'An Z.- -till( 16 Marine Plastic Debris Task Force POLICIES The Marine Plastic Debris Task Force recommends that the State of Washington, acting through its elected officials, and in cooperation with other appropriate agencies, offices, organizations and the private sector, should seek to: (1) Increase public awareness about effects of marine plastic debris. (2) Designate a lead agency to act as a clearing house and coordinator for marine plastic debris activities in Washington. (3) Designate appropriate agencies to draft, review and support legislation and/or regulations recommended by the task force. (4) Empower responsible agencies to implement and participate to the fullest extent in actions recommended by the task force and other actions judged neces- sary. (5) Encourage funding measures on all levels to facilitate compliance with MAR- POL requirements and to implement task force recommendations. (6) Coordinate, support and encourage continued volunteer efforts and special events related to the marine plastic debris issue. (7) Encourage and support efforts by all the state's users of the marine environ- ment to reduce and eliminate marine plastic debris. (8) Support and encourage the plastics industry and other industries to continue research and development of products which are adaptable to recycling and proper disposal. (9) Maintain and expand baseline data collection and research on sources, quanti- ties, effects and fates of marine plastic debris. (10) Encourage ports and local governments to collect and dispose of marine plastic debris in an environmentally sound manner. (11) Support regional, national and international efforts to reduce and eliminate marine plastic debris. 17 Marine Plastic Debris Task Force SUMMARY OF ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS (1) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Designate an agency or entity to coordinate activities and serve as a clearinghouse for marine plastic debris data reception and information dissemination. ENVIRONMENT (2) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop an environmental baseline and monitoring system for marine plastic debris in Washington. (3) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate beach cleanup efforts among various agencies. (4) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Conduct additional research about the effects of plastic debris on wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat. (5) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate information about and removal of ghost nets and other derelict equipment from state waters among DNR, Depart- ment of Fisheries, NOAA and local agencies. (6) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require and promote recyclable or alterna- tive products when feasible for use in or near the marine environment. (7) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require recycling and proper disposal of potential marine plastic debris materials for federal, state and local agencies and Indian tribes. EDUCATION (8) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Convene a biennial statewide conference by the designated marine plastic debris coordinating agency. (9) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop and implement a public outreach program using the recommended logo, public service announcements, publications and special events. (10) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop and distribute media materials directed at domestic and foreign maritime communities. (11) AC71ON RECOMMENDATION: Develop a marine debris curriculum for use at state and private maritime schools training the professional maritime com- munity. 18 (12) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Post permanent infonnation signs about why WD and other litter is harmful to water quality, wildlife and fish as well as a threat to boating safety at all boat launch ramps, public access sites and public and private marinas. (13) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require that all state-licensed and regis- tered users of Washington waters receive M[PD information materials and display a plaque or decal about proper disposal of M?D and other litter. (14) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Encourage retail and manufacturer cooperation to aid in marine plastic debris public education. (15) ACTION RECOMA4ENDATION: Incorporate the M[PD problem into the environmental section of the state's required curriculums for grades K-12 and in other educational material. GOVERNMENTIECONOMIC IMPACT (16) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate an analysis of the true costs of marine debris, including fiscal impacts and nonquantiflable environmental costs into policy decisions. (17) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an independent cost/benefit analysis of M[PD compliance and cleanup. (18) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Integrate M[PD disposal with comprehen- sive solid waste planning. (19) AMON RECOMMENDATION: Increase public awareness about the legal consequences for improper M[PD disposal. (20) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop a framework of financial incen- tives to encourage proper disposal of WD. 19 REQUIRED LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES 1. Marine Debris decal-Departments of Fisheries and Licensing should require that all Washington-licensed boats have a prominently displayed decal regarding proper disposal of marine plastic debris and other wastes. 2. Information for boatel-s--Require the Department of Licensing to include an information packet including legal requirements for marine plastic debris disposal when issuing boat registrations or renewals. 3. Legislation-Support passage of the State Parks legislation for Boater Rec- reation Fee Account funds to be used for boater environmental education and to provide capital for sewage pump-out facilities and educational signs. 4. Agreement-Formal agreement among DNR, Department of Fisheries, NOAA (and other appropriate agencies) is necessary to assume prompt location and removal of ghost nets. 5. Funding-Investigate Ecology's Litter Tax program (Chapter 70.93 RCW) for the possibility of directing funding from that progrurn to the marine debris cleanup issue. 6. Clearinghouse-Develop an appropriate memorandum of understanding for the coordinating agency. 7. Staffmg-Consider increased state enforcement through WDOE, VVDF personnel to carry out these recommendations. lob 20 I II j nnnv in rKIII W3 I Mann Plastic D bn"s Action Recommendations MARINE FZASTIC DEBRIS TASK FORCE @-d @0 ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS (1) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Designate an agency or entity to coordinate activities and serve as a clearinghouse for marine plastic debris data reception and information dissemination. Agencies now retain data from beach cleanups, ghost net recoveries, seabird entanglement and other marine debris related work. The public usually becomes aware of the marine debris problem through occasional media attention. Citizens, private groups and affected state and federal agencies need a single agency where they can obtain marine debris education materials, deposit materials of their own, in receive information about upcoming activities, report derelict fish g equipment and other debris, and report beach litter data. Effective implementation of the following recommendations will require a continu- ing organizational and financial commitment. The Task Force recommends a thr-ee-step process for carrying out its recommendations. Because of budgetary and organizational implications, three options are suggested for structuring the coordi- nating agency considerations. The Commissioner of Public Lands, the Director of the Department of Ecology, and the Director of Parks and Recreation Commission J should make the decision on the most effective structure for carrying out these recommendations within three months of receiving this report. I After appropriate review, develop an interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the various parties. This MOA will commit the respective parties to carry out the action recommendation contained in this report. I To ensure agency implementation of these recommendations, agency directors designate staff representatives to serve as an Ad Hoc Working Group. I Options for the coordinating agency for the State MPD program: (A) The information clearinghouse and the lead coordinating agency would be two separate and distinct entities linked through a contractual relationship. Under this arrangement, an organization familiar with the marine plastic debris issue (such as Sea Grant or a private consultant) would act as a clearinghouse for information and data collection. Task Force members expressed concern that long-term information coordination and dissemination is typically better done by private or university-related enterprises. WDOE or DNR would take the lead for interagency coordination and incorporation of funding requests to the legislature. (B) The information clearinghouse and lead coordinating agency would be a single entity, preferably either WDOE or DNR. Funding and coordination would be simplified under this scenario. Concern has been expressed that the profile of the effort might not be sufficiently prominent unless a strong commit- ment is made by the agency director. (C) A third option would be to extend step two recommended above (Ad Hoc Working Group) and make this a more permanent structural part of state gov- ernment. This Action/Management Group would consist of several agencies with various sources of funding. 23 The Task Force recommends alternative (a) as the most potentially successfully organizational structure. Whichever option is deemed most appropriate by the agency directors, the Task Force recognizes that a stable and sustainable funding source is necessary to carry out the following program elements. Moneys gener- ated from state aquatic land management appear to be an appropriate and related source of funds. The Department of Natural Resources should include a request for such funds in its upcoming budget. Lead Agency: See options above. Participating Agencies: State and federal agencies, Indian tribes, colleges and universities, private companies Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going ENVIRONMENT (2) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop an environmental baseline and monitoring system for marine plastic debris in Washing- ton. Presently, the amount, occurrence, distribution and type of marine plastic debris in Washington waters and on shorelines is reported only on a limited basis. Anecdo- tal evidence from beach cleanups includes National Park Service/State Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Adopt-A-Beach information. However, beach cleanups have not used a standardized format for cataloging the materials col- lected. There is no means for sharing information about environmental effects on wildlife, fisheries and other resources. The collection of baseline data is useful only if it helps to estimate changing conditions. Statistically valid monitoring programs require that appropriate baseline information is measured so that "before and after" analyses can be con- ducted. Qualitative and quantitative data upon which to make these assessments can only be obtained by a systematic program of monitoring. Data obtained from monitoring activities (such as beach cleanups), Coast Guard inspections, recreation site maintenance and port disposal activities can then be incorporated into the data base. Measurement of changes in levels of environmental contamination will require a long-term commitment of financial and organizational resources. Some commitments have already been made at the federal level. For instance, the MPPRC requires that beginning in December 1989 the Coast Guard must make a biennial report to Congress on compliance with Annex V. The Coast Guard has contracted with a firm to evaluate information on the quality of waters and win periodically check how the environment is being affected. Data on occurrence, type and amount of marine plastic debris from beach cleanups should be collected using the standard inventory card (CEE). Data must be re- corded on all types of marine debris from various compatible sources. During the next two years, information will be available from the following sources: 24 I The Coast Guard, through enforcement of Annex V, will generate information on the number of violations, vessel waste data and other information from vessels 65 feet or more in length. I Olympic National Park has been designated a national survey site by MERP/ NMFS. The park has generated (and will continue to generate) extensive baseline data for ocean beaches. I USFWS can provide data on amount and types of materials collected in refuge lands. I State Parks, DNR, and the Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries should develop baseline data along with cleanup efforts at boat launches and recreation sites. I The Public.ports Association and Washington State Parks will complete a survey during the summer of 1988 on boater awareness and the effects of boat- generated wastes on water quality. I For two consecutive years, State Parks will survey recreational boaters to de- termine changes in waste disposal practices. In 1993 a survey will be con- ducted to measure the success of the Boater Environmental Education Program at State Parks. I WDF should provide data on the number and location of nets or crab pots lost and/or recovered. WDF biological inventory transect logs may also contain derelict fishing gear data. I The WDOE Coastal Management Zone Program has funded beach surveys by Adopt-A-Beach. Beginning on September 15, 1988, and continuing through 1989, baseline information will be developed through surveys conducted on the lower Columbia River, Puget Sound and ocean beaches. I The Port of Seattle has begun efforts to assess the most appropriate methods to collect and dispose of the waste stream generated by commercial shipping. The only available data is 15 years old. Because of the requirements of Annex V of MARPOL, Seattle and other ports need a more accurate data base to plan for disposal facilities. Information will also be developed from Fisherman's Terminal and the Shilshole Marina. Data from Duwamish River beach cleanups could also be used. I City and county parks and other municipal shoreline facilities could provide useful data. Suggested Lead Agency: Designated coordinating agency Participating Agencies: EPA, USFWS, NPS, NOAA, CG, WDOE, WDF, VVDW, DNR, Parks and Recreation, local governments, ports, Sea Grant, aquariums, marine labs, private companies, Adopt-A-Beach, colleges and universities, Indian tribes Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going 25 (3) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate beach cleanup efforts among various agencies. A significant reduction in adding to the existing debris waste stream in the future is achievable. However, prevention of all future MPD in the aquatic environment is unlikely. Existing levels of MPD can be significantly reduced through efforts such as beach cleanups. Future additions can be minimized by broad public education and involvement. It is generally agreed that periodic cleaning of a beach or other removal activities such as those carried out by the Adopt-A-Beach Program are not a solution to the problem unless the debris entering the aquatic environment is also reduced. Other remedial-type actions include ghost net haul-out and removal of floating debris by boaters and fishermen. Volunteer efforts to clean up beaches have been a highly visible part of MPD mitigation and awareness campaigns around the country. In Washington, Olympic National Park and state parks conduct an annual weekend cleanup on the coast beaches in May. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducts an annual beach clean-up on the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge. The Department of Ecology will organize community cleanup events as part of Coastweeks 88. The Port of Seattle assists in an annual Duwamish River cleanup event. The Swinomish Yacht Club (LaConner) developed a beach cleanup program this summer and an effort was planned for late July on San Juan The following points should be considered and incorporated into such efforts: I Cleanup efforts should be linked with a data gathering format to provide crucial information on the amount, type and distribution of marine plastic debris at specific locations. I Cleanup information should be used to direct future efforts to beaches with high concentrations of marine plastic debris. I Coordination among beach cleanup efforts should assure that redundant cleanups are not scheduled on the same beach while another beach is over- looked. I All cleanup efforts should include an education campaign to inform partici- pants about the nature and extent of the marine plastic debris problem. I A standard safety protocol should be developed for agencies which promote and organize cleanups. Lead Agency: WDOE Participating Agencies: NPS, USFWS, WDOE, WDW, WDF, DNR, State Parks, local governments, Adopt-A-Beach, private companies Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going 26 (4) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Conduct additional research about the effects of plastic debris on wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat. Much of the evidence for the effects of marine plastic debris on wildlife has been developed from research on the northern fur seal, sea turtle and seabird popula- tions. Little scientific evidence is available on effects of marine plastic debris on other types of wildlife or fish populations. It is clear that entanglement or ingestion can lead to drowning, starvation, strangulation or predation of individual animals. There is insufficient information at this time to determine whether or not plastic significantly affects populations as a whole. Lost or discarded fishing nets pose a hazard to fish, crabs, diving seabirds and other forms of marine life, as well as to divers. These nets can ghost fish for years and often create an attraction for crab to feed on ensnared fish. Crab are then caught and attract other crab and fish to the entangled net. I WDW and WIDF should participate in designing and conducting research ac- tivities aimed at documenting and diminishing the effects of marine plastic debris on fish and wildlife populations. I Appropriate agencies and organizations should encourage and participate in continued research by federal and state agencies on topics such as: 9 effects of plastic ingestion on fish and wildlife * effects of entanglement in plastic debris on fish and wildlife 9 alternatives to current plastic net materials and configurations * potential toxicity of plastics and their degradation products I Information about the nature and occurrence of marine plastic debris effects in the aquatic environment should be developed as part of the data base. Lead Agency: WDW, WDF Participating Agencies: EPA, USFWS, NOAA/NMFS, WDF, WDW, WDOE, private industry, aquariums, Sea Grant, marine labs Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1993 Duration: On-going (5) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate information about and removal of ghost nets and other derelict equipment from state waters among DNR, WDF, NOAA and local agencies. Crab, fish and other marine animals become entangled in abandoned or lost fishing equipment. Boat engines and other equipment are also damaged by floating nets or marine debris, causing thousands of dollars of repair costs or lost fishing time. The lives of divers are threatened when they become entangled in nets and lines. Recent events such as the net located and removed at Port Ludlow are evidence of the need for a coordinated approach to remove this debris. V*rDF estimates that once located, it takes approximately six personnel days to remove a single ghost net. 27 I An interagency Memorandum of Understanding among DNR, WDF, NMFS and others should be developed to standardize communications and operational st nets and other derelict equipment. rocedures for removal of gho p I Raising commercial fishing license fees to cover removal and disposal costs of lost or abandoned fishing equipment should be considered. I Stress the need for proper net disposal on shore in the education package for the commercial fishing industry (see Education section). I Provide information about environmental damage from ghost nets and other "tie marine plastic debris and incorporate these into port and DNR lease require- ments for marinas and other facilities which serve the boating and fishing communities. I Communicate with diving groups and dive shops about ghost net dangers. Removal procedures should be developed. I Require that those who fish commer-cially notify WDF about all lost fishing gear. Lead Agency: DNR/WDF Participating Agencies: NOAAINWS, DNR, WDF, WDW, ports, local govern- ments, private dive groups and shops V Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going. (6) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require and promote recyclable or alternative products, when feasible, for use in or near the marine en- vironment. U U The stability, buoyancy and relative permanence of manufactured plastic are also some of its least desirable characteristics when it becomes debris in the marine environment. Current plastic formulations are, in most cases, UV degradable but not photo or biologically degradable. Congress has mandated in MPRRCA that EPA, in consultation with NOAA, other agencies and industry, evaluate the feasibility and desirability of substituting alternative products for plastic articles which harm wildlife, disturb habitat or endanger human safety when disposed of improperly. The governor recently appointed a Task Force on Government Options to Landfill Disposal (GOLD) to prepare recycling and waste reduction strategies for state agencies. When evaluating the increasing costs of sold waste disposal, local governments such as King County have considered eliminating the sale of certain plastic products. The City of Seattle recently passed an ordinance prohibiting city agency use of disposable plastic containers. Educating the public to recycle 7N disposable containers, encouraging industry to use recyclable materials in their manufacture and providing adequate opportunity for the public to recycle may prove to be more environmentally sound than banning of certain materials. Materi- als to replace plastic may also have long-term effects on the environment 28 As public understanding about the marine plastic debris problem increases and local jurisdictions mandate certain products, the plastics industry will have further incentives for encouraging and promoting recycling and proper disposing of plastic debris. Decisions on alternative product requirements require an environmental/cost- 0effectiveness analysis. Trade-offs for various alternative choices should be made e N "I clear and explicit. 1 State government and its associated agencies have opportunities to require their contracting officials or concessionaires to specify certain products. The GOLD Task Force should consider the following recommendations when *-S addressing plastic in the waste stream and marine plastic debris specifically: *Require state agencies to use recyclable plastic products and products made from recyclable materials and to promote the collection for recycling these items. e The State Ferry system should require using only recyclable beverage cups. 9 Similar provisions should be adopted for State Park concession stands on or near the water. *A I When the Department of Natural Resources, ports and local governments lease areas for commercial and recreational marina uses, they should require using only containers made from recyclable material for food service, bait containers, wrapping materials and other uses. Appropriate containers for collection of these recyclables and proper disposal of other materials should be provided at these facilities. I Education about the advantages of recyclable products should be encouraged and collection facilities promoted as an important part of the state's overall waste reduction program. Lead Agency: WDOE 7' Participating Agencies: EPA, NOAA, WDOE, VVDF, DNR, Parks and Recrea- tion, private companies, local government Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going 1Y 29 (7) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require recycling and proper disposal of potential marine plastic debris materials for federal, state and local agencies and Indian tribes. The Task Force recognizes that recycling and degradability requirements for most types of plastic debris are part of a larger problem of waste stream disposal. MPPRC requires EPA to report to Congress in June 1989 on an evaluation of recycling alternatives, including a degradability evaluation of the fate and effects of the breakdown products of plastic in the marine environment. By September 30, 1988, NOAA must recommend legislation necessary to prohibit, tax or regulate sources of plastic materials which enter the marine environment. The MPPRC has no provision that mandates the installation equipment on vessels for incinerating or compacting debris. In the event that such equipment is installed, the Coast Guard Hazardous Materials Branch is evaluating whether standards will be needed for residues or emissions. At the state level, WDF has the authority to require and promote alternative fish harvesting equipment. Regulations are on the books requiring biodegradable crab pot lids. WDOE, through its recycling division, is presently reviewing various disposal and recycling options for plastic waste in the total waste stream. State Parks will be submitting legislation creating a Boater Recreation Fee Account; portions of this account are designated for boat waste management. Local govern- ments such as Seattle have begun aggressive recycling efforts. I Support passage of legislation to create a Boater Recreation Fee Account during the 1989 Washington State Legislature. If passed, this account will provide grant funds through State Parks to public entities for boat waste man- agement planning and boater environmental education. Through such grants, public moneys and other facilities can promote and/or require recycling as one way to properly dispose of boater-generated waste. I The Joint Select Committee on Solid Waste should pursue legislation to require properly recycling and disposing of marine plastic debris for state, local and other governmental entities. Suggested Lead Agency: WDOE, state legislature, State Parks, IAC Participating Agencies: EPA, NOAA, CG, private companies, ports, local gov- ernments, Sea Grant, citizen recycling organizations Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going. 30 EDUCATION (8) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Convene a biennial statewide conference by the designated marine plastic debris coordinating agency. One of the benefits of the current task force has been the amount of information that has been communicated and circulated among agencies and organizations. Task Force members believe when these recommendations are implemented there will be a continuing need to maintain opportunities to exchange information. I An appropriate format would be a biennial (every two years) statewide confer- ence open to the public where Task Force members, educators, researchers, local, state, and federal agency representatives, volunteer organizations, indus- try representatives, those who fish and others can share current information, program successes and experiences on the marine debris issue. I Conference participants would: 9 Present technical reports, including review of existing data and assess ment of the sources and environmental effects of debris affecting Washing- ton State.. Reports should address and assign priorities to pertinent issues and suggest agencies to carry out the proposed tasks. * Periodically produce progress reports for subsequent meetings. These updated reports should review implementation strategy and make recom- mendations about necessary program adjustments. Information should be readily available to interested agencies and organizations from the desig- nated information clearing house. Lead Agency: Designated coordinating agency Participating Agencies: All interested parties Implementation Time Frame: 1991-2001 Duration: On-going (9) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop and implement a public outreach program using the recommended logo, public service an- nouncements, publications and special events. Increasing public awareness about marine plastic debris must be a long-term commitment by all concerned agencies and organizations. The educational effort on marine plastic debris will be to increase public knowledge about the current state and federal laws on marine plastic debris disposal. NOAA has recently produced a 7-minute video entitled "Trashing the Oceans," as well as three 30-second shorts directed at recreational boaters. The WDOE recy- cling program is adopting these shorts for its own litter control and cleanup cam- paign. NOAA will also work with the Coast Guard, EPA, DOI and others to carry out the education provisions of MPPRCA. The Coast Guard is presently incorpo- 31 rating the NOAA video into their Safe Boating training programs. The Port of Seattle issues newsletters to its tenants and has used limited numbers of brochures to inform tenants about Annex V. In 1988 the Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE), established by PSWQA to support model public involvement and education, funded a Boater Environ- mental Education Project. This project, carried out by State Parks, focused on surveying boaters about sewage and boat waste disposal habits. It also distributed information on proper disposal methods and maps showing locations of sewage pumpout facilities. Interpretative and informative displays are an expected part of the experience at a marina, state park, library or other public setting. Incorporation of information about marine plastic debris in these displays would be an effective way to commu- nicate to the public. For instance, Adopt-A-Beaeh is currently working with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council on developing display panels for marinas about litter and human waste disposal. State Parks, supported by PSWQA, will constructN' sewage pump-outs at five Marine State Parks, and install interpretive boards explaining the need to control boat wastes. In conjunction with the Center for Environmental Education (CEE) and NOAA, the plastics industry has been particu- larly effective in developing brochures on the dangers of marine plastic pollution. Similar materials have been used as display ads in industry publications. The Task Force recognizes the value of such cooperative efforts to address marine plastic debris. Special events attract citizen and media attention and can be a way to develop interest and awareness in the marine plastic debris problem. Washington, Texas and Oregon have promoted annual beach cleanup days for years. Boat shows, local and regional fairs, and other events provide the opportunity to communicate with many people. The Task Force also recognized the need for a logo to identify state educational materials and programs regarding marine debris. This will help foster an attitude of stewardship toward marine resources as did Woodsy Owl's "Give a hoot, don't pollute" theme for terrestrial resources. The following series of action recommendations and specific implementing activi- ties constitute a framework for an aggressive public outreach program: (A) Develop and adopt a state logo and theme for the MPD issue: * The Task Force recommends the adoption of the logo developed by the Port of Bellingham Sea Grant Project displayed on the back cover of this report. The slogan, "Get a Grip on Marine Debris," appealed to the Task Force for its simplicity, positive message and effectiveness, particularly in conjunction with the nominated logo. The logo theme should appear on all publications, bro- chures, posters, video presentations, etc. 32 (B) Communicate to people of Washington about marine plastic debris using public service announcements (PSAs) and other public outreach tools: o Washington Sea Grant, thmugh its marine advisory and public education pro- grams, should continue development and dissemination of educational materials about the hazards of marine plastic debris both for the general public and more specialized audiences. o Sea Grant marine advisory agents communicate to the marine community. They can carry an anti-litter message in their daily activities as wen as under- taking occasional special projects. They also act as change agents. For in- stance, if new technologies for trash disposal or new plastic products are man- dated by other authorities, agents can provide information to the user commu- nity (e.g., the fishing fleet) and identify local innovators who will help intro- duce these new products. *The Department of Wildlife during steelhead season, Parks and Recreation Commission during summer camping season, and Department of Ecology during its Coast week campaign could each add a "tag" onto their media campaign materials. 9 Agencies such as WDF have a "hotline" for fishing information and Parks has a 1-800-reservation number. Agencies having dedicated message lines or the ability to convey a message about WD during "hold" time on incoming calls should make use of such opportunities. (C) Actively develop and distribute materials for display purposes about marine plastic debris: e The Departments of Wildlife, Fisheries and Natural Resources all manage public access sites and regional offices where displays would be appropriate. Some ports have already posted informational displays on MPD. 9 State ferries, terminals, display areas and highway rest areas could also reach large audiences, as could displays at ports, marinas, the Seattle Aquarium, the Padilla Bay Research Reserve, (Skagit County) and local libraries. *Through a variety of interpretive techniques NPS can contribute to the public awareness effort. These include conducted walks, evening programs and exhibits to reach about one million visitors annually at the Olympic National Park and other facilities such as San Juan Islands Historical Park. c The State Parks Boater Environmental Education program should include MPD information in its brochures, maps and flyers for marine park visitors. These printed materials should be available at park entrances, piers, or park offices. 'Me materials should be available at boat shows or other boating related events. Me. Departments of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Fisheries develop MPD infoniational. materials with State Parks for distribution at their boating access sites. * State Parks should continue displaying their educational materials and show- ing videos or slide shows. An MPD display to be used at all major boat shows in the state should be developed. 33 (D) Include articles and materials on WD efforts in current publications by state agencies and organizations: 9 Include information and updates on MPD in the Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management (CM Program's "Coastal Cur- rents," Department of Natural Resource's "Totem", State Parks "Connections" and the Department of Wildlife's annual Washington wildlife calendar. Agen- cies' employee newsletters should also include MPD materials. *Articles on MPD could be an important addition to PSWQA publications, in- cluding the monthly newsletter "Soundwaves," a series of issue papers dealing with water quality issues in Puget Sound, and a yearly report, "State of the Sound." The Washington Environmental Council (WEC) "Alert", regional Audubon Society organizations, and various boating clubs publications (such as Interbay and its member organizations) could continue to inform their members of MPD cleanup opportunities and developments. (E) Develop and use special events to raise public awareness about MPD: Develop a Washington event (modeled after the American Lung Association "Great American Smokeout") for the purpose of beach and/or plastic litter cleanup "The Great Washington Litter Out." State Parks should maintain and expand its one-day "Boater Information Exchange Days" at selected marinas, gathering data from boaters about the kinds of debris or pollution they generate and finding out how boaters could best be educated. Provide opportunities at other major boating-oriented events such as Seafair, the Washington State Fair in Puyallup, regional and county fairs and Ballard's Viking Fest for engaging crowds about the problem of plastics in the marine environment. Coordinate events, when possible, with the annual Coastweeks, sponsored by the Department of Ecology. Lead Agency: Designated coordinating agency Participating Agencies: All interested parties Implementation Time Frame: 1991-2001 Duration: On-going (10) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop and distribute media materials directed at domestic and foreign maritime communities. The industrial maritime community is often long at sea and may not encounter informational materials prepared for or available to recreational boaters. Crews on foreign vessels, tugboats, cruise ships, factory fish processing ships and other vessels need MPD educational material developed specifically for their situations, particularly if their vessels lack either disposal or storage space for plastic debris. 34 I Make available special brochures, video tapes and other targeted materials for operators and crews of commercial and industrial vessels. I Develop and make available a readable package of information on state MPD regulations for crews and operators of foreign vessels calling at Washington ports. I The PSWQA draft 1989 plan targets business and industry audiences with particular reference to the fishing and shipping industries. Marine plastics should be included. Lead Agency: Coast Guard Participating Agencies: NOAA/NMFS, Washington Public Ports Association, WDOE, colleges and universities Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going (11) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop a marine debris curriculum for use at state and private maritime schools training the professional maritime community. The professional maritime community includes pilots, ferry captains and crews, the merchant marine and masters, mates and pilots of all sea-going vessels, as well as tugboat crews. The MPRRCA created a new set of legal obligations for vessel operators. Coast Guard licensees are required to operate such vessels. Currently, the Coast Guard includes questions on license exams about oil pollution (as required by the previ- ous version of MPRRCA and MARPOL I and 11). The Coast Guard is presently developing information on WD which will be provided to independently operated license examination preparation courses. Applicants for merchant marine licenses and documents will receive an information handout. Questions regarding MAR- POL Annex V will be added to license examinations. I State licensing exams for Board of Pilotage commissions should include MPD materials, since these pilots are a primary contact with incoming foreign ves- sels. I MPD materials should also be included in State Department of Transportation material issued in training ferry skippers and crews. I WDF should include WD information in training sessions held for commer- cial fishing vessel operators. I This curriculum should be developed along with the commercial maritime education and commercial license packet. Lead Agency: Designated lead agency Participating Agencies: Department of Licensing, State Board of Pilotage Com- mission, WDF, colleges and universities Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1993 Duration: On-going 35 (12) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Post all boat launch ramps, public access sites, and public and private marinas with permanent information signs about why MPD and other litter is harmful to water quality, wildlife and fish as well as a threat to boating safety: The State Departments of Natural Resources, Wildlife, and Fisheries, and the Parks and Recreation Commission operate boat launch facilities on fresh and saltwater. Many port districts, counties and cities also operate such facilities. The Inter- agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAQ provides significant capital moneys for these facilities through Referendum 215 (Boating Gas Tax) funds. WDOE's Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management program administers public enhancement moneys from federal CZM 306(A) funds. In addition, DNR recently has been funding projects for public access to the state's shorelines through the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA). The National Park Service also manages boat launch sites. USFWS does not operate launch facilities but their refuges would benefit from "no littering" signs posted near their lands. I A coordinated approach to signage should be developed among the participat- ing agencies to convey a consistent message about MPD throughout the state. Future renovation and maintenance of existing sites, as well as development of new sites, should incorporate these standardized signs. All state grants to local and state agencies for marine related purposes such as boat launch sites and public access should require that information about marine plastic debris be made available at the project site. The shoreline permit and SEPA review process should trigger coordinated signage programs for new and/or expanding boat launches, marinas and public access sites. Lead Agency: IAC Participating Agency: NPS, USFWS, DNR, WDW, WDF, WDOE, Parks and Recreation, Pons, local government, DCD Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going (13) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Require that all state-licensed and registered users of Washington waters receive MPD information materials, and display a plaque or decal about proper disposal of MPD and other litter. I Under Washington's boat registration law (RCW 88.02), all vessels longer than 16 feet in Washington must be registered with the Department of Licensing through county auditor offices. As part of the new or renewing registration packet, the Department of Licensing may include other materials. As part of its implementation of MPPRCA, the Coast Guard may require that certain vessels will, by December 1989, display a placard notifying mariners of their obligations for proper disposal under the law. This card would be similar in form and content to those currently used for discharge of oil into the marine envi- ronment. Plastic debris information will be added to pamphlets distributed by the Coast Guard such as "Federal Regulations Affecting Boating Safety." 36 I Include marine plastic debris and proper boat waste disposal information in commercial and recreational license and registration packets and training materials issued by the state (in coordination with the Coast Guard). I Require an WD plaque or decal be displayed on all vessels, commercial and recreational, registered in the state. Notification and/or distribution could be carried out by the Department of Licensing or through county auditor offices. A required plaque or decal would assure that all users of state waters are made aware of marine plastic debris rules and regulations. I Add information about marine plastic debris to V;DF AND WDW's brochure material. Marine plastic debris information should also be required for inclu- sion in the licensing packet. I Registration materials for use of State Park boating sites should also include MPD information. Lead Agency: Fisheries, Parks, Licensing, county auditors Participating Agencies: CG, NOAA, EPA, VvrDF, WDW, Indian tribes, Depart- ment of Licensing, Parks and Recreation, county auditors. Implementation Time Frame: 1981-1993 Duration: On-going 40 0* ? 37 (14) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Encourage retail and manufac- turer cooperation to aid in marine plastic debris public education. Marine equipment and sporting goods stores, bait and tackle shops, marinas, cafes, and other sporting shoreside facilities serving recreational and commercial boaters provide an excellent opportunity to provide posters, flyers, brochures and other information about MPI). With the adoption of a state logo and theme, every effort should be made to achieve a wide circulation of this message. A yearly campaign, with concentrated efforts just before and during the summer boating and recreation season, could be successful. It should also be coordinated with WIDOE's general anti-litter campaign. I Incorporate into retail product manufacturing information or warnings about proper disposal of marine litter (emphasizing plastic products) and the need for proper net and crab pot disposal. I Enlist retail outlets serving recreational boaters and those who fish to distrib- ute information about marine plastic debris. I Encourage publishers of tide tables, cruising guides and maritime oriented publications to include display advertising and other messages about marine plastic debris. I Place marine plastic debris logo and associated educational materials on plastic bags and other containers provided to grocery distributors, fast food outlets and other retail facilities urging consumers to dispose of plastic properly. Lead Agency: WDOE Participating Agencies: NOAA, NUFS, CG, Parks and Recreation, WDF, VvrDW, private companies, grocery stores, fast-food outlets Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going (15) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate the marine plastic debris problem into the environmental section of the state's required curriculums for grades K-12 and in other educational material. One long-term solution for the marine plastic debris problem is to develop an awareness among the young people of our state about their responsibility for reducing the presence of plastic debris in the environment. Incorporating teaching materials into the curriculums, using a state logo and public advertising campaigns directed at the general population and targeted audiences will develop an "aquatic conservative ethic" similar to that achieved by the "Smokey the Bear" campaign. The plastic debris issue can be readily incorporated into existing programs that deal with pollution, water quality, human impact on the marine environment and the state of the Sound. 38 I Continue use of marine plastic debris material in Project Wild (curriculum package developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and Department of Wildlife). I Include marine plastic debris materials in the environmental education section of the states required curriculum. I Include information about marine plastic debris to teachers. In the 87-88 bi- ennium, the PSWQA allocated $50,000 from the PIE fund for teacher training. The draft 1989 plan provides for a program through the Office of Environ- mental Education/Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to train approximately 1,200 K- 12 teachers. I Encourage the Seattle Aquarium to continue disseminating information about marine plastic debris and stewardship of our aquatic resources through its Puget Sound on Wheels program, outdoor trips, outreach programs, on-site education programs and exhibits. I Incorporate marine plastic debris material into the WDOE "A Way With Waste" school program. This program reaches over 500 teachers yearly with interdisciplinary lessons on waste management issues. It is designed for direct use in the classroom with cost reimbursement to participating schools. I Offer to high school students as an elective the Boating Safety program spon- sored by State Parks. The curriculum should include a discussion about proper boat waste disposal. Passage of the Boater Recreation Fee Account would provide funds for SPI to incorporate WD information into this program. Lead Agency: SPI Participating Agencies: Aquariums, marine laboratories, State Parks, WDW, PSWQA, private, companies, colleges and universities Implementation Time Frame: 1991-1993 Duration: On-going ....... ......... /4z 39 GOVERNMENTIECONOMIC IMPACT (16) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate an analysis of the true costs of marine debris, including fiscal impacts and nonquantifiable environmental costs into policy decisions: The fiscal impacts of researching, cleaning up and disposing of marine plastic debris will affect every agency dealing with the issue. Currently, few state agen- cies have budgeted for marine plastic debris activities. They are conducted as existing time and budget constraints allow. The recommendations of this report will require agency-specific analysis to determine necessary operating and staff expenditures. At the federal level, EPA and NOAA have significant research and support budgets mandated by Congress. These costs are reflected in federal budget documents. By law, the Coast Guard will track its costs for vessel inspection and port facility enforcement. These costs will be incorporated into further budget authorizations. Many of the effects of marine plastic debris are based on aesthetic or quality of life concerns. The marine plastic debris issue is an opportunity to develop an aware- ness of our stewardship obligation for the environment. I The nonquantifiable environmental costs of WD need to be incorporated into state policy making considerations. I A major cost to ports, marinas and local governments will be the increase in materials added to the waste stream for disposal previously not presented in such quantities. The Port of Seattle, working with R.W. Beck, has developed some preliminary information about the types and distribution of debris entering the port on merchant vessels. The port will also be developing information on operating costs for meeting MPRRCA requirements. I DNR leases should include means to reduce or eliminate MPI) at the facility. Department leases should reflect the increased costs for lessees to carry out these requirements. The department's obligation to generate revenue from aquatic land leases could be balanced with environmental protection, public access and en oyment by offering a reduced rate to reflect increased operating costs. I WDOE's liner control program has a long history of calculating the fiscal im- pacts of liner. Such calculations should include marine plastic debris costs, generating useful data on cleanup costs. I The Olympic National Park will provide, as necessary, reports on the quality- of-life aspects of marine plastic debris, specifically how the debris affects marine organisms and visitor experiences in the National Park. I Cities and counties responsible for disposal facilities will need to account for changes in the waste stream. Increased enforcement costs should be monitored. I Incorporate true costs of marine plastic debris (as they become known) into the educational and curriculum materials. See Education section. Lead Agency: Coordinating agency Participating Agencies: EPA, USFWS, NPS, WDOE, Parks and Recreation, WDW, WDF, DNR, local governments, environmental groups 40 Implementation Time Frame: 1989-2001 Duration: On-going (17) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an independent cost/ benefit analysis of MPD compliance and cleanup. Costs absorbed by the private sector for conforming to new MPD laws and regula- tions will be immediate and long-term. While such costs may be technically difficult to compute, they will still be helpful to decision-makers. By the end of the year, those involved in fishing and cargo vessel landings at ports will likely have higher costs for disposal of their wastes. On-board compactors, incinerators or other devices to reduce waste will be a significant capital and vessel modification cost. Depending on the size of the vessel and length of voyage, costs could be increased because of reduced storage or cargo space. If containers and packaging shift to other materials besides plastic, increased costs are also likely. An analysis of these costs and their effects on the affected economic sectors should be devel- oped. Eventually if a shift from current plastic products to either recyclable or degradable products or nonplastic alternatives occurs, jobs might be lost and/or gained in manufacturing, sales and distribution sectors. Recycling and disposal firms will also be affected. Food service and distribution may also incur higher costs if packaging products currently used are no longer available. Recent Seattle prohibi- tions on use of plastic disposable food containers could create data which will reflect this changing cost. At the national level, the Coast Guard will carry out a NTEPA-required costibenefit analysis of the MARPOL regulations. Beach and water cleanups, derelict equipment removal and other mitigation activities win cost money to organize and conduct. I Jobs created from private sector cleanup by private organizations win develop a market and may provide useful data. I The costs of disposal for litter generated by recreational boaters must also be included. This cost may well include an increased boater moorage fee directed toward controlling marine plastic debris. This needs to be analyzed. I The effects on tourism of maintaining the state's beaches has to be considered, particularly if, in the absence of a marine plastic debris program, business in tourist-oriented communities is affected. I Vessel repair, towing charges and lost fishing time can cause significant fi- nancial impact on an individual vessel owner. Include in a cost/benefit analysis the effects of fishing vessel breakdown from damage caused by marine plastic debris. I The effect of marine plastic debris regulation on private sector economics need to be included. Available in-state information should also be used. The type of analysis necessary to determine these costs is probably best carried out by private sector economists under a consulting contract agreement. I Information on costs and contributed volunteer time included to conduct beach cleanups, remove derelict equipment and other WD mitigation projects. 41 Lead Agency: Coordinating agency Participating Agencies: CG, Department of Trade and Economic Development, WDF, DNR, Parks and Recreation, Public Ports Association, private economic consultants Implementation Time Frame: 1989-1991 Duration: On-going (18) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Integrate MPD disposal with comprehensive solid waste planning. Properly handled WD will ultimately be deposited or received at a city or county- Ik operated solid waste disposal facility. Ports will likely generate a new waste stream to these facilities. Public awareness might result in proper disposal of greater amounts of material. An inherent part of the disposal problem, especially since existing landfills are limited and the siting of new solid-waste facilities is difficult (landfills, incineration, etc.), is the issue of recycling. Many counties and municipalities are examining or have developed aggressive recycling programs. As counties update their solid waste comprehensive manage- ment plans, marine plastic debris needs to be part of that plan for counties con- nected to marine waters. Until recently, plastic has not been considered commer- cially recyclable. The problem is two-fold. At the federal level, EPA is develop- ing disposal method regulations and technological information on plastic recycling. At the industry level, the technology has been developed to recycle a mixed stream of various plastic products. Markets are still developing to meet the potential supply. I Development of recycled plastic markets in an industrial support base and co- ordination with local governnients may be an appropriate role for the Depart- ment of Trade and Economic Development. The Utility and Transportation Commission (UTC) might also play a role in the regulatory arena. I From a legal and policy perspective, the Joint Select Committee on Solid Waste, the House Environmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Environ- mental and Natural Resources Committee should play a major role in any changes required in state law to encourage plastic recycling. I Groups such as the Association of Cities, the Association of Counties, citi- zens' recycling groups and the recycling industry should play a major role in integrating marine plastic debris into the comprehensive solid waste planning as required by RCW 70.95. 1 Efforts at marine plastic debris planning will require an equal commitment to public education and awareness. @,@k @ wio, 42 Lead Agency: WDOE Participating Agencies: EPA, OFM, DCD, Environmental Affairs Committees, cities, counties, private companies, citizens for recycling groups Implementation Time Frame: 1989-2001 Duration: On-going (19) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Increase public awareness about the legal consequences for improper MPD disposal. An important part of the educational effort about marine plastic debris is to in- crease public knowledge about the current state and federal laws on marine plastic debris disposal. The Coast Guard can deny ships landing rights if port facilities have not received a certificate of adequacy. The Coast Guard will also communicate their new regula- tions through programs run by marine safety offices. The Port of Seattle win inform ships at port of the legal ramifications of MARPOL V. Fishing and recrea- tional boats have already been informed. I Provide educational material at NPS and USFWS informational and interpre- tative facilities about the laws against the disposal of marine plastics and illegal discharges in marine waters. I Consider decriminalizing existing regulations (making violations a civil offense) to achieve improved management enforcement. Such a review is currently underway by WDF and should be considered by other enforcement agencies which administer local and municipal marine litter ordinances. Civil penalties would reduce processing costs. I Fees collected could be used for marine plastic debris education, control and cleanup efforts. I Inform the Criminal Justice Training Commission about existing and new laws or regulations concerning marine plastic debris so their information can be incorporated into training for enforcement. I Carry out an overall review of state and local laws regulating solid waste "dumping" and "littering" to determine who is authorized to enforce such laws and identify the penalties involved. Increase enforcement presence if necessary. Lead Agency: Coordinating agency Participating Agencies: USFWS, NPS, NOAA/NMFS, CG, WDF, DNR, WDOE, Parks and Recreation, Energy and Natural Resources Committees, Asso- ciation of Cities, Association of Counties, Washington Public Ports Association Implementation Time Frame: 1989-2001 Duration: On-going 43 (20) ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Develop a framework of finan- cial incentives to encourage proper disposal of MPD. Any reasonably cost effective measure which reduces plastics in the waste stream, particularly since it affects the aquatic environment is seen as a net gain. To achieve that, various incentive measures have been suggested: States where recycling plastic has achieved some success are also states. which have a state-mandated bottle bill law. Previous attempts at such legislation in Washington have failed. With the emergence of the marine plastic debris issue, it may be time to consider such a measure again. Container deposits create a positive incentive for consumers to recycle materials. I Reducing marine plastic debris through incentives could be built into lease documents issued by DNR and ports and included in shoreline permits issued by local governments. I Create a "bounty system" for debris collected on beaches or open water funded by private moneys or a combination of public and private funds. I Examine these and other incentive systems in the context of other legislatively considered actions, both financial and regulatory. Funds derived from civil penalties could be used for incentive programs. I Consider collecting disposal fees by port authorities as a portion of the dock- age fee from commercial vessels to defray disposal facility costs. Lead Agency: Legislature Participating Agencies: OFM, Department of Revenue, WDOE, DNR, Energy and Natural Resources Committees Implementation Time Frame: 1991-2001 Duration: On-going 44 E REQUIRED LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES (1) Marine Debris decal-Departments of Fisheries and Licensing should require that all Washington-licensed boats have a prominently displayed decal regarding proper disposal of marine plastic debris and other wastes. Decals could be produced and sold through private sector arTangements. (2) Information for boaters-Require the Department of Licensing to include an infonnation packet including legal requirements for marine plastic debris disposal when issuing boat registrations or renewals. (3) Legislation-Support passage of the State Parks legislation for Boater Recreation Fee Account funds to be used for boater environmental education and to provide capital for sewage pump-out facilities and educational signs. (4) Agreement-Formal agreement among DNR, Department of Fisheries, NOAA (and other appropriate agencies) is necessary to assume prompt location and removal of ghost nets. (5) Funding--Investigate Ecology's Liner Tax program (Chapter 70.93 RCW) for the possibility of directing funding from that program to the marine debris cleanup issue. (6) Clearinghouse-Develop an appropriate memorandum of understanding for the coordinating agency. (7) Staffing--Consider increased state enforcement through WDOE, WDF personnel to carry out these recommendations. Nam" ;77/77_771_71_@ 45 BEACH CLEANUP DATA CARD ITEMS COLLECTED you may find it helpful to work with a buddy as you clean the beach, one of you picking u Thank you for completing this data card. Answer the questions and return to your area coordinator or to the address at the bottom easy Way to keep track of the itemsycru find is by making tick marks. The box is for total items of this card. This in"'Irriation will be used in the Center for Environmental Education's National Marine Debris Data Base and Total Report to help develop solutions to stopping marine debris. egg cartons cups 6qz2qo As Name - Affiliation Address Occupation _ Phone (q_1 City State - Zip - M F Age: PLASTIC STYROFCAMqO (or qo bags: bucys Today'sDate: Month -Day - *ar -Name ofCoordinator trash cups Location of beach Cleaned Nearest city Salt egg cartons How did you hear about the cleanup? other fast-food containers bottles: meat trays SAFETY TIPS beverage, Soda pieces: bleach, cleaner larger than a baseball 1. D hotqohearq@ylavgedrums 2. Be'careful Mth sharp objects. oil, lube smaller than a baqsebal 3- Wear 21c,ves. othe other Ispecify) 4,Stay out ofthe dune areas. buckets RUBBER 5-Watchoult irshakes. caps, lids 6. Don't lift afrqorthing too heavy. balloons WE WANT YOU TO BE SAFE cups, spoons, forks, Straws glo- diapers tm,S disposable lighten other (specify) Number of people working together on this data card - Estimated distance of beach Cleamd Number of bags filled fishing line METAL SOURCES OFFOREIGN DEBRIS, Prease listan items thattave foreign labels, fishing net: bottle caps Country Item Found longer than 2 feet cans: Eumple: 2 feet or shorter aerosol floats & lures beverage hardhacs food light Sticks other milk. vvatergallonjugs clab/fish trap pieces 55 gallon drums pipe thread prowto, Sty rope: new STRANDED AINWOR ENTANGLED ANIMALS (Please describe type of animal and type of entangling debns. Be as specific as you can.) longer than 2 feet peceS 2 feet or shorter pull tabs sheedng: - e longer than 2 feet other (Specify) 2 feet or shorter What ms the most peculiar Item you collected? &pack holders PAPER Stopping bandS, bags - Comments syringes = cardboard tampon applicators = canons PLEASE RETURN THIS CARD cups Thankyou! YOURAR COORDINATOR toys newspaper OR MAIL FTTO: vegetablesack; Center for Envl ronmental Education -write protection" rings peceS 1725 DeSaim Street. NIV other (Specify) Washngt-, DC 20036 other (specify) WOOD(leavedriqfqtqwqoqo A Membership Organizatim GLASS crab/lobster traps botcfes: Crates beverage pallets food pieces XRAV qM11111111' otherispecily) other (specify) flUontscentlight tubes Caqld4qtff f 8q@cr 2q41q3qo E PA light bulbs CLOTH Envircrinfielfttial clothing/pieces Education 0q40qW plecesq- other Ispecify) JOVER) nnnv m rRim 1 4 1 m onn I Plastic D br1jS Appendixes UNlTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic end Atmospheric Administration 2 NATIONAL MARINE RSHERIES SERVICE Northw:st and Alaska Fisheries Center pellets, fishing gear, cargo straps, six-pack yokes, bait 7600 S Ind Point Way N. E. F/NWC bags, etc., and into the mortality to wildlife caused by BIN C15700 plastics in the marine environment. Some of the work on Seattle, Washington 98115-0070 impacts to wildlife includes research on the northern fur seal, Hawaiian monk seal, northern sea lion, and sea turtles. Research is also being conducted on the high seas gillnet fishery, impact of ingested plastics on sea birds, methods for surveying the distribution and abundance of MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE marine debris, benthic effects of marine debris, floating plastic particulates, and accumulation and disappearance A S S I G N M E N T rates of marine litter at sea and along the coastal beaches. 1. Agency Name: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mitigation studies include methods to reduce disposal of Marine Entanglement Research Program ship-generated refuse into the marine environment, degradability of plastics, the problems of shipboard waste 2. Why issue is important: One of the National Oceanic and Tanagement, port reception facilities, compaction, Acmospheric Administration's (NOAA) main responsibilities is to incineration, and plastics recycling systems. improve understanding of the oceanic and atmospheric environments. In recent years our ocean environment and Education efforts within the program include a number of inhabitants have been increasingly affected by the problems its NOAA sponsored or assisted meetings on marine plastic related to persistent marine debris. The Department of Commerce, pollution including the International Workshop on the Fate through NOAA, is working with other Federal agencies, and Impacts of Marine Debris, held 'in Honolulu, Hawaii, 1984 universitiesp state governments, industrial, educational and (the Second International Workshop is scheduled for April 2- NMI recreational associations, and environmental groups to address 7, 1989); the Sixth International Ocean Disposal Symposium, the problems associated with marine debris. held in Pacific Grove, California, 1986; Oceans of Plastic 3. Authority- NOAA's responsibilities and concerns relating to conference, held in Portland, Oregon, 1988; and the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris in persistent marine debris are statutorily derived Under the Marine Hawaii, 19U7. Another education and public awareness Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Marine Mammal component is designed to increase the knowledge of Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson Fishery industrial and commercial contributors about the impacts and U) Conservation and Management Act, and most recently, the Marine control of marine debris. Objectives include identifying Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (Public Law the most significant non-degradable debris generators and #100-220). Under these statutes, NOAA is charged with developing means for educating them and convincing key protecting, conserving, and managing a wide range of marine manufacturers of raw materials and finished products to species and their habitat. NOAA is in the process of lessen their impacts on the marine environment. Several investigating the role of marine debris entanglement and National Sea Grant Programs have published and distributed a ingestion in the population dynamics of marine organisms. wide variety of materials on the debris problem directed at 4. Resources available: In response to growing concerns over the general public. MERP has educational contractors in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico to address the impacts of marine debris on wildlife, Congress appropriated specific regional interest groups and sources. The program .$1,000,000 in Fis ca 1 Year 1935 and $750,000 in 1986, 1987, and has also worked with several national public school 1988 for NOAA's Marine Entanglement Research Program. Impacts education programs, including Project Wild, which are and research monitoring has accounted for approximately one half developing teaching materials specifically addressing the of the funds, while approximately one quarter of the funds are marine debris issue. spent on each of the remaining two activities, mitigation and education. b. planned; The Fiscal Year 1989 MERP steering committee is scheduled to meet June 9-10, 1988 to discuss next year's 5. Description of program effort: tasks and studies. Prospective programmatic studies will be a. current: The Marine Entanglement Research Program critically reviewed. Although enacted, the Marine Plastic (MERP) within the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sponsors research into the sources of plastics, such as M& Aq% UA=-nl C--,.A, 915 Se-d A- 3 Ttdrwerth C@ Gwrd Davit S@atll- WA 9'174-lD67 s.ff sydd: Pollution Research and Contro 1 Ac t 1987 did not provide Unftd States K- funds to NOAA for research or educaottion. Thus the program Coast Guard Aff may or may not be funded for FY 1989. Planning for a level funded FY 1989 program of $750,000 will be carried out. Under P.L. #100-220, NOAA is mandated, with the assistance MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS PROGRAM STATUS REPORT of the U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA, to commence a three year national education campaign on marine debris. AGENCY: United States Coast Guard C. projected: It is difficult to predict the longevity of MERP due to the political and budgetary constraints. AUTHORITY: The Coast Guard will have the primary responsibility Efforts should continue for at least the next three years for enforcing the regulations which will implement Annex V of under the mandate of P.L.#10U-22U and the MARPOL ANNEX V Marpol 73/78. The regulations which become effective on December international agreement. 31, 1988, will provide for the prevention of marine pollution by plastics and other garbage as defined in the ANNEX V and the Marine d. cooperative efforts: NOAA's MERP has been working with Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRC), and other Federal agencies, international organizations, will apply to all vessels operating on navigable waters under the universities, state governments, industrial, educational and jurisdiction of the United States. recreational associations, and environmental groups. Most MERP efforts are national in scope and accomplishment, RESOURCES AVAILABLE: however, cooperative regional efforts which provide nationally important information are also supported. Many Enforcement of MARPOL Annex V and the regulations promulgated under MERP reports, brochures, slide shows, videos, posters and MPPRC will be performed in conjunction with other vessel boardings other educational materials and findings have been and examinations and facility inspections. Proposals have been distributed to state and local groups upon request. A more made to provide one additional person at Marine Safety Office Puget extensive clearing house for information and products is Sound, but no additional money is expected in the budget. anticipated in FY 1989. PROGRAM EFFORT: 6. Additional information: CURRENT: The Coast Guard already enforces the provisions of MARPOL A more detailed description and status of tasks in the Annexes I and II and will have the major responsibility for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine enforcement of Annex V. Regulations are being proposed and drafted Entanglement Research Program is available in the form of that will require certain vessels to maintain log book entries NWAFC Processed Report 87-15 dated July 1987. This report regarding disposal of debris at sea, develop waste management plans and additional marine debris information is available from: and display debris discharge placards. Proposals will be included to require vessels to separate all plastics from the other debris. James M. Coe or Alan R. Bunn In addition the regulations will require adequate facilities within Marine Entanglement Research the port for reception of materials from the vessels. NOAA/NMFS 7600 Sand Point way, N.E. FUTURE: The MPPRC requires that beginning in December 1989 the Seattle, Wa. 98115 Coast Guard must make a biennial report to Congress on the compliance with Annex V. To this end the Coast Guard has contracted with a firm to evaluate information on the quality of waters and will periodically look at how the environment is being effect:d astic d::ris.information.vi 11 b dde:, to p7mp:lets dietri u;edpbly the C at uard such a , "Fed:ral ulat on Effecting Boating Safety." Information will be provided to independently operated license examination preparation courses and an information handout is being prepared to give to applicants for merchant marine licenses and documents. Questions regarding MARPOL Annex V will be added to license examinations. COOPERATIVE EFFORT: Through it's boating safety program, Coast Guard Auxiliary training classes and various news letters and notices to mariners, the Coast Guard will assist NOAA and the EPA in the public education effort called for in the MPPRC. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK "PL, "", To: 600 Eut Pwk A- Poe Angclc,, Wuhingtm 993626798 March 17, 1988 understanding of the issue. These will. for the most part, be integrated MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE with existing interpretive programs such as guided walks, evening programs and wayside exhibits. Some activities may be appropriate in conjunction with State and Federal programs and we would be pleased to participate 1. Agency: National Park Service (Olympia National Park) in any way possible. 2. Why issue is important: Approximately 60 miles of beaches along the (c) Projected: There are no projections for future activities at this time. open coast of Olympic National Park have become the repository for uncounted However, the park is prepared to initiate or participate in efforts as tons of plastic debris. The presence of this material is significant in opportunities arise and/or funds permit. two respects. Aesthetically. the debris creates an ever-present dis- figurement of an otherwise all-natural landscape. The bright colors, the (d) Cooperative effort: Aside form our interest in continuing to work characteristic shapes and the sheer volume of plastics have visually with the Task Force and State and Federal programs that will eventually impacted literally every meter of beach in the park. Of equal importance be implemented, the park has only one identifiable cooperative program are the known and unknown, physical and chemical effects this debris has as a possibility. The National Marine Fisheries Service is interested in on intertidal organisms, including birds and mammals. The impact of intro- Olympic as one of four nationwide sites to be surveyed for marine debris ducing this variety and quantity of plastics into a pristine ecosystem accumulation. As stated in the study proposal, the objective would be: cannot be understated. "To develop a program of systematic surveys in each region of the coastal United States to assess the types, quantities and 3. Authority to deal with the issue: The fact that the National Park sources of debris arriving on these shores, and to identify Service has exclusive jurisdiction within the park is of minor importance trends or changes in these parameters." since the debris originates outside park boundaries. One legal recourse Final site selection is expected within the next few weeks. that, perhaps, deserves attention is the possibility of invoking the Couscitution's property clause. While this is a rarely-used authority within the National Park System. the plastics debris issue. in many key ways, meets the criteria for its implementation, not only at Olympic but also in many National Parks along the Pacific Rim, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic seaboard. No additional authorities would alleviate the current problem and/or improve our enforcement efforts. 4. Resources available: The park has the authority to allocate operating funds and fee collection revenue to beach cleanup and a wide range of research/inventory/wnitoring projects. Consistent with other top priorities and shrinking budgets, FTE's can be assigned to in-park and cooperative projects that deal with the plastics issue. The major workload, however, has been and will likely continue to be borne by volunteers. 5. Description of program effort: (a) Current: The park will continue to operate an annual beach cleanup proCr-am.This year's allocation for the project is $4,500. Most of the labor will be provided by volunteer groups. (b) Planned: Although specific plans have yet to be developed. the park will be initiating projects aimed at increasing visitor awareness and 41 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0 S REGION 10 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 Public Education: Comprehensive and long term remedies to the problems associated with R,FPLY TO persistent debris in the marine environment will require a combination of ATNOF innovative and broad based solutions. Because public and Industry support will be integral to achieving such solutions, EPA feels that It EPA REGION 10 STATUS REPORT is important to encourage public education through involvement. EPA FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE TASK FORCE ON MARINE DEBRIS Region 10 will seek to support coastal cleanup efforts through citizen and private industry participation. Programs such as "adopting a beach" IMPORTANCE OF ISSUE TO EPA represent excellent strategies to this end. Baseline and Monitor 9 Inform tIon: ecognIn z, A growing body of evidence indicates that when discharged, lost or EPA Region 10 r @s the n:ed for quantitative assessment and abandoned in the marine environment, plastic debris adversely affects characterization of the marine debris problem. Such efforts will provide aquatic ecosystems and their use in a multitude of ways. Environmental critical information in identifying likely sources of marine debris, impacts include the entanglement of marine animals with potential monitoring the effectiveness of regulations and policies developed in depletion of stocks, and the ingestion of plastics by both marine response to Marpo 1 Annex V, and monitoring how environmental problems organisms and coastal birds. Plastic debris can also cause potential associated with persistent marine debris may change over time as a result threats to humans when divers, swimmers, or vessels become entangled or of public and industry response. fouled in such debris. Further, the depletion of fishery resources, vessel damage, and aesthetic degradation of coastal areas resulting in It will be important to establish a consistent and methodical approach to lost tourism and recreation revenues and/or costly cleanup procedures all characterizing and monitoring the significance of non-degradable garbage, contribute to significant economic impacts as opposed to evaluation through fragmented and ad-hoc efforts. To ensure that data generated provides useful information for decision making, The oncoming laws and existing treaties, while essential steps, are by Region 1-0 will encourage and assist other agencies In the development of themselves Inadequate to cope with the enormity of the challenge. a coordinated program for the collection and compilation of baseline and Comprehensive and long term solutions to the problems will require a monitoring data. It is currently anticipated that su ch a program will creative and broad based combination of remedies. Public and Industry rely heavily on citizen and private industry participation. Monitoring outreach and Intergovernmental coordination will be Integral to achieving at the state and/or regional levels will contribute to a national effort such solutions. coordinated through the Center for Environmental Education (CEE) and supported by EPA's Office of Marine and Estuary Protection. PRESENT AUTHORITY OF EPA Additional Technical Suppor EPA has a mandate to address the growing problem of persistant marine There are a number ot important technical issues which EPA intends to debris under the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of review and evaluate as long term strategies are considered. Region 10 1987, Subtitle B. Section 2202 of this Act requires EPA to study methods will fully par ticipate in the technical committee proposed by the of reducing plastic pollution and Section 2204 requires EPA, along with Washington State Task Force on Ocean Debris. Issues which the Region will NOAA and the Department of Transportation, to commence public education propose for comin ittee review and consideration will include: efforts as of April 1, 1988. � Establishing specific and standard definitions for photo-, bio-, and DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS physical-clegraclability terms. � Reviewing the potential for toxicity of enhanced degradation At the Regional level, EPA Region 10 has three objectives for its by-products and the potential ecological effects due to high involvement with the issue of persistent marine debris in Washington localized concentrations of these by-products. State: � Reviewing how efforts to reduce aesthetic and entanglement problems to encourage and assist in coordinating broad public awareness and may affect ingestion rates by marine and coastal species. Involvement to support an effective assessment of debris distributions and source identification to participate in evaluating technical aspects of the persistent mar'ine debris Issue United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WELDLEFE SERVICE RESOURCES AVAILABLE Ecological Se"ices a In FY and 1987 EPA's Office of Puget Sound provided funding to 2625 Parkmont Lane SIN, Bldg B t) I'll h ympia, Washington 98502 he Seattle Aquarium for t e Adopt-A-Beach Program for similar public 01 education efforts. Currently, staff support has been made available by 206/753-9440 FTS 434-9440 Region 10 to participate in the Washington State Task Force on Plastic Marine Debris ands for ubsequent efforts. Staff also maintains contact with the National Task FSorce on Plastic Marine Debris. August 19, 1988 c) Staff support will continue and future funds may become available as MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE seed money for public outreach and involvement. Technical studies will be considered and reviewed as specific issues are identified. 1. AsEenc : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia Field Office, d) Cooperative agreements are possible at either the state and/or local Olympia, Washington level. 2. Why issue is important: Marine plastic debris is of concern to the U.S. Contact: Michael Rylko, Office of Puget Sound, 442-4014. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for several reasons. Surveys have shown that marine plastics result in physical impacts to Department of the Interior and Service trust resources which include endangered species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and their habitats. Although not well demonstrated, there is potential for chemical effects from plastic debris. The Service manages National Wildlife Refuges located adjacent to aquatic environments and become a repository for Plastic debris. The plastic debris negatively impacts the aesthetics and becomes a manag@ent concern. 3. Authority to deal with the issue: The Service has the authority to respond, investigate, and report on the effects of marine plastics on fish and wildlife through: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 4. Resources Available: The Service has approximately .1 of a mam-year to deal with the issue at the present time. 5. Description of program effort: (a) current: The Service conducts annual beach cleaw-ups on the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This effort is accomplished through the Youth Conservat ion Corps and Service personnel. The Service has educational materials available to the public on marine plastic debris. (b) Planned: The Service plans to continue participation on the Marine Debris Tasi Force and to keep informed about the environmental issues regarding marine plastics. (c) Project : There are no long-term projections available on the extent of future service activities at this time. The Service can provide date from beach clean-up activities- (d) Cooperative Effort: The Service does not have any state or federal cooperative projects at the present time. However, as opportunities to develop cooperative projects arise, the Service will consider participation as resources and budget permit. &I awistil* 0. Gregoire CHI" CLAR D-cto, D'W,x 0 1 F3 STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Ninth & cot@ba Bulding, MS/GH-51 * Olynyma, Washington 98504-4151 * (206) 753-2200 Mail Stop PV-11 , Olyrnpia, Washington 98504-8711 , (206) 459-6000 MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE ** A S S I G N M E N T ** STATUS OF MAINE DEBRIS PROGRAM Prepared by Nick Turnbull 1. Agency Name: Washington Department of Ecology, Recycling Local Government Assistance Division and Litter Control Unit 2. Why Issue is Important: Washington state is a Pacific 10 August 1988 Coast state wrapped around Puget Sound. The growing population of Western Washington results in increasing impacts to the Current Status of MPD marine environment which is an important state resource. Marine plastic debris is one form of water pollution resulting from 1. Department name: Washington State Department of Community improper disposal of wastes. Consequences range from scenic Development (.DCD) degradation to more serious adverse effects to marine habitat 2. Why issue is important: DCD assists local governments with and the organisms who depend on it. a variety of planning and regulatory problems. Marine 3. Authority to Deal with Issue: The Model Litter Control and plastic debris may emerge as a problem on the local Recycling Act of 1971 recognizes that the proliferation and government agenda. accumulation of litter . . . impairs the fundamental need for a healthful, clean and beautiful environment. This law grants the 3. Authority to deal with issue: DCD has no authority, Department of Ecology the authority to conduct a program to i-t-atutory or otherwise, relating to this problem. control and remove litter from the state and increase public a. additional authorities needed: N/A awareness of the need for recycling and litter control. 4- Resources Available: The Ecology Litter Control Program is 4. Resources available (e.g. FTEs; volunteers, budget funded through the Litter Tax established in the 1971 legislation. authority): Currently, there is a litter staff of two in the Headquarters Office and four in the western regional offices. The annual DCD may provide a partial FTE as a resource towards budget is directed at all litter cleanup of shorelines and solving this problem. waters of the state. Staff is available to coordinate volun- 5. Description of program effect: N/A teers from regular beach user groups. Marine educational posters are available with the message "Stow It, Don't Throw it. a. current b. planned 5. Description of Program Effort: C. projected (with additional funding or resources) d. cooperative effort A. Current: Ecology promotes an annual summer Don't Splash Your Trash public awareness campaign. The Southwest 1. state Regional Office also runs an ocean beach cleanup in the Spring 2. federal and Fall. 3. local B. Planned/Proiected: No additional efforts are 6. Additional information: DCD coordinates state and federal specifically ear marked, but Ecology is interested in expanding assistance to local governments and assists in community educational campaigns and cleanups. planning and development. The issue of marine plastics debris and its solution will likely affect local governments C. Cooperative Rff=: Cooperative efforts with other in a variety of ways. The role of DCD is to help minimize agencies are expected to emerge from the recommendations of the any additional burdens on governmental services that this Marine Plastics Debris Task Force. problem is creating. CHRISTINE 0. CREGOIRE t4 D- a-;,. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY b. and c. planned/proiected: AlUd SI.P PV- I I - OlrVu. W,041@ 98504-8711 . (206) 459@6" 1) contract to Adopt-A-Beach for beach survey planning and implementation project involving volunteers in collection of marine plastics debris and beached birds (funded FY '88); MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE 2) Coastal Currents article(s); 3) possible sponsorship or co-sponsorship of special A S S I G N M E N T Coastweeks event. d. cooperative effort -- interested in cooperative funding effort for beach surveys using volunteers Prepared by Pamela Miller (description follows). Shorelands and Coastal Management Program 6. Additional information 16 March 1988 (updated August 29) During FY 1988 the Shorelands program is awarding a grant to Adopt-A-Beach (Ken Pritchard) to plan a beach survey effort 1. Agency Name Washington Department of Ecology involving trained volunteers to walk selected beaches to Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management record information on marine debris (i.e. location, type) Program and beached birds/mammals (i.e. location, species, whether oiled, plastics injestion). This would amass much useful 2. why issue is important The Shoreline Management Act of baseline information on distribution and occurrence that 1971 states 11 ... the publicfs opportunity to enjoy the could later be used comparatively in the event of offshore physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of oil development. Information collected on marine debris the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible could aid in understanding the nature and extent of the consistent with the overall beat interest of the state and vroblem and in identification of sources. This project will the people generally. To this end uses will be preferred also promote awareness of ocean issues as they impact the which are consistent with control of vollution and coast. Volunteers could collect much useful information prevention of damage to the natural environment... that might otherwise be cost-prohibitive. A study group will be organized to insure the best possible project As the agency designated for coordinating the State's design. Possible joint-funding efforts to continue this participation in the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) effort on a long-term basis will be sought. The grants oil and gas leasing program, we are concerned with the officer for this project will be Pamela Miller. possible increase in marine plastics debris contamination that may result from potential offshore oil and gas development. 3. Authority to deal with issue Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (State) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Federal) Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 (Federal) 4. Resources available Staff person working on Outer Continental Shelf issues will participate to the fullest extent necessary in the Marine Plastics Debris Task Force. It is possible that some of the program's federal funds @nd/or general funds could be used for planning implementation / public awareness efforts. 5. Description of program effort a. current -- Task Force participation Current Status of Marine Plastic Debris Program Page two WASHNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF The department also has a direct relationship with the Mdural Resources Washington Public Ports which are authorized to manage state- BRIAN BOYLE owned aquatic land "abutting or used in conjunction with the Commissioner of Public Lands contiguous uplands owned, leased, or otherwise managed by a port district, for port purposes (RCW 79.90.475). This OLYMPIA, WA 98504 transfer of management responsibilities is contained in a Port Management Agreement. Current Status of Marine Plastic Debris Program Agency 1) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Resources 4) Current staffing levels in The Aquatic Lands Division do not allow more than a cursory interest in Importance 2) The Department manages the aquatic lands this issue. There has been no specific line item in the budget of the state as a public trust for the benefit of the public. dedicated to MPD. However, with the Commissioner of Public The legislature has declared that these lands "are a finite Land's heightened interest in aquatic lands generally and in resource of great value and an irreplaceable public heritage." this issue specifically, this will change. Department staff These lands extend from the high water line on many state and resources are currently being made available, at the tidelands to three miles off shore from the Washington Coast Commissioner's direction, to support and further the work of and also include the bed of Puget Sound and the beds of the task force. This will include a budget for publishing and navigable rivers and lakes. over two million acres of such distributing the task force report. lands are managed to provide a balance of public benefits which includes ensuring environmental protection. Marine plastic debris degrades the quality of state-owned aquatic lands. Program Effort 5.a) Current - none. These effects are visible (in the form of plastic litter) as well as invisible in that the ultimate fate of the material is b) Planned - no specific efforts its incorporation into the benthic and pelagic ecology. currently. Authority 3) The Department is authorized and directed c) Projected: to manage aquatic lands in Chapters 79.90 through 79.96 RCW, the Aquatic Lands statutes. Regulations carrying out this law Within the departments authority, a are contained in Chapter 332-30 WAC. The authority to manage number of actions are possible to and plan for the multiple use of these lands and other lands address MPD problem. (such as trust lands) managed by the department is found in Chapter 79.68 RCW. 1) Conditioning of leases, particularly for marinas, boatyards The department is also authorized to construct, operate and other such facilities, to and maintain primitive outdoor recreation. and conservation require such things as trash bins facilities on lands under its jurisdiction which are of for plastic debris and to provide primitive character. (43.40.300 RCW) . Such developments are educational materials. reviewed and approved by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Under this authority, the department has developed 2) Make MPD awareness a part of all a number of recreation boating access sites in The San Juan ALEA - funded projects through Islands and Puget Sound. mechanisms such as signs, brochures and other educational materials. As the proprietary manager of state-owned land, the department has authority to plan for the use of aquatic lands 3) Work closely with Ports through and to lease them for a variety of purposes ranging from Port Management Agreements to marinas to aquaculture sites. Leases can be conditioned to encourage detailed steps they will address specific problems, such as disposal of plastics debris. undertake to comply with PL 100-220 and Marpol Annex V. Revenues derived from aquatic land leases are deposited in the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (79.24.580 RCW). These funds are distributed to State and local agencies to, among Current Status of Marine Plastic Debris Program other things, encourage public access to and use of state- Page three owned aquatic lands. Conditions may be attached to these grants requiring certain types of signing, providing certain types of information, etc. 4) Provide signage and other information about MPD disposal at Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer boating access recreation sites. d) Cooperative efforts. None to date except at the most abstract level. This task force initiates a much more intensive involvement by the department. JAN TVETEN STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RESOURCES AVAILABLE: 7150 Cl--W L-e KY-11 . Olyr@po, W,,hmgt- 96504-5711 (206) 753-5755 State Parks has 3.5 project employees until June, 1989, to develop a boater environmental education program. Funding will be sought at the 1989 legislative session to continue this boater environmental education program. AGENCY MAINE: WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION State Parks coordinates two clean-up programs: Ocean Beaches and Green River Gorge. Over 1,000 volunteers are recruited yearly to participate Boater Environmental Education Program with other state and local agencies in the clean-up programs. 7150 Cleanwater Lane, KY-11 DESCRIBE PROGRAM EFFORT: Olympia, WA 98504-5711 Current: 1. Boater Environmental Education Program Contact: Nina Carter, Program Manager 2. Two beach clean-ups per year (206)586-8592, SCAN 321-8592 Planned: Expanded Boater Environmental Education if legislation is WHY IS ISSUE IMPORTANT, successful in January 1989 State Parks wishes to control marine debris to prevent unsightly debris from ruining the aesthetic values of our marine parks. It also wants Projected: to protect marine mammals and fish from entanglement in non- biodegradable debris. Furthermore, State Parks seeks to prevent Cooperative Effort: boating accidents or engine damage caused by marine debris. 1. State: Ecology AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE: TAC DNR Ch. 70.93 RCW Model Litter Control and Recycling Act Fisheries DSHS Ch. 43.51 RCW Parks and Recreation Commission PSWQA Ch. 82.36.020 Volunteers in State Parks 2. Federal: NOAA and .939 WAC EPA USCG and Auxiliaries Ch. 352-32-030 Waiving Camping Fees at State Parks for 352-32-250 Volunteers 3. Local: Counties 352-32-280 Cities 352-32-285 Marina Operators Northwest Marine Trade Association Commission Policy: South Sound Sailing Association 82-70-1 Allows State Parks to use volunteers to Interclub Boating Association 82-70-5 maintain and clean up parks. Washington Shellfish Growers Assoc. Marina Managers Assoc. Sailing Foundation ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES NEEDED: N.W. Boating Council N.W. Magazine Authority to use boater excise tax to educate boaters about proper Assoc. of Independent Moorages waste disposal and to install boat sewage waste receptacles. Marine Sanitation Industry Currently, boater taxes are placed in the state's general fund and are Crowley Maritime Corporation not used specifically for boat related programs. Puget Sound Alliance U.S. Power Squadron Public Ports Association Sierra Club Pierce County Marina Operators Assoc. JACK S. WAYLAND ODSEPH R BLUM ly.w@ 0 N-@ a STATE OF WASHNGTON STATE OF WASHNGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 600 N@th Cplol My. Ghil . Chynpa. W.0dWtw 98504-0091 (206) 753-5700 175 C-1 Ad@ZrrltW BUdchrig , Otyfrpu WjShwr@ 99Z4 . y MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE Marine Plastics State Task Forl JUN 7 1qR11 1. AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE March 17, 198 DNR 2. WHY ISSUE IS IMPORTANT ! The issue of marine plastic debris REAL ESTATE is important to the Departmen t of Wildlife because of the Brief status report of Washington Department of Fisheries, efforts to Potential impacts on marine wildlife species the Department address marine plastics debris problem: manages. Data is generally lacking on detrimental effects of Plastic debris on marine wildlife in Washington and needs to be 1 - Washington Department of Fisheries. gathered. 2. The issue is important because marine plastic debris is detrimental 3. AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE: Various WAC's and RCW's to food fish, shellfish, and their habitats. related to protection and management of wildlife. WDW is working to develop cooperative protection and management programs with 3. Authority to dea-1 with the issue derived from RCIA 75.08.080. appropriate Federal agencies for'marine birds (USFWS) and marine mammals (NMFS). WhC 220-52-035 - Requires self destruct crab pot lid hooks. 4. RESOURCES AVAILABLE: Currently WDW has no field personnel WAC 220-56-320 - Requires weighted lines on crab and shrimp pots to involved directly with the marine plastic debris issue. WDW's avoid props cutting the pot lines. Marine Mammal Investigations program does document cases of marine mammal entanglement in net debris through their participation in WAC 220-020-10 - Unlawful to leave nets unattended. the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The Department also provides curriculum training through Project WILD to educators, 4. Resources above existing levels are not available. Grades K-12. 5. Program Effort 5. CURRENT PROGRAM EFFORT: WDW's Marine Mammal Investigations program is one of five primary response teams in Washington and Oregon a. Current - 7he Department of Fisheries (WDF) staff respond to which Provides voluntary response coordination for stranded marine individiml incidents of net loss or entanglement on artificial mammals. The regional Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network is and natural reefs, and in other areas. VMF scuba divers will coordinated by NMFS, Regional Office in Seattle (Joe Scordino). spend approximately six man-days to respond to an individual Information on entanglement and net samples are provided to NKFS incident. for identification if possible. Project WILD is a national interdisciplinary, supplementary b. Planned - None above existing effort. environmental and conservation education program for educators of grades K-12. Larry Broder coordinates this education program for C. Projected - If additional funding or resources were available WDW. Included in the Project WILD curriculum program is an it would be desirable to better define the magnitude and impact exercise, "Plastic Jellyfish", dealing with the effects of plastic of the problem and enhance appropriate enforcement efforts. debris on aquatic wildlife. Also included in the curriculum on plastic debris in the marine environment is information and d. CDoperative Efforts - Currently, informal coordination and education materials provided by Jim Coe of NMFS. cooperation exists with other agencies, tribes, and Canada to retrieve lost nets. MF patrol officers are cross-deputized to 6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Example of Project WILD materials, "The enforce National Marine Fisheries Service regulations, and Plastic Jellyfish" exercise from the Project WILD Aquatic Education routinely coordinate enforcement with adjoining states, tribes, Activity Guide. and federal agencies. Steven Jeffries THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Marine Mammal Investigations KATHERIM tETCHER CN@ STATE OF WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 217 Pine Stieet, Suite 1100 , Seattle, Washingt,,n 98107 , (206) 464-7320 and assist in the preparation of the report. PROGRAM EFFORT Wh@ile the PSWQA has only recently become active in the area MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE of marine plastics debris, the following activities have been CURRENT STATUS OF MPD PROGRAM taken or are proposed : PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 1) The Authority staff addressed the issue in the Authority-s WHY ISSUE IS IMPORTANT draft 1989 plan as an "Unfinished Agenda" item. 2) The Authority staff is proposing to place an article on this As the state agency charged. with developing the first topic in _an upcoming issue of the Authority's newsletter- comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound, the Puget Sound Soundwaves which has a circulation over 10,000. Water Quality Authority is concerned with all types of pollution affecting Puget Sound basin. The primary focus of the Authority 3) The Authority staff, if the Authority decides to address the and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is prevention. issue further in the 1991 plan, will draft an issue paper an the The issue of marine plastics debris is related to several problem of marine plastics debris as part of its scoping process existing plan program such as Marinas and Recreational Boating for the 1991 plan development. and the Education and Public Involvement programs . The issue is also scheduled to be addressed in the Authority's 1989 plan and 4) Support for the Task Force and its efforts to clean up the in the 1991 plan as a separate program. The plan's focus on Sound of plastic debris. prevention also lends itself to the task of eradicating marine plastics debris in Puget Sound. AUTHORITY Chapter 90.70 RCW provides for the establishment of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and charges it with the responsibility of developing the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The statute provides that in conducting planning, regulatory, and appeals actions, the state agencies and local governments identified in the plan must evaluate, and incorporate as applicable, the provisions of the plan, including any guidelines, standards, and timetables contained in the plan. This chapter also authorizes state agencies to adopt rules that are applicable on a less than state wide basis to implement the plan provisions. The chapter also provides for a biennial review of plan implementation progress and plan updates. RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Authority has a staff of 36 which include a planning section and a public outreach section. Each staff member in the planning and public outreach section is assigned to a plan program. Likewise, the Public Outreach staff acts as the Authority's liaison to each local government in the 12 Puget Sound counties. Funding for the Authority's planning and public outreach efforts comes from a variety of sources. The Authority has committed a staff member to attend the task force meetings Washington State Legis 8qP4qi Joint Select Committee on Marine and Ocean Resource DR FRANK B BROUILLET Superintendent of Public Instruction Dem SWwdmd, Chairam 248 HOB Oqly D- Sutbal-k The Office Of Environmqgntal Educationfo f the Superintendent Chq@ I . Acieqmy Washington State Leqgqiqal of Public Instruction as a variety o resources that treat Joint Select Committee the issue 0f Marine Plastics. Rewq@tafiw Resources G." B-5q- COASTAL ZONE STUDIES is a middle school/Jr. Repq@wfiw 2. Why Ism is Mnwrtant: 7he disposal high curriculum program with a science em- Doug Saym marine envirormort; in an issus the phasis. Along with exploration and activities likely aqWlress at a menting in July that focus on coastal zone habitats and eco- Rewmq@hw logic&l communities, there are sections which st. Wib- discuss the pervasive problem of marine plastics. 3. Authority to Deal with thin Togus: sq@ Legislature can deal with issues ENERGY FOOD AND YOU is a X-12th. grade curric- Bd 0- promerted by the felaral government culum that invesq=tgate3 the nature and conser- 7his I- clearly falls within the vation of energy. Several sections give special Sq-t. Joint Select Committee on Marine emphasis to the elimination of the plastics problem Al- Blubd However, since it is not a starqkqlqiqn by cutting down on tWe -use of the product itself legislation would be referred to the by suggesting alternatives. An interdisciplinary prog. Natural Resources committee, How Adie Vd-U ciammittq", and/cr House Environmental CLEAN WATER STREAMS AND FISH is a K-12th.grade a q@ curriculum program that has a science emphasis Jk Md.& with special attention given to populations of 4. LjXLqjjW2j*: Robert Butts, anadramous fish. Stream contamination and the Committee, will be able to attend qTqhqak role of plastics in a changing environment is discussed. 5. Q=raqfqt aMM3Rj=q=: A wcrk meqssqic ASSORTED BROCHURES are distributed through the July to 11 an assortment of come office that detail the problems of plastics in the decisions have riot beqm aeqfqt environment. The degree of detail may vary. tc;d I 311q-ins plastics win Wall committee WqM likely wiqfqt to know AWAY WITH WASTE is a Department of Ecology curriculum For Is efforts, and utiat legislqatiqN program that he been developed with the assistance am, it has. of our office and focuses on the solid waste flow in our society. It offers both understanding of the pro- blem and consideration of alternatives. K-12 grades. SLEUTH: HOUSE HOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE is a Jr. high level curriculum that was developeT with our office and Metro of Seattle. Handling waste products is the focus with associated references to plastics. Old Capiml Building. FCrn. [email protected] 9&504 Washington State Senate METCALF lack Metcalf i0th District MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE 1. Agency name: Washington State Senate Environment & Natural Resources Cow ittee 2. Why issue is important: Problems created by plastics in all parts of the environment are being looked at by the committee. 3. Authority to deal with issue: Legislative a. other authorities needed: U. S. government as additional authority 4. Resources available: Laurie Schock, Administrative Assistant to Senator Metcalf will be available for Task Force meetings Senator Metcalf will be giad to review any legislation proposed by the task Force and possibly prime sponsor 5. Current program effort: SJM 8027 passed this legislative session. The memorial Informs Washington, D. C. that Washington State is aware of the MPD issue and calls for strengthening implementation of Annex V of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships. Planned program: at this time, work with task force and see what possible legislative solutions may come from group 3273 L Sarat R d, Langley, WA 98260 Institutions Building, Olympia, WA 985040 a (206) 786-7618 Port of Seattle WASHINGTON PUBLIC WRTS MARINE PLASTICS IIEqW Tq= qF6qM A S S 0 C I A T t 0 N April 20, 1988 q.4q=red by 11,rrell l0qa Assistant lhq@ Pu68q& P,,1. At,@ Jose 7, 196q8 P, ."t- MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE Washington Public Ports As 1. Agency qlames 2. Why issue is imporq- 1 Azency: Port of Seattle P" It cmet, ut, The marine =issue is important PI-CIIIIII. Washington f the chemical qaqnd P.m., -1m, the marine environment. In addition, 2. why issue is important: Karpol V is a legal requirement, Ships will I, PI, D- I required by Federal law to provide for now bring their refuse to Ports to dispose of, instead of ocean dump- P., It D,P,I@ shipboard plastics which are brought iqt inr, this will add to Port refuse collection responsibilities and N-EI-mq: P.m .1 Eph- possibly to the cost of operation. "Imm 3. Authority to deal with issue PI-W- 3. Authority to deal with the issue: We have sufficient authority. RCW 53.06 authorizes the Washington Pub Nm I, t.- to: 4. Resources available: The Port has a full time and temporary employee and a consulting company working on Karpol V's effect to the Port of To initiate and carry on the nece Pt- investigations and surveys required for Seattle. Resources will be made available as needed. P.-K-m and improvement of the commerce and bus P.m I, @."mm to all port districts, and to assemble PIn If K d.t@l thus obtained and to cooperate with th 5. Description of ProRram effort: I'm L-- P., 1.1t, and other operators of terminal and tr ,1, .1 for this purpose, and to make such expe (a) Current: The Port will provide information about Harpol V and its ramifications to Fisbeqmen's Termin.l(FT) and Shilshole Bay P.m I, necessary for these purposes, including and advertising of all such properties, Karina's(SBM) tenants. The fishermen mostly use Alaskan and ocean- .m. -. facilities; side ports for refuse disposal because of its proximity to the fish- PIm P It - in& areas, so the Port does not need to increase refuse disposal at -1 1.-m (2) To exchange information related t Fisherman's Terminal. The Port has hired a consulting company to PI --I- maintenance, operation, administration study Karpol's potential impacts on Port operations, excluding FT and P-3II (3) To promote and encourage port dev SBK. Specifically, they are studying waste characterization and Po- NII.fia economic lines; waste quantities of incoming ships and waste disposal options. 1,q-* (4) To promote and encourage the devel (b) Planned: when the consulting company completes its study, the transportation, commerce and industry; Port will review the findings and proceed accordingly. P" It s-- c-1 (5) To operate as a clearing house for PI-t S.uth Wh.dbly (c) Proiected: Previously mentioned. relations and liaison for the port diqs to serve as a channel for cooperation di tricts and for the assembly and p (d) Cooperative effort: Possibly cooperation with other Ports in PPm(P qZ-1- c. 11 relating to the needs and requirements program implqmentation. Coordinate with regulating and other agency public. programs as appropriate. P.m I, m- 4. Resources available The WPPA has a very small staff; howeqv LC/3154V/klw upon the expertise available from mem 5. Description of program effort (a) Current - Task force participatioqi (b) Planned arid projected - Continue w P-I I 'I ...... force and other Federal, State and locql rules and, if necessary, draft leqgisla RO Bo ?2o9 Seattle, WA 98111 U S A. (206) 728-30DO telex 703433 E- P.O. B.. 1518 Oly.pi.,W-higio. 98507 . (206) 943-0760 . F- 753-6 MShngtonSea Grant Program 2 Un-nyotWashrrg1ran 37;6 8rookJm A-a 11 E (206)543 6600 SernVe. WA 98105 6795 SC@ 323M 4. Six people in our advisory service offices, our port specialist. our Science writer and the assistant to the director have already been involved in marine debris-Telated 2. The issue of marine plastic debris is important because: activities, and may continue their involvement in the future, Only one part-time a.) marine plastics am a threat to wildlife, namely marine mammals, fish, employee is dedicated 100% to this issue, working on the Port of Bellingham/Sea seabirds and, in some regions, sea turtles; Grant/PSWQA marine debris project. b.) marine plastics such as lost or discarded fishing gear, plastic sheeting or bags 5. Program effort can foul propellers and water intakes, causing damage to fishing vessels and Curreni 1) PSWQA/SG-fundcd Port of Bellingham project to demonstrate potentially endangering lives; development of marine plastic debris reception facilities in a small port; 2) coverage c.) divers occasionally become entangled in lost or discarded fishing gear, of the issue by "Coastal Fisheries," a newsletter published by OUT Coast Office in including masses of poly line lost by recreational fishermen; Montesano; 3) publication and distribution of "Plastic in the Ocean: What Are We d.) marine plastic debris is an aesthetic problem, which interferes with the Doing to Clean It Up?," an eight page document about the MPPRCA, regional activities, tourism potential of many of our shorelines, and and educational materials available. Intended for use by Sea Grant marine advisory e.) with the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) now in agents, marine educators, and local goverment officials around the country. place, marine industries such as fishing, recreational boaters, ports and marinas Planned 1) involvement with a national Sea Grant network task force for must be educated in order to comply with forthcoming federal regulations, marine advisory activities regarding marine plastic debris; 2) development of The strength, durability and longevity of plastic materials which make them so educational materials aimed at commercial and recreational boaters (Bellingham attractive to industry and the average consumer exacerbate their ill effects in the advisory office); 3) development of anti-marine litter logo; marine environment. The same piece of scrap netting can kill more than once as it Projected: 1) educational materials for marina and small port operators on persists for an unknown length of time in the ocean or on our shores. establishing plastic debris reception facilities; 2) descriptive articles for the local The issue is an important one to Washington Sea Grant, as one of our primary missions is public education. We perceive the immediate problem to be one of public press. education regarding appropriate disposal of plastics and possible substitution of All of our efforts to date have been cooperative: other materials, and the provision of information and expertise to industries and --participation in this state task force; individuals affected by the MPPRCA. --We recently helped to put on a workshop on fisheries-generated marine debris for NOAA and the federal Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. We 3. Our authority to deal with the marine plastic debris issue derives from our broad worked closely ith NMFS, NOAA, other federal 'agencies, marine advisory programs federal authorizing legislation. The National Sea Grant Program's goal is to facilitate in other states, the fishing industry, port operators and other marine-related the wise development, use, and conservation of marine resources. We have three industries in putting together the program (Oceans of Plastic, 9-11 February, primary components: marine advisory services, research, and public education. Portland, OR); Marine advisory links marine resource users and managers with the information --the Port of Bellingham project is funded primarily by the PSWQA, with needed to make wise decisions, which meet local, regional and national needs, and contributions from both Sea Grant and the Port itself; that bring economic and social benefits to people. This is accomplished through the --the National Sea Grant Program task force will draw together marine advisory efforts of our field staff and the workshops and publications which they put agents from across the country to pool ideas, educational materials, advice and together. expertise. 6. Contact: Xan Augerot at the Seattle office (206) 543-6600 or Jim Humphreys at the Status of Marine Plastic Debris Program 7/27/88 Augerot North Sound office (206) 676-6429. 7/27/88 Augerot aN MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE ADOPT-A-BEACEI PROFILE PURPOSE 1. Agency: Friday Harbor Labs, University of Washington To promote citizen stewardship of watersheds and marine waters. To develop a corps of volunteers trained in habitat rehabilitation, monitoring and 2. KhX issue is important: We cannot compromise biological public education. diversity and richness with plastic materials which cover To increase public involvement in the protection of water quality through the example the beach areas and intertidal zones with lethal conse- of citizen run projects. quences to the organisms which inhabit these areas. See BACKGROUND Wash. R.C.W. 28B 20.320 and 28B .20.322 attached. The initiated at the Seattle Aquarium in 1985 as the public outreach program of the State of the Sound Exhibit. Initially Funded by the EPA. Merged with Volunteers for Outdoor aesthetic effects are repulsive. Space in the intertidal Washington in 1987. Currently seeking independent status. zones is needed for tne rricro-organisms upon which larger INVOLVEMENT WITH MARINE DEBRIS animals depend. Past involvement: pilot clean-up of the Seattle waterfront with Metro in April 1986. This effort resulted in Metro sponsoring a Seattle waterfront Conservation Corps clean- up for two summers. First Adopt-A-Beah attempt at describing and quantifying debris 3.-AUthority to Ceal with issue: WAC cited above. data. 4. Resources available: Students and scientists at the Labs Developed pilot protocol for beached litter survey in 1996. Sponsored several litter as a pool for information and action. surveys from Bellingham to Olympia. Sponsored a net removal project from 1986 through 1987. Project included the scouting 5. Description of program effort: Awaiting guidance and of submerged derelict nets and their removal. more specific direction from the Marine Plastics Debris Future involvement-. Coordinating a statewide marine debris survey to start in the Task Force. Need to cooperative with the plastics industry summer of 1988. This project is funded by CZM. toward the goal of total elimination of plastics and the Organizing CDastveeks 88 in September/October. This year the Puget Sound Bank has substitution of non-toxic mayerials for plastics currently agreed to sponsor a litter clean-up of Puget Sound beaches to coincide with the Four in use. Termination of toxic and environmentally degrading wheeler's Association litter clean-up of ocean beaches. substances is the most straight-forward and simplest means Area of interest: Marine debris surveys. of protecting the environment. If it isn't made, it FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Ken Pritchard or Betsy Peabody at (206) 344 doesn't have to be cleaned up. Z544 or write: Adopt-A-Beach c/o VOW 607 3rd. Avenue Room 210 Se&We. TA 98104 Massive program of public education necessary. Fred E. Ellis, Representative Friday Harbor Labs. U of W. Dennis Willows, Director the - 2 - seattle aquarium C. Projected: Expansion of outreach and other program Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation activities is dependent on additional, external funding. Charles Royer. mayor S D. Coope tiveu:lforts: The development of the State of the Cynthia A Shots. interim Aquarium Director Sound ex t C M Girtch, Acting uperimendent M ional programs was a c hibit a ed ooperative effort of local, state and federal agencies. We are receptive to future MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS PROGRAM: STATUS REPORT collaborative efforts. E. Additional information: Available on request. Contactt John 1. Agency: Seattle Aquarium J. McMahon, Manager of Programs and Exhibits, Seattle Aquarium, Pier 59, Waterfront Park, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 386-4335. 2. Why issue is important: Plastic debris is a marine resource issue. The Seattle Aquarium is a regional facility concerned about marine resource issues in Puget Sound and the North Pacific. The plastic debris issue is the focus of the grade six curriculum of our Puget Sound on Wheels program. This issue can also complement other issues addressed in the State of the Sound exhibit and education programs. As a facility with more than 600,000 visitors and 100,000 program participants per year, we can get information to a large Tiumbez of people. 3. Authority to deal with issue: This issue is within the scope of our mission statement. No additional authority is needed. 4. Resources available: State of the Sound exhibit and education programs are in place. Both are supported by current budget. Expansion is dependent on additional, external funding. 5. Description of program effort: A. Current* The State of the Sound exhibit is an interactive and issues-oriented exhibit, monitoring station, and audio-visual presentation. The State of the Sound education program consists of classes (grades 4-12) at the Aquarium, outreach classes at schools, a Scout program, and teacher workshops. B. Planned: The plastic debris issue will be incorporated in the 1989 Puget Sound Ecology teacher workshops and included as one of the issues in our State of the Sound education program, both on site and via outreach activities. The seattle Aquarium Pier 59, Waterfront Park Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 625-4358 Marine Science Center Marine Science Center 17771 Ford Drive N.E. Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (206) 779-5549 May 16, 1988 MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE STATUS REPORT Agency: Marine Science Center Why issue is important: The growing problem of MPD has potential effects on the students and people Marine Science Center programs reach. Authority to deal with issue: This issue is within the educational mission of the Marine Science Center. Resources available: The education programs of the Marine Science Center reach over 9,000 students and teachers a year. The primary audience of these programs are students within about one hour drive of the Center. These programs are in place and supported by the current budget. Expansion of programs servicing students state wide are dependent on external funding. Description of program effort: A. Current: Activities and experiences in the Grade 4 comprehensive program are focused on commercial and recreational uses of the marine environment. Issues related to these uses, like MPD, are a part of the cirruculum presented. Senior high students have prepared public displays to alert general public visitors to the issue. Marine Science Project: FOR SEA, a marine science curriculum disseminated by the Center, delivers teacher training sessions nationwide, with a focus in WA state. FOR SEA teacher trainings include an examination of existing resources to teach marine related issues, including marine plastic debris. B. Planned: The Center will house and disseminate the Marine Debris Teaching Kit created by N.A.M.E. members and collated by Holly Foley, a member of the Marine Science Center staff. This kit will be available in the fall of 1988. The issue of marine plastic debris will continue to be included in educational programs for students, educators, and the general public. C. Projected: Plans are being discussed for a new facility which will include expansion of exhibit space for general public display and programming. Displays and exhibits highlighting human use and interaction with the marine environment are being considered. D. Cooperative effort: The Marine Science Center, administrated by Educational Service District 114, is managed as a cooperative of school districts. The education programs delivered to students are for the most part, supported by the fees of the cooperating districts. Marine Science Project: FOR SEA teacher training sessions are supported with federal grant money. Additional Information: Available on request. Contact: Jim Kolb, Director, Marine Science Center, 17771 Fjord Dr. N.E., Poulsbo, Wa 98370 (206) May 16, 1988 Northwest Association of Marine Educators MARINE DEBRIS TASK FORCE STATUS REPORT Agency: Northwest Association of Marine Educators (N.A.M.E.) Why issue is important: At the 1987 summer regional conference, N.A.M.E. members resolved "Whereas the amount of plastic debris in the marine environment is increasing, and is thereby creating a threat to fish and wildlife and boater safety, the membership of N.A.M.E. prpposes that N.A.M.E. conduct educational programs and activities to increase public awareness and knowledge about plastic debris in the marine environment." Authority to deal with issue: This issue falls wthin the purposes of the association. Resources available: The creative energies and activities of the membership are the most valuable resources of the organization. Members have disseminated information on the MPD issue and become actively involved in awarness/action campaigns on a local level. Members have contributed to the creation and compilation of a MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS teaching kit, which will be disseminated from the Poulsbo Marine Science Center, available fall, 1988. Description of program effort: A. Current: As the theme of the educational efforts of the organization this year, there have been conference sessions, regional meetings and newsletter articles circulated to the membership disseminating information and teaching constructed and will be available fall, 1988. B. Planned: Washington representatives of the membership will be presenting a session at the National Marine Educator's conference in Santa Cruz, CA this summer. A display and presentation is being planned for the National Science Teachers' conference that will be held in Seattle in April, 1989. Many Washington science teachers will be attending. C. Projected: The MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS teaching kit constructed will be one of several marine oriented kits developed around a theme by N.A.M.E. members each year. We expect the MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS kit will be available as long as demand exists. D. Cooperative effort: N.A.M.E. exists through cooperative efforts on a local, state and federal level. Additional information: Available on request. Contact: Kathleen Heidenreich, President-elect for 1988-89, Chinook Middle School, 4301 6th Ave. N.E. Lacey, Wa 98506 (206) 456-7685. w MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE Washington Citizens for Recycling 4224 University Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98105 - Washington Environmental Council (206) &13-3366 4516 University Way Ne in Seattle, Washington 98501 (206) 547-2738 KARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE WHY ISSUE IS IMPORTANT: As the WEC and other voluntary citizens organizations insist on 1. Agency/Organization Name: Washington Citizens for Recycling the cleanup and prevention of environmental pollution wherever it may occur, it is especially important that Society not consider the marine environment as the final, and acceptable, 2. Why issue important: Plastics in the marine environment is depository of our wasteful and contaminating practices an land. not only hazardous to marine wildlife, but part of a general Public attention focused on the oceans and estuaries of the world solid waste problem of plastics proliferation. Increasing is even more critical today as we attempt to eliminate the use and careless disposal of a material foreign to the dumping of polluting materials in air,land, and inland natural environment will only cause increasing detrimental environments. effects unless chocked. AUTHORITY: 3. Authority to deal with issue: WCFRts purpose includes helping our members and the general public understand how solid The Washington Environmental Council is a not-for-profit, and hazardous wastes affect the natural environment, and voluntary citizens organizations which has the right and working for environmentally preferable changes to our state's responsibility to impact governmental decisions taken in behalf disposal practices. of the public. 4. Resources available: Volunteers in a statewide network of RESOURCES AVAILABLE: members I FT director WEC maintains a standing capability to respond to public issues 1 PT lobbyist through a variety of means: active resource committees, base of knowledge/info resources on including a Shorelines Committee and Legal Committee; publication recycling of a monthly newsletter "ALERT"; volunteerism; a professional staff of four people; mailing lists; and regular contacts with 5. Description of program effort governmental and citizen organizations throughout Washington State. As a privately-supported public information clearinghouse, a. current - none at this time and advocacy group, WEC's ability to network to broad audiences b. planned - none at this time is only restrained by limitations of time and funding. c. projected - possible lobbying for legislative proposals d. cooperative effort - with other environmental organi- PROGRAM EFFORT: zations, public and private entities WEC will provide high visibility to the Marine Plastics Debris 6. Additional Task Force through its publication "ALERT" and in the di4cussions-and deliberations of its Committees and Board of Directors. In addition, th6.WEC would be interested in availing itself of any grant-in-aids which may be provided for the purpose of expanding public education on the subject of marine pollution. WEC is committed to monitoring the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and such other Federal, State and local statutes which have been enacted to ensure that the marine Nancy Pearson environment remains a clean and healthy one. Lobbyist Pnnted onecycled mper t!J N RPki NATURAL RESOURCES CONSULTANTS 4055 21ST AVENUE WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98199, U.S.A. Marine Plastics Debris Task Force TELEPHONE: (206) 295-3480 Natural Resources Consultants Status Report TELEFAX: (206) 283-8M Page 2 July 27, 1988 5. Description of Proffam Effort: Ctrrrent MARINF PI.ASTICS DFIRRIS TASK FORCE Natural Resources Consultants develops and distributes marine debris educational material targeted primarily at the North Pacific commercial fishing industry, but also addressing the general public. Educational products include marine debris posters STATIJS REPORT and postcards, an instructional video presentation for commercial fishing vessel captains and crew, a marine debris plaque describing a "Fishermen's Pledge for a Clean Ocean," a marine debris pamphlet, general backgrounrl articles on all aspects of marine debris, and presentations at seminars, meetings, andlectms. Natural I Resources Consultants maintains a bibliography on marine debris and assists Natural Resources Consultants persons writing marine debris articles. (A marine industry consulting firm) Planned 2. Issue IM2=0e, A second annual International Conference on Marine Debris scheduled for Hawaii The commercial fishing industry has been recognized as a contributor to marine in April 1989. Continued participation in the marine debris education program with debris. Marine debris threatens the health of the marine environment which is the activities described above. necessary for a productive CDMMeWW fishing industry. Projected Depending upon yearly funding, a Ipraiter participation with ports, marinas, and all Natural Resources Consultants is under a one-year contract with the Marine types of vessels to educate users concerning U.S. Coast Guard regulations Entanglement Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct a marine associated with MARPOL Annex V. debris education program for the North Pacific. Natural Resources Consultants represents commercial fishing industry associations concerned with the marine Cooperative Effort debris issue. Natural Resources Consultants cooperates with the Center for Environmental 4. Resources Available, Education, its east coast counterpart in the NMFS supported marine debris education program, and state, local, and private organizations to forward marine Natural Resources Consultants receives a yearly budget for production and printing debris education. Several commercial fishermes@s organizations am cooperating of marine debris educational materials and one half-time position. with Natural Resources Consultants and are taiting an active role in the marine debris issue. Dolco oBanene Paciii Northweit DiviSion Packaging Madnc lt@-h LabaratorY 439 W, sq.i@fty R..d Sequim. W@hinglon 95352 (206) 653,4151 April 18. 1988 STATUS REPORT - NARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS PROBLEH MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE 1. Organization/Name John H. Pruett 1. organization Name: Battelle Marine Sciences Vice President/General Kanager Northwest Division 2. Why the Issue is IMPOrtaRtz Marine debris, especially plastic debris, DOLCO PACKAGING CORPORATIO14 has become an important marine pollution issue of concern both nationally and internationally. in response to growing awareness and ConCe@n regarding plastic debris, the U.S. Congress recently passed the 2. The issue of marine debris is important because, although a very small Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-200). This part of the total waste stream, plastics are both durable and highly Act is Title 11 of the U.S. - Japan Fishery Agreement Act of 1987. visible. These unique features make plastic debris esthetically Relevant contents of Title 11 are as follows: unacceptable and potentially damaging to the environment. Implementation of legislation for Annex V of the MARPOL convention. 4. Resources available: Requirements that EPA and NOAA jointly initiate a program to Access to industry trade associations with both research and technical educate the public about plastic pollution. facilities. Requirement that EPA conduct a study and issue a report on methods Rays Little (Dolco Packaging) - to assist on staff. to reduce plastic pollution. Requirement that EPA develop a plan for restoration of the New York 5. Program effort: Bight, including conduct of a study and production of a report on problems associated with plastic debris in the Bight. a. New to the task force. The types of plastic debris are numerous and the biological effects of b.- c. We believe we can assist in developing factual information the debris are diverse and depond on factors such as the size and form concerning the varied plastic items which might appear in the waste of the debris, the type of interactions between the organism and the stream - how they might be dealt with (collected, recycled, debris, the stage of decomposition of the debris, and/or the location of incinerated, etc). Public education as to the unique properties of the debris ( in some cases). The issue of marine plastic debris alone is Plastics and the appropriateness of their disposal should greatly an important one. In addition, it is important to know the important of alleviate the problem. marine plastic debris relative to other local and national amrine pollution problems (e.g., habitat loss and modificiation, other components in the waste stream, nonpoint sources of pollution, 6. Additional information: tmospheric deposition of acid rain into the marine marine environment, X.). Some educational programs have been initiated regarding plastic debris in the marine environment by trade associations of which we are members. We 3. Authority to Deal with the Issue: No statutory authority. A major will share this information with the task force so it might be used as focus of research at Battelle is on marine pollution problems. Our appropriate to this project. scientists are concerned about the issue and will provide expertise where possible. 4. Resources Available: Scientists at Battelle have expertise in many 3400 - 188th S.W., Swte 204 areas of marine sciences including benthic ecology, fisheries, marine Lynn@ood, Wasninow 98037 1206) 778-9045, R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS PLANNING DESIGN FOURTH & BLANCHARD BUILDING GENERAL OFFICE RATES ENVIRONMENTAL 2121 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ECONOMICS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 Telephone: 206-441-7500 MANAGEMENT TEL: 206-441-7500 Telex: 4990402 BECKSEA BRIEF STATUS REPORT FOR WASHINGTON STATE MARINE PLASTICS DEBRIS TASK FORCE 1. Orangnization. R.W. Beck and Associates, an engineering consulting firm. 2. Why is this issue important? This issue is important to various port authorities, and federal, state and local solid waste governmental agencies who will be required to comply or interface with the pending USCG regulations. Many of these authorities or agencies are or have been our clients and may require outside consulting expertise to perform their responsibilities under the law and pending regulations. 3. Authority to deal with the issue. No direct authority. 4. Resources Available. Consulting personnel experienced in solid waste the local to national level in the study, feasibility, design, financing, and planning for all types of waste disposal feasibility study for the Port of Seattle, recycling curriculum guide and reference manual for DOE, and many local solid waste management plans and facility designs. Also have experts on staff in the areas of marine fisheries, public education and outreach, and recycling and reuse of materials. 5. Description of program effort. a. Current Currently performing a feasibility study for the Port of Seattle to identify the best alternatives for providing the required waste reception and related facilities and services under P.L. 100-200. This includes analysis of the local regulatory environment and requirements, waste generation estimates, shipping traffic projections, shipboard interviews, best alternative system recommendtions, investigation and education with private shipping line representatives and organizations, and project cost estimates. b. Planned Similar work for other port authorities and related work for local, state and federal agencies and private firms with marine facilities. c. Projected Same as planned above. d. Cooperative efforts Yes, whenever appropriate. 6. Additional Information. Currently educating other ports regarding the implications of P.L. 100-220 as it specifically applies to each. chemistry, aquatic toxicology, physical oceanography, microlayer ecology, and marine policy. The facilities at Battelle Marine Sciences are some of the finest in the Pacific Northwest for conducting both basic and applied research on the marine environment. 5. Description of Program Effort: Scientists from both Battelle Marine Sciences and from other components of Battelle have conducted several programs related to plastics in the marine environment. Two of them recently produced a summary of the Workshop on National Marine Pollation Problems and Needs, a working group of which was concerned with marine debris. Others are conducting an assessment of wastewater treatment plants in Boston, Masschusetts as sources for marine plastic debris. These and other Battelle personnel recently completed a report to EPA summarizing plastic pollution in the New York Bight. Other initiatives are in the planning stages and will be coordinated with the on-going efforts nationally and locally. 11PPIFull R WME 0 MENWEAS @ MARINE PLASTIC POLLUTION RESEARCH AND CONTROL ACT The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (UPPRCA) of 1987 amends the Act To Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) in the United States. Annex V of MARPOL (for "marine pollution") is an interna- tional agreement regulating garbage disposal from ships and other watercraft. Although drafted in 1978, it will become effective on December 31, 1988, when the United States formally becomes a party to the agreement. By ratifying Annex V, the U.S. boosted the list of signatories to over 50 percent of the world's gross registered shipping tonnage (GRT). This tonnage was set as a threshold for the treaty to enter into force. The current MARPOL Annex V signatories are: Colombia Lebanon Cote d1voire (Ivory Coast) Norway Czechoslovakia Oman Democratic Peoples Republic Panama of Korea (North Korea) Peru Denmark Poland Egypt Portugal Finland St. Vincent & Grenadines France Sweden Gabon Tunisia German Democratic Republic Tuvalu (East Germany) U.S.S.R. Federal Republic of Germany United Kingdom Greece United States (as of 12/31/88) Hungary Uruguay Italy Yugoslavia Japan The N[PPRCA will prohibit dumping plastic at sea and will severely restrict the legality of dumping other types of ship-generated garbage, both at sea and in the navigable waters of the United States. Unlike Annexes I and 11 of MARPOL, which regulate oil and chemical discharges from large commercial vessels only, the Annex V provisions of the NIPPRCA apply to all watercraft, including small recreational vessels. The dumping prohibitions under the new law are listed in Table B- 1. Dumping plastic debris is prohibited anywhere in the oceans. Other types of trash may be dumped at specified distances from shore. MARPOL Annex V also allows for creating "special areas," which are currently defined as those needing special protection because of their significance for ecological, oceanographic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable due to maritime activities. Because of its B-1 TABLE B-1 MARPOL Annex V: Garbage Disposal Restrictions ALL VESSELS EXCEPT OFFSHORE PLATFORMS GARBAGE AND ASSOCIATED VESSELS OFFSHORE PLATFORMS AND ASSOCIATED VESSELSI Outside Special Areas In Special Areas2 to Plastics-includes synthetic Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited ropes, fishing nets, and plastic bags Floating dunnage, lining and Disposal prohibited less than 25 Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited packing materials miles from nearest land Paper, rags, glass, metal, Disposal prohibited less than 12 Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited bottles, crockery and similar miles from nearest land refuse Paper, rags, glass, etc., Disposal prohibited less than 3 Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited comminuted or ground3 miles from nearest land Food waste not comminuted or Disposal prohibited less than 12 Disposal prohibited less than 12 Disposal prohibited ground miles from nearest land miles from nearest land Food waste comminuted or Disposal prohibited less than 3 Disposal prohibited less than 12 Disposal prohibited less than 12 ground3 miles from nearest land miles from nearest land miles from nearest land Mixed refuse Varies by component4 Varies by component4 Varies by component4 Adapted from U.S. Federal Register Advance Notice of Proposed Ralemaking, June 24, 1988, p. 23887. lIncludes all fixed or floating platforms engaged in exploration or exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources, and all vessels alongside or within 500 rn (approximately one-third mile) of such platforms. 2The Mediterranean, Baltic, Red, and Black seas and the Persian Gulf. 3Must be able to pass through a screen with a mesh size no larger than 25 mm. 4When substances having different disposal or discharge requirements are mixed, the more stringent disposal requirement shall apply. TABLE B-2 Impacts of Marine Plastic Control Legislation, P.L. 100-220 WHO INTACT ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS Recreational Prohibits disposal of untreated galley wastes Coast Guard has enforcement authority in all boaters within 12 miles of shore. May need to install waters. Will monitor for compliance during (all boats, no garbage storage facilities or compactor. routine boardings, and levy civil penalties. size or Commercial fishermen must strive to avoid gear States may enact stricter provisions, enforce own tonnage min.) loss in all cases short of life-threatening laws. Coast Guard may require some vessel Commercial occurrences. types to maintain refuse record books and fishermen shipboard waste management plans. May also Sport fishermen require that dumping regulations be displayed on placards for crew and passengers. Snitch provision: At the discretion of the courts, an informant may receive up to half of the penalty assessed against a violator of the Act. Sport fishermen No new facilities required under the law. Local No federal enforcement provisions. Beach users jurisdictions may increase level of trash service DOC, EPA, and DOT shall conduct a program required. to encourage the formation of volunteer "citizen pollution patrols" to assist in monitoring, reporting, cleanup, and prevention of ocean and shoreline pollution. Public vessels Excluded for 5 years; excluded in wartime. Agencies must report to Congress by 12/31/92 if (Navy, NOAA, unable to comply within 5 years. Congress USGS,EPA) may modify applicability. Merchant Must grind galley wastes to clump within 3-12 Routine Coast Guard boardings seaside and vessels, miles, may dump beyond 12 miles. May need to dockside. other install compactors or incinerators, or provide commercial storage space to handle plastic trash and mixed vessels plastic trash. Marinas (public Must provide trash reception facilities for Little or no Coast Guard presence. and private) tenants. May levy a surcharge for service if public does not use facilities. Offshore Disposal of treated food wastes prohibited within Routine Coast Guard vessel and facility safety platforms and 12 miles. All other disposal prohibited inspections. associated everywhere. vessels Ports (small Must provide trash reception facilities. Will need Coast Guard may deny entry into ports and and large) to provide for disposal after receipt, directly or terminals that have not provided waste reception and private through third party. facilities. terminals B-3 productive fisheries and array of essential wildlife habitats, the United States may propose that the Gulf of Mexico be designated a special area. This would impose more stringent dumping regulations on vessel traffic and those fishing in the gulf. Due to "loop" currents, the Gulf of Mexico and its beaches become littered from a variety of land and sea-based sources, including Mexico and other parts of the Caribbean. Table B-2 provides an overview of marine sectors affected by the MPPRCA, prob- able effects upon these sectors and general enforcement provisions. The U.S. Coast Guard is charged with developing regulations for enforcement and guide- lines for compliance. Draft regulations should be published in the Federal Register by Fall, 1988. In addition to the new waste dumping prohibitions and restrictions, the new law requires that ports and terminals provide waste reception facilities. "Terminal" is intended to cover all private facilities, such as those used by major fish processing communities in Alaska and Washington. The Coast Guard may inspect these facilities and has the authority to close a noncomplying port or terminal to incom- ing vessel traffic. Ports may provide the new or upgraded facilities themselves, or they may contract with private waste management companies. The law does not stipulate anything about waste handling or disposition by the ports. This, however, is likely to be the toughest issue facing ports and terminals. They will have to interact increasingly with municipalities and counties to negoti- ate access to landfills, incinerators and recycling operations. Ports may also face liability issues regarding the incorrect handling of trash such as mixed food wastes from international vessel traffic (regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) or hazardous wastes (regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). The provision of waste reception facilities is likely to be expensive, and costs will probably be passed on to port users. Some U.S. vessels will be required to maintain waste log books, develop waste management plans and display placards notifying crew and passengers of the new law. These regulations will go into effect December 31, 1989. Since these provi- sions are not part of the international convention, MARPOL Annex V, the MPPRCA instructs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to seek an international agreement making these requirements universal. The enforcement provisions of the MPPRCA comply with customary international law. U.S. flag vessels and foreign vessels of nonB- I signatories to Annex V face civil penalties in the United States for violations. Foreign flag violators of signa- tory nations will be referred to their own country for prosecution. This arrange- ment assures that vessels of nonsignatory nations will not receive less stringent punishment than those of signatory states. B-4 Enforcing the WPRCA anti-dumping provisions will be difficult, especially with the Coast Guard simultaneously facing increasing duties and budget reductions. For the act to be, effective, state and local jurisdictions must enforce their own marine litter laws and promote public awareness at the state and local level. Coast Guard enforcement actions at sea will occur only in concert with other boarding missions, such as safety and fishery law enforcement inspections. The Coast Guard may inspect and certify port facilities, but will have no presence in marinas where large recreational fleets are moored. The new law may affect crew behavior on all types of vessels. For example, more time may have to be spent sorting plastic wastes from other types of trash, and storage space will need to be designated on vessels which until now have dumped all their wastes overboard. Some vessel operators may choose to equip their vessels with trash compactors. Operators of larger vessels may choose to install incinerators rather than carry the bulk of their trash back to shore. Because creating a spirit of stewardship toward the ocean and its living resources is essential to success, the NVPRCA mandates a national public education program to be designed jointly by EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) and the Coast Guard. Workshops, public service announcements, and leaflet and poster distribution are among the program elements being devel- oped. The law also directs the EPA and NOAA to study plastic as a pollution problem. The following information regarding the Congressionally-mandated studies may be useful as an indicator of who is gathering what type of information, and where additional information on specific types of questions can be obtained. EPA STUDY This study to be prepared in consultation with NOAA, other agencies and private industry, focuses on land-based sources of plastic debris. The EPA is to present a report to Congress in June 1989. It will include: 1. A list of current improper disposal practices occurring frequently enough to harin wildlife, disturb habitat or endanger human safety. 2. Description of current EPA statutory and regulatory authority and ongoing plastic waste reduction programs. 3. Evaluation of the feasibility and desirability of substituting alternative products for problem articles identified in item 1. B-5 4. Evaluation of the effect of plastics on the solid waste stream and means to reduce its effect, including recycling. 5. Evaluation of recycling by determining: The need for public and private research on recyclable materials and product markets. Methods to facilitate recycling, such as standardizing plastic materials, marking similar plastic containers to aid in sorting, etc. Incentives, including a deposit on plastic containers. The effect of existing tax laws on new plastic manufacturers and distributors versus those for recycled plastics. Recommendations on incentives and other measures to promote new uses for recycled plastic articles and to encourage or require the manufacturer to con- sider recyclability in product design, and 6. Evaluation of degradability by determining: pnp@' The fate and effects of resulting plastic fragments. The efficiency and variabil- ity in degradation time. The benefit/cost ratio of usage of degradable products given their original purpose. Additionally, the EPA is mandated to conduct a study of plastic and other JA pollution problems in the New York Bight A HOAA STUDY To be presented to Congress by September 30, 1988, the NOAA study focuses primarily on the fates and effects of plastic debris at sea and methods to mitigate current environmental damage. There are no specific legislative provisions requir- ing coordination of research with other agencies and organizations. Specifically, NOAA is to: 1. Identify and quantify harmful effects of plastics on the marine environment. 2. Assess the specific effects of plastic materials on marine living resources. 3. Identify the types and classes of plastic materials which pose the greatest potential hazard to marine living resources. 4. Analyze, in consultation with the Director of the National Bureau of Standards, plastic materials which are claimed to be reducible to benign subunits under normal enviromnental forces (e.g., bio- or photo-degradation, hydrolysis). B-6 5. Recommend legislation which may be necessary to prohibit, tax or regulate sources of plastic materials which enter the marine environment. Much of the background work for these studies has been completed in the last year through the efforts of the federal Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. The Task Force was formed at the request of the President of the United States as a response to a letter from 30 United States senators regarding the prob- lem of marine plastic debris. It consisted of representatives of NOAA; EPA; U.S. Coast Guard; the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and State; the U.S. Navy; Marine Mammal Commission; Council on Environmental Quality; and the Offices of Domestic Policy and Management and Budget. The federal Task Force Report represents a starting point for increased federal inter- agency cooperation for addressing the problem of persistent marine debris. Model Litter Control and Recycling Act Washington state law prohibits littering in the water as well as on shore through the Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70.93). This law mandates a litter control and recycling program, funded primarily by all container types, toiletries, groceries, newspapers and magazines. All vehicles and watercraft must have litter bags, and public and private piers, beaches and bathing areas must provide and maintain standard waste receptacles. The Department of Ecology (WDOE) has a clear mandate to conduct public education programs regarding littering and recycling. It is directed to work with private industry (70.93.210) and to coordinate volunteer litter control efforts (70.93.200). The department has addressed marine plastic debris within the litter control program and has recently given the problem greater emphasis. 9V-1 State patrol officers, wildlife protectors, fire wardens, forest rangers, sheriffs and police officers are empowered to issue citations and, if necessary, to make arrests without a warrant. WDOE may empower its own employees to do the same, -1 although it has not to date. Most local governments have, under guidance from the WDOE, established similar ordinances. te Penalties under the law require clarification. Under RCW 70.93.060, which prohibits littering as a misdemeanor offense, a fine of not less than $50 shall be collected and a minimum of eight hours served on a litter collection crew. How- ever, RCW 70.93.230 states that any violator of the chapter for which a fine is not specified shall be punished by a fine of no more than $50. It is unclear what violations exist -under the law other than littering and failing to maintain the proper litter receptacles ($10/day of violation fine). Since the Department of Ecology is unsure which fine to publicize, this discrepancy has created difficulty for them to promote public awareness. B-7 OTHER STATE LAWS The Department of Ecology may have additional authority to contend with marine plastic pollution under water pollution control (RCW 90.48) and solid waste management law (RCW 70.95). Plastics may qualify as "pollution" under the definition in RCW 90.48.020, since it is a solid waste detrimental to public safety, recreational uses of state waters and to aquatic life. In that case, WDOE has significant enforcement capabilities, with the option of levying up to $10,000/day in civil penalties. This definition of pollution refers primarily to waste streams or flows that continue over a certain period of time, in which case it would apply only to plastic pollution if a violator were generating a large volume of plastic and disposing of it more or less continuously into the waters of the state. WDOE's powers to provide research in support of plastic recycling and recovery programs (RCW 70.93) is enhanced by the Solid Waste Management, Recovery and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95). The department has the authority to "initiate, conduct and support research, demonstration projects, and investigations, and coordinate research programs pertaining to solid waste management systems." The department is also directed to identify potential markets for recovered resources, study methods to improve recycling systems, and make recommendations on incentives to local governments to upgrade their solid waste handling systems. Washington State appears to have substantial authority to deal with marine plastic pollution. The Action Recommendations, Part 111, starting on page 23, focus on using currently available authorities more effectively as well as developing a more coordinated approach to education and interagency and organization cooperation. B-8 MUMMY f! ffso 0 @Nvwsff% %V DEVELOPMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS TASK FORCE Early in 1987, Commissioner of Public Lands Brian Boyle focused his interest on the effect of marine plastic debris on Washington State's coastal and inland waters. In his role as president of the Western States Land Commissioners' Association, he knew the efforts of the state of Texas to increase public awareness and coordinate existing efforts on the marine plastic debris issue in that state. Boyle selected the Analysis and Planning Section of the Washington State Depart- ment of Natural Resources to research the issue. At that time, varying levels of awareness existed about marine plastic debris (MPD) and the Marine Entanglement Research Program (MERP). The issue had not been analyzed in a comprehensive way in Washington State. The solution was larger than any single agency or organization could undertake. The need existed to draw varying entities together and share information. Other state agencies and organizations expressed interest and a willingness to participate with DNR. In January 1988 the commissioner held a briefing for key representatives from affected federal, state and local agencies, the legislature, private industry and organizations, and other interested parties. At the briefing, participants agreed to select representatives to serve on a task force. Its purpose was to develop a state action plan which addressed marine plastic debris in Washington. The commissioner appointed the chairperson and directed DNR staff to support the effort. Participants operated on a cooperative, nonpartisan basis. Each of the approximately 30 active task force members served as a representative for their agency or organization. A steering committee of six worked closely with the chairperson and support staff. The task force met monthly from February through July 1988 at the Federal Way Public Library meeting room. Meetings were open to all with a public comment period scheduled at the close of each meeting. In the course of the first two meetings, the task force adopted a six-month work program, agreed upon its mission, goals and objectives, and policies. The task force divided itself into four working groups--environmental, educational, governmental and economic-to identify issue areas and possible actions. C-1 In the following meetings, the group examined the diverse programs and regula- tions administered by agencies dealing with marine debris. The task force devel- oped a matrix of existing authorities (Table C-1) of agencies to deal with marine plastic debris. A more detailed matrix (Table C-2) based on the identified issue areas was then prepared. Action recommendations and preferred lead agencies to carry out these actions were prepared by staff and presented to the committee. These recommended new efforts and continuation of existing programs are detailed in this document. The action plan was completed in Fall 1988 and presented to the Commissioner of Public Lands and other key representatives for their approval and action. ARM, C-2 TABLE C-1 EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND AGENCIES DEALING WITH MPD PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT C. DEVELOPED POTENTIAL DEVELOPED POTENTIAL STATUTES FUNDING I National ongoing I Public Education I Marine Plastics plastics pollution in cooperation Pollution, Research ON:;X:'*'* study with NOAA and and Control Act ................. Dept. of Transpor- (MPPRCA) 11986-87 Adopt-A- tation (PL 100-220) Beach program with Seattle Aquarium; I Support estab- I Clean Water Act, volunteer project lishment of Section 108 hndbk. completed baseline data and monitoring I State of the Sound program exhibit with Seattle .............. ................. I Additional Aquarium . ................. ............ .. .................. technical support .................. ............ ............... ................... ................. . ......... I Beach cleanup I Cooperative I Fish and Wildlife ........... ........... actions Coordination Act .......... ........... ........... ................ ................. I Field monitoring I Endangered Species Act ............ I Public education .................. materials I Migratory Bird .......................... ................. Treaty Act ..... ............ .............. ................... ................. ................. I Anadromous Fish .. ........................ ........ Conservation Act .......... I Rivers and Har- bors Act of 1899 ..... ..... I Clean Water Act ............ .. ......... ......... ........................... ................. ........... ................ ............... I Beach cleanup I Research and I Exclusive I Increased I Title 16, 18 U.S. monitoring; jurisdiction in enforcement Code .............I............. ...................... ........... Olympic Nat'l national parks Park as an accum. .......... ................. nitoring site I Authority to .......................... mo prosecute ...........I.................. ........................... ............. ................. I Cooperative action ........... ................. ............... ..... .. ..... ........ I Visitor informa- ................... tionleducation I Marine entangle- N Enforcement I National Marine ment research personnel available Mammal Protection ............ ............. . .... ........ program and Control Act ........... .. . .. ..... . ................ I Participation I Fines for vessels I Increased I MPPRCA with EPA and enforcement (with NOAA on public I Certification of increased funds) education port facilities I Developing regulations . . ..... .............. ............... C-3 ~0 TABLE C-1 (cont.) PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT ~p~40;1616;12;8q.~p~40;1616;8;8q.~......~1p~1128;1616;8;12q. .......... ................ DEVELOPED POTENTIAL DEVELOPED POTENTIAL STATUTES FUNDING ..........~..~ ............... ................... .............. ... ............. ................. I "Coastal I Cooperative I Can provide I Shoreline I CZM funds ............. ................~~.... Currents" action and beach signing and Management Act .................. surveys materials to local (1971), Outer I Dedicated Litter ...... I Participation in government Continental Shelf Account C~oastweeks beach I Increased moni- Lands Am Coastal cleanup toring and Zone Management ...... .......... description of ~2p~ fi ~p~40;3368;8;8q.~p~36;3368;8;8q.~ ......... MPD I Model Litter .~p~56;3384;8;8q.~p~ ...... ~p~08;3400;112;116qL C Control and ..................... ............... I Annual public Recycling Act .......... awareness (1971) RCW 70.93 .......... ............. ~~~~1p~1444;3912;12;8q.~1p~~ ........... campaign ................ ~q190.48 Water ............ .......... ........... Pollution Law ~p~36;4588;8;8q.~p~32;4588;8;8q.~p~.. .....~..... .............................. ............. ............... ~p~~p~60;5108;8;8q.~p~56;5108;12;8q.~.... ............. ~p~52;5384;8;8q.~p~48;5384;8;8q.~p~844;5384;8;8q.~1p~40;5384;8;8q.~1p~p~1104;5388;8;8q.~1p~1200;5388;8;8q.~~...... ...................... ............ ......~p~28;5916;12;8q.~p~....-..... ............ FIS I Scuba response to I Impact research I Required bio- I Increased I WAC 220~-52~-035; entanglement degradable crab pot enforcement WAC 220~-56-320; incid ents latches WAC 220~-020~-10 ........... ........... ............ (restrictions on I Informal coordina~- I Weighted lines to nets, crab a~nd tion with Oregon, minin~iize prop shrimp pots, and Canada, Indian fouling lid hooks) tribes mid other ag ... ..... . encies to retrieve I Unlawful to I RCW 75.08.080 ......~..~2p~ ............. .... ......... lost nets leave untend~e~qd. nets (Director's ................-...... ... . ......................... . ..... authority) .. ...... 150 patrol officers ............. .................... statewide . . . . ...... ..... ........ .. .......... ... ....... I State Fisheries ...................... patrol officers deputized to ~en~qf~or~c~t NMFS regulations ................ ...... .......... ~ ........... ............... ............ ...... ~........~~q.~. ............... ..~.~.......~............... I Education I Lease condition I RCW 79.90 through boating monitoring (aquatic lands in access sites general); RCW I Proprietary 79.96 (aquatic I Lease condition- function/steward- lands - aquaculture ing ship role uses); RCW ............. ................. 79.68 (multiple I Requirements on use); WAC 332~q-30 ....... ......... A~8qLEA grants (aquatic land ......~. ........ management) I Port management .. .......... ............~~....~..~.~.~......... .........~~~~~.~~.~.~.~. ....... ........... agreements ........ .... ............ C-4 ~0 TABLE C-1 (cont.) PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT C~6qY~X DEVELOPED POTENTIAL DEVELOPED POTENTIAL STATUTES FUNDING ........... ~~ ................ ........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~.~.~~~.~.~........ ~ . ... ............... -~~~x ARKS A**"'.:. I Boater environ~- I Expansion of I Park rangers I Strategy for I RCW 79.93 - I Depends on ............. mental education boater education enforce litter control boating law model litter; 43.51 passage of program project enforce law ment by Parks and Recrea~- legislation to ~qC~ tion Commission; create boater 1991 (MB-5, ~p~36;2724;8;8q.~p~32;2720;8;12q.~p~28;2720;8;8q.~p~24;2720;8;8q.~p~20;2720;8;8q.~p~ I C~@ce~an beach I Installation of I Signing available PSW~0qQA) 82.36.020 - volun- recreation fee ............... cleanup and Green trash receptacles teers in parks (potential account) ........... ........... .... River Gorge I Continuation of I WAC 82.70.1; I Storytelling at information and 82.70.5 - volunteers parks education in parks programs ............~~. .............. .... .............. I Interpretive ~p~28;3916;8;8q. ............. -.......... ~1p~800;3960;8;12q.~1p~896;3960;8;12q.~1p~992;3964;8;8q.~1p~~~1152;3964;8;8q.~1p~1248;3964;8;8q.~1p~1344;3964;8;8q.~1p~1440;3960;8;8q.~. .~2p~~880;3976;8;12q..... ~2p~528;4012;8;12q.~p~24;4016;8;8q.~ signing ~2p~544;4028;8;12q.~2p~640;4032;8;8q.~p~732;4028;12;8q.~p~832;4028;8;8q.~p~28;4028;8;8q... ............... .......... I............... ........... ........... .................. I Education centers .......... .................~ ~X ................. ......... . . ...... ... ...................~~1p~1188;4604;8;12q.~~1p~1316;4608;8;8q.~ .............. I NW marine I Habitat I Impact research I RCW 77.12.010 .~2p~2p~~p~868;5284;8;12q.~1p~ ~~~ (policy for protect- mammal stranding ~6qTan~qagement areas ................. network signing I Baseline data ing wildlife) WAC ................. -~-- .... .............. ....... .... .........~.~~~..~.~.~..~.~.....~~.~~~.~ ......................... trends 232~-12~-25A ................ I Investigative I Regional (discharge litter on wildlife lands) research information and education ...................... I Project Wild programs ~q(K~-12) ~.............. ...... .... .~.............~.....~ . ~1p~p~p~ I Assist in ........... ...~2p~.~... coordinating . . ... ... ..... ....~..~~.~.. action of local ~X~. .......... ......... government I Public information I Issue will be I RCW 90.70 ~.....~....~...~ ............. in "Soundwaves" addressed in 1989 (authority) plan as preparation ............~2p~........ I Cooperative effort for 1991 plan .~.~................~~1p~~1336;8084;8;8q.~1p~1432;8080;8;8q.~.~.~. ~~1p~584;8096;8;12q.~p~80;8096;8;12q.~p~76;8096;8;8q.~p~72;8096;8;8q.~p~68;8096;8;12q.~~...........~..~. ...............~~.~.~~~1p~~1240;8116;8;8q.~~1p~1368;8116;8;8q.~1p~~p~p~ with other state and local programs I Proposed issue paper as part of Plan preparation ~p~28;9084;8;8q.~p~20;9084;12;8q.~1p~684;9084;12;8q.~1p~684;9084;12;8q.~1p~684;9084;12;8q.~1p~684;9084;12;8q. .......... I Senator Metcalf SENA.. interested in ~2p~IR~2p~~0qx~@~~:~:~:~@~,~:~:~@~*~:~:~@~*~:~:~]~:~:~@~:~ ............ potential legisla~- ~tion if needed ~x~~~X~ -.... ~~1p~612;10092;8;8q.~1p~708;10088;8;8q.~1p~804;10088;8;8q.~1p~~ .... ...... ... ...... .~qX~q: . ......... I Funding and .... ponsors ............ ~qs ~~4qUR ~::R~8qE~qSO ~40qC~q7 ......... ... ~0qr~6qo~8qw~8qd' ~92qh~56qt I Hearings ........... .................. .................. . .............. I Potential topic at July 1988 hearing AN C~36qES~~ C-5 ~0 TABLE C-1 (cont.) PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT ........... ............. ............... ............ ........... ...................- .......~2p~.................... ............ ............ ---- ............ -- .................... A,. DEVELOPED POTENTIAL DEVELOPED POTENTIAL STATUTES FUNDING .............. ............... ~p~68;1768;8;8q.~p~64;1768;8;8q.~1p~60;1768;8;8q.~p~56;1768;8;8q.~....... -~1p~~~ ................... ......... ~1p~.......... ... ........ -- ......... ..... --- ............. ..... ................ ........................ .......... .... . ........ ....... ....... -- ...............-...... .............. ........... ...... ............... ...-....... ......................~.~~1p~~1488;2008;8;8q.~1p~1584;2008;8;8q.~ ~p~68;2020;8;8q.~p~64;2020;8;8q.~p~60;2020;8;8q.~p~56;2020;8;8q.~p~1052;2020;8;8q.................~. ...............~.~..~.~ -~1p~... ............................. .......... ........... I Current study of I Public informa~- I PL 100.220 1 Port of Seattle ............~. ......... -- ................ .. ......~..~2p~......... Impact of Public tion at Shilshole ~p~48;2456;8;8q.~p~44;2456;12;8q.~p~~ ...........~.~~ and Fisherman's Law 100~-220 on ........... ...... ...........~ ........... ............ ........... ...... .................. .~1p~96;2600;8;8q.~p~92;2600;8;8q....... ...~~...~. ~~: ............ commercial Terminal ~p~64;2664;8;8q.~p~60;2664;8;8q.~p~56;2664;8;8q.~p~52;2664;12;8q. .............. ~p~64;2696;8;8q.~p~60;2696;8;8q.~p~56;2696;8;8q.~p~52;2696;8;8q.~.. ~p~48;2776;8;8q.~p~44;2776;8;8q.~p~.. ~i~q@~ hi vessel s pping ............. ........ ........ .............. handling and I Potential coopera~- ............ .... -~ -- ................ .... --- ........................... disposal facilities tion with other ports .............. ~p~64;3108;8;8q.~p~760;3108;8;8q.~p~56;3108;8;8q.~p~52;3108;8;8q.~p~ .............. ....... ............. .............. ...... __ ................... ~ ................... .................... .. ........ ........... .............. ~p~48;3312;8;8q.~p~44;3312;8;8q.~p~40;3312;8;8q.~...... .... ......... .............. ................... ~p~60;3360;12;8q.~1p~60;3360;8;8q.~p~856;3360;8;8q.~p~52;3360;8;8q.~....... ................~... ............ ~p~64;3392;8;8q.~1p~56;3392;12;8q.~p~856;3392;8;8q.~p~52;3392;8;8q.~2p~. . .....-.... ...............~....~....~~...... ~p~64;3424;8;8q.~p~60;3424;8;8q.~p~56;3424;8;8q.~p~52;3424;8;8q. --~.- .....- ...............~ -- ............. ~p~64;3456;8;8q.~1p~56;3456;12;8q.~p~856;3456;8;8q.~p~....... .................-.............. ~p~64;3488;8;8q.~p~760;3488;8;8q.~p~56;3488;8;8q.~p~52;3488;8;8q.-... ........... ..............-................. ~p~664;3520;8;8q.~1p~56;3520;12;8q.~p~56;3520;8;8q.~p~52;3520;8;8q.~p~1048;3520;12;8q.. -- .. --- .......... .............. ..............- ................. ........ ... I~2p~....... ............ ...............~.....~.... .............. .................. ...... ................-... -- ................. ...........-...... ........... ...... ............... ................ ..........-....... .......... ............... ...... -- ...........-...... ............ ..........~..~~~ ....... ...................... .....................-... ............................ ~p~64;4028;8;8q.~p~60;4028;8;8q.~p~ ............ ............. -- ...... ........ ~p~664;4060;8;8q.~p~60;4060;8;8q.~.......~1p~1148;4060;8;8q.~1p~1244;4060;8;8q.~~~ --~2p~~ ~2p~p~~808;4076;12;8q....~2p~....~...-...... ~p~64;4092;8;8q.~1p~60;4092;8;8q.~1p~56;4092;8;8q.~p~52;4092;8;8q. -- ...I......... ..~......~.~ ........... ...... ~p~64;4124;8;8q.~p~60;4124;8;8q.~1p~56;4124;8;8q.~1p~952;4124;12;8q.~....... ............. ...... ~p~664;4156;8;8q.~p~60;4156;8;8q.~1p~56;4156;8;8q.~p~952;4156;8;8q.~p~ .... --- ... . ................. ....... .................. ..................... ..............-..... .................. ...~~2p~.~2p~........ .............. .................... ..................... ...............-......... .......~........... .......... ................ .................... .......... ........ ................... ....I -.................. ................- ................... . ............ ...... -- ................ ........................... ........... ........ ....... ..~~2p~~840;4680;12;8q..~.......~~.. .......... .......... ... ............. ~p~64;4728;8;8q.~p~60;4728;8;8q.~p~856;4728;12;8q.~p~952;4728;12;8q. -~1p~p~... ... ......................-.. .... ~p~48;4772;8;8q.~... . ..... ....... ....... ........... ......... .......... .............. ......... -- ........... .......... -- .... --- ..........-........ -- ... .......... -~ ........ ............. ............. ~2p~660;4916;12;8q.~1p~756;4916;12;8q.~1p~852;4916;12;8q.~p~952;4916;8;8q.~p~1048;4916;12;8q.~ -~.~-- ... .............. ......... -~~1p~984;4948;8;12q1 ................... ............... ... --- .............. --- ~........-.............. .......... .. ............ -.~. ...~~.~2p~.... ............ ........~ ....... ~p~60;5108;8;8q.~1p~56;5108;12;8q.~1p~852;5108;12;8q.~1p~948;5108;12;8q.~1p~p~p~..... ............-................... ~p~60;5140;8;8q.~p~56;5140;8;8q.~p~52;5140;8;8q.~ --.~..... ......- ........... .... .... ........... ~p~60;5172;8;8q.~p~56;5172;8;8q.~p~52;5172;8;8q.~......- .................... ......... ~p~44;5216;8;12q......~.... ............. ~p~60;5232;8;8q.~p~56;5232;8;8q.~p~............ ~p~44;5248;8;8q.~p~40;5248;8;8q.~p~36;5248;8;8q.~..-................. ......................... ................. .................. ........... .............. ............. ............... ~p~656;5360;12;8q.~p~56;5360;8;8q.~p~52;5360;8;8q.~p~..... ........... ...............- ....................... ................ .......... ............. .......... ................. .................... ....................... .......... -~.~~~ ........... ..................~...~~.. ...... ............ . .............. .................-......-...... ............... ........... ........... .......... .. ........ .............. ............. --- .......... ........................ ................ ............ ............................ .................... Sound on I State of the Sound I Puget ..AQUARIUM exhibit Wheels exhibit ........... .................... ........ -~...........I.... ......- .............. ................. ..~~........-............ ~1p~56;6460;12;8q.~p~52;6460;12;8q.~1p~848;6460;12;8q.~............. .~........ .... ....... I Incorporation of I Puget Sound ~.......~.. ....~2p~~p~928;6608;12;8q... ...... ....... MPD into current ecology teachers' .~......~~. ...............-........... ............................ I...... -~~~... .......... ~............ . .............. ~p~56;6848;8;8q.~p~752;6848;8;8q.~1p~848;6848;12;8q.~1p~44;6848;12;8q.- education program workshop ......~2p~ ......~.. ~p~56;6944;12;8q.~1p~52;6944;8;8q.~. ............ ..~...........~.......~... ~p~56;6976;8;8q.~p~52;6976;12;12q.~p~2p~p~.. ..........~..~2p~~~~1156;6996;8;8q.~... ~p~56;7008;8;8q.~p~52;7008;8;8q.~...~2p~......-....... ..........~.~.......... ~p~56;7040;8;8q.~p~52;7040;8;8q.~p~48;7040;8;12q.~I ~....... ---- ............-........ ~p~56;7072;8;8q.~p~52;7072;8;8q.~p~48;7072;8;8q.-........... .......... ...... ....... ~p~56;7104;8;8q.~p~52;7104;8;8q.~.-.......-...... ........... ........... ....... ~2p~784;7136;8;12q. ............ I~... ............ I Information I Add information .......... ...... ......~...... distribution to "State of the ......... .. ....... .......... --~............... .................~..~ ........... .....-. ................. .~.~.~2p~860;7448;12;8q..... ..............- ... Sound" ~p~88;7548;8;8q.~p~84;7548;8;8q.~p~80;7548;8;8q.~~ ~.........- ..........- .......... ...... ..... ....... ............. .......... ... .............. ........... .....~2p~p~ .............. ........~.............~~1p~~~~~~ ~........... .......... ................. .......... ........... ........... ...... ......... .......-...... ........-............... ............ .......... . ........... ............ ............. ....... ...... .......... ........... .............-......- .. ........................... ................. ........... .................. ~p~32;8492;8;8q.~p~728;8492;12;8q.~1p~ ..............- .............................. ~p~32;8620;8;8q.I........ ....... ............ ...~....~2p~................. -....I........ ....... ............~-...... ......- ....................... ............. ........... ................... .................. ...... ....... . ........... ........................... .................. ................. ...... ................ ---- ............. . ................... .......... .......... ........... ~.. .............. ........... ~s~qk ~qX~RAW~, ~i~ ~i:~q@~:~ I Bellingham I Continued I PL 89.688 11989 Bellingham ~.........~. ~@~@~(~FE Marine Debris program develop National Sea Grant Program funded t (in conjun~c- ment directed toward proje~c College; Program tion with PSW~6qQA) specific audiences Act of 1966 ........... I Public informa~q- I Substantive ....~..~....~ tion (newsletters, amendments: .......~.~. . ...... radio, etc.) PL 94~q-461; ~1p~~~688;10376;8;12q.~~~............~q..~q..~q.. ............ ............. ... PL 100~q-200 ... .......... .......... . I Public education .......... ...........- ~ gh ~ advisory agencies . .......... ~1p~624;11056;8;8q.~2p~~752;11056;12;8q.~~~~~-. .... ......... .......... ........... ............ ~.......~...... ....... ....... ........ I Involvement with .......... ~~1p~656;11312;8;8q.~1p~752;11312;8;8q.~1p~848;11312;8;8q. national Sea Grant ............ .......... .. ......... network ................ ........... I Research program ........... ~~~1p~704;12032;12;8q.~~~~ on MPD in marine I RCW 28~2qB.20.320~q. ~..~~~......... ............. ~2p~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........~.~.~..... .~.~~~.~.......~~q..~q.~q.~q.~q.~q.~.~q.~.~~~. environment Marine Biological ........ ... ~... . . .. Preserve ~. . ....... .. ........... .............. C-6 ~0 TABLE C-1 (cont.) PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT ~p~96;1544;8;8q.~ ........... ~.~~1p~712;1652;8;12q. .... DEVELOPED POTENTIAL DEVELOPED POTENTIAL STATUTES FUNDING I Permanent public I N.A.M.E. .............. ~ ............. I.... ........... ....... displays in new teaching kit facility ~.~...~.~..... ...~.~...... ~~s~ I Student displays ~~~~~~.~.~.~.~.~.~...~~.. ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~~ ~.~.~..~..~~1p~1572;2800;12;8q. .................. I Current education programs ~2p~p~p~p~.. I Information a~c .... ket ~ ... ......... ~qP I MPD theme focus I Science teachers' conference, Seattle, I N.A.M.E. confer- April 1989 .......... ................... ence, July in Calif. I Volunteer power ~qX~qP~qWAT ~8q9~q4~ I "Clearing" newsletter ....................... ~1p~652;5004;8;8q.~~~~~~~~ .....~~... I Teaching ~qI~qdt .......................... ...~... ....... . .......... .......... .~.~~~.~~.~.~..........~ .~...~.......... ..~~ .............. ....~........... ~p~68;5716;12;8q.~~1p~796;5716;12;12q.~~2p~ .- I RCW 70.95 AS~S~p~1p~~'~2q0 ........ . ... Comprehensive ..~.~.~.......... Solid Waste .~p~664;6172;8;8q.~p~~788;6172;12;8q.~~1p~948;6172;12;8q.~2p~p~p~p~p~p~...~....... Planning .................. .................. .......... ~1p~664;6552;8;12q.~1p~760;6552;8;12q.~p~888;6552;8;12q.~2p~ ......~~...... ~S~S~qO~2qC~. I RCW 70.95 ~~ ...I.................... ~.~1p~~760;6908;12;8q.~p~856;6908;8;8q.~p~952;6908;8;8q.~~.~.~.~.~............... ...~.~2p~p~ ...~.~2p~p~1p~~~~~p~p~p~p~p~p~1p~ ............. .................. .. ............ .......... ~p~648;7340;12;8q.. . . .. .... .............. ........... ........ ........... I Marine debris I Second annual I Contract with education program Fishermen's NMFS/NOAA ~..........~... Conference on for N. Pacific Marine Debris ~~......~~~ ......... . ....................... region I Expansion of I Cooperative effort educational programs to ~2p~~~720;9036;12;12q.~1p~816;9036;8;12q.~1p~912;9036;8;12q.~ ... ... recreational boaters ~~1p~704;9148;8;12q.~ ... .. . I Marine debris ADOPT'- surveys 7/88 ::BE ~.~.~.....~...... . ... ...... I P cipa on with I Continued ~4q@~i ar~2qd ti EPA and NOAA programs on effects ...... lated to sources, of MPD in marine re .....~~~..... fates ~qa~qnd ef~2qf~qe~6qxts of environment ~qa~qnd related marine MPD in marine on estuarine env~2qiron~q- Policy issues ments I Provide expertise ~qi~qn marine sciences and assist with ~ ic education ~ ~~~1p~~768;12368;8;8q.~1p~860;12368;12;8q.~1p~ .... . . .. ...... . ..... efforts ~.~.~........ ...... ...... ~..~....~ ..... C-7 ~0 TABLE C-2 ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE LEAD AGENCIES INVOLVED ENVIRONMENT . . .......... ............. ~~ ..... ~~~- ....... .. ~U~C ~ ~0 .......... e ~re ... . . ...................... at ............... f ~qi~4qi bl-- ~I~e~S~e~qa~ ~l~e ... . .. ..... . ............. ... MOM ~.~.~..~~. . .... .......... ~4qW~ ...... ........ ........... ~A~qvi~ql d mental~: ~0qd~ d sp~o ~8qg~n ........ ...... .. . ..... .............. ~U -a ........ I........ . ... ..... .....~..~. an ... a ~r~on ~qi~qm f .... . .. .. ....... .... .. ....... . .. . ~qb~ ~*~~-~.~-~.~-~ ............ ~@AD ~i~q@~i~qp ........ .. .... ~Q~qm ........... ~.... ...................... ~~j~~j~: .. ..................... ............... a .......... ........... . ..... ..... ~ ~X ...... ............ . . ..... ... ...... .... ............ .......... . ....... . ..... .... .. ...... ..... ....... ............ ......... ... .... ~ID ~:~qP ........ ~W~6qd. ... ~~~~,~ - ........... . ..... ~.~ .... ...... . .... ...................... ............. ....... ~j~:~:~x~:~:~@ ~i~x~@ ........ . . . . ...... ............. .... ..... ........... ..... .. .... .. ..... .... .. ......... ..... ........ ORGANIZATIONS . ....... - . . . ....... .......... ... .............. ....... .............. ~ ........... .............. ~1p~4908;2184;12;8q.~~~1p~5068;2184;8;8q.~1p~~...... ................. . ... ~.~.~.~.~~1p~~ .... Coordinating agency L NOAA/NMFS ~qP ~qP ~qF ~qP ~qP ~qP USFWS ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP NPS ~qP ~qP ~qP CG ~qP ~qP ~qP EPA ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP DOL ~qP DCD ~qP DOE L ~qP L L L ~Y~~DF ~qP ~qP ~qP L L ~qP DNR L ~qP ~qP L ~qP WDW ~qP ~qP ~qP L ~qP ~qP OFM Office of Governor ~qP ~qP DOR PSW~qQA ~qP State Bd. f Pilotage ~qP Parks L ~qP ~qP L S~P~I ~qP 1AC ~qP L ~qP Hse Env. Aff~rs. Corn. ~qP ~qP House Energy & ~qP Nat. Res. Coms. Joint Select Com. ~qP Mar. & Ocean Res, ~qP Senate Environ. & ~qP Na~fl Res. Com. ~qP State ~L~quislature ~qP L ~qP Association of ~qP Washington Cities ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP Wa. Assoc. of Counties ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP Port of Seattle ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP Wa. Pub. Ports Assoc. ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP ~qP County Auditors ~2qP Colleges & Universities ~8qP ~8qP ~8qP ~0qF Private Companies ~2qP ~8qP ~8qP ~2qP ~8qP ~8qP ~8qP Aquariums ~8qP ~2qr ~8qP Marine ~qLa~2qbs ~6qP ~6qP ~2qP Adopt-A~-Beach ~6qP ~2qP ~2qP Indian Tribes ~8qP ~2qP Dive Groups/Shops ~6qP ~6qP Environ. Groups ~4qP Citizen Recycling Org. ~4qP ~4qP L - I-cad agency P - Participating agency TABLE C-2 (cont.) EDUCATION .... ....... ...... ..... .... -xx ...... xx GOVERNMENT/ECONONHC IMTACT .......... ........ .. ..... . . . ................. ....... . . . ... ... . ..... . Requir . ....... ... ge-, ........ crease eveo e ai -.lii P, ...u MM .... . ... .. .......... Stilt ftruo. tg:: . Cos 0. :@x:@ ............ :an -:m 0-p- d'* enxrv. 'd ... ....... .. . .. .. ... omes c w f ...... ......... ............ X :::,m ::: .... :--*-- ..- ..... .. -- ........... i@b On : b .. ...... ... .. ... . ................... - ': :: osiv# ju . .......... .... ... p .......... ore T(W .: .:... ve I .. ... ... m e, .. . . . . . . . .. . .......... era curnag" ........ . e- --m@u p . ..... . ...... - . roper ..... ...... .. ............... ...... bh ............... . . . . . . ........ ::.Ma :pu ........... ............... ....... .... .... .. . . .... ....... ... ..... ....... .... ...... ........ ............... .. .... . ........................... ................ . . ............ . ............. ...... ................. ..... ... .............. ....I...... ........ ...... _4 .... ... ........ . ... .. ........ . ..... ..... ....... . ..... ............... . ..... ......... ......................... ..... ........ ..... ........... L L L L p p p p p p p p p p L p p p p p p p p L p p p p L p L p p p p L p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p L p p p p p L L p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p L p p p p p p PPTWFa CY. p p C-9 RIRI IRARAPHY @M@MMIWWNWNEJEIKM Elm N Center for Environmental Education. 1987. Debris." Pacific Fishing 9(6):43-49. Refers Plastics in the Ocean: More Than a Litter especially to the commercial fishing industry. Problem. Funded by the EPA. General background on the marine plastic debris problem. Texas Shores 20(2), 1987. Special "Marine The most comprehensive nontechnical publication Litter" issue. Good general background. Contains available. $8.95 from CEE. articles relevant to recreational boaters and fishermen as well as beachgoers. Available from Center for Environmental Education. Citizen's Texas A & M University, Sea Grant College Guide to Marine Debris (forthcoming). Funded Program, College Station, TX 77843, (409) 845- by the Society of the Plastics Industry. An 7524. informative guide for concerned citizens, with suggestions on how to participate i,n possible U.S. Department of Transportation. 1988. solutions. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Regulations Implementing the Pollution Conner, Daniel K. arid Robert O'Dell. 1988. "The Prevention Requirements of Annex V of Tightening Net of Marine Plastics Pollution." MARPOL 73/78. Federal Register, June 24. 1988, Environment 30(l):17-20, 33-35. Detailed pp. 23884-23895. discussion of legal solutions to the marine plastic debris problem. Pre-dates the MPPRCA. Weisskopf, Michael. 1988. "Plastic Reaps a Grim Harvest in the Oceans of the World." Smithsonian Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine 18(12):58-67. General article on marine plastic Debris. May 1988. Report of federal task force debris as an environmental problem. created in response to a letter (dated 9 November 1987) to the President from 30 U.S. senators. Wilbur, R. Jude. 1988. "Plastics in the North Printed by U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Atlantic." Oceanus 30(3):61-68. Describes research conducted in the North Atlantic on International Maritime Organization. 1987. Draf prevailing ocean currents and plastic debris Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V, distribution. Regulationsfor the Prevention of Pollution by Newport Marine Refuse Disposal Project. Garbagefrom Ships. Available from U.S. Coast Guidelines (forthcoming) for other ports desiring Guard Headquarters (G-MPS-3), Attention: to undertake similar waste disposal projects. Annex V Draft Guidelines, 2100 Second Street Available from MERP, as above. S.W., Washington, DC 20593-0001. Enclose 8 1/2 by I I inch self-addressed envelope (with postage Oceans of Plastic Workshop Report. 1988. for 3 oz.). Report from the Oceans of Plastic Workshop held in Portland, Oregon, 9-11 February 1988. Focuses Graf, Gordon. 1988. "The Looming Crisis in on incentives to the commercial fishing community Plastics Waste Disposal." Issues in Science and to reduce marine plastic debris. Available from Technolog.v, Winter, pp. 105-110. the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska, 138 Irving 11, Fairbanks, AK 99775- Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6b):303-365. 5040, (907) 474-7086. Special issue on marine plastic debris. Contains papers presented at the Sixth International Ocean Parker, N.R. , S.C Hunter, and R.J. Yang. 1987. Disposal Svmposium, Asilomar, California. 21-25 Development of Methodology to Reduce the April 1986'. Disposal of Non-degradable Refuse into the Marine Environment. KVB, Inc., NOAA contract Mooney, Donna. 1987. "The Problem with #85-ABC-00203. Available from MERP, see Plastics." Marine Digest, August 15. 1987. pp. above. 11-16, 26. Pre-dates passage of the MPPRCA. Good general discussion about the potential Parr, Jan. 1987. "Degradable Polymers?" Forbes, impacts on the Port of Seattle and on current October 5, 1987. pp. 206-210. Pre-dates the waste-handling practices among port users. MPPRCA. Misrepresents commercial fishing industry contribution to the problem. Newport Marine Refuse Disposal Project. Final Strickland, Dan. 1988. "Cleaning Up Marine report (forthcoming) will be available from the National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research Program (MERP), NMFS/NOAA, Bin C 15700, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle. WA 98115, (206) 526-4009. I Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program of the Department of Ecology Mailstop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Bulk Rate Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program US. Postage of the PAID Department of Ecology Dept. of Printing Washington State Olympia, Washington 98504 ECY CZM CC 10 COASTAL INFO CENTER OCRM/NOAA CZ-6 1825 CONNECTICUT AVE NW SUITE 706 WASHINGTON, DC 20235 GET A GRIP ON MARINE DEBRIS!