S. HRG. 114–390 

MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE: 

IMPACTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE: IMPACTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–168 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–390 

MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE: 

IMPACTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 17, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................ 1 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 3 

WITNESSES 

Kurth, Hon. Jim, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boozman ........................... 12 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 15 

Pallister, Chris, President and Co-Founder, Gulf of Alaska Keeper ................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Jambeck, Jenna, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Georgia ...................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 48 

Mallos, Nicholas, Director, Trash Free Seas Program, Ocean Conservancy ...... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 418 

Stone, Jonathan, Executive Director, Save the Bay ............................................. 419 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 421 

(1) 

MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE: IMPACTS, 

SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan (Chairman 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan, Whitehouse, Boozman, Fischer, 

Rounds, Inhofe, Gillibrand, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good morning. 

Senator INHOFE. May I make a real quick statement? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I have floor time in 5 minutes, but I want to 

come back because I have a special interest in this first witness 

I’ve already talked about, so I will be right back. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife will now 

come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the impacts and sources of marine debris on wildlife population and potential solutions to this issue. 

I want to begin by apologizing for being late. A little bit of bad 

traffic out there. Appreciate the patience. 

More specifically, for coastal States, particularly those on the 

West Coast and East Coast, prevalence of marine debris on our 

shores is a chronic issue. Marine debris results from a number of 

manmade sources, including derelict fishing gear, poor solid waste 

management practices, major storm events, and everyday litter. 

In March 2011 a large earthquake struck off the Japanese coast, 

causing a large tsunami and tragically killing or displacing tens of 

thousands of people. While much of the media attention rightly focused on this tragic outcome and the related situation with the 

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, another less reported story was 

also unraveling. 

The 2011 tsunami washed millions of tons of debris into the Pacific Ocean, most of which eventually made its way to the Pacific 

Northwest of the United States. In some of the most extreme examples, a 185-ton dock washed up on Washington’s Olympic Coast, 

the U.S. Coast guard was forced to sink a floating ghost ship off 
2 

the coast of Alaska before it struck the shore, and even a motorcycle was washed ashore in western Canada. 

Today my State of Alaska is still dealing with the impacts of this 

event, and one of our witnesses here today will discuss his organization’s efforts and experiences while cleaning this significant debris. In addition to the organizations represented here today, there 

are others in Alaska conducting important response and research 

work, such as the Sitka Sound Science Center. 

NOAA has identified a number of hotspots where debris accumulate in large quantities due to ocean currents and other factors. 

Mostly in the Pacific, these so-called ‘‘garbage patches’’ have been 

known by scientists for years. Yet what is less known is the impacts of these debris on marine and land based birds, mammals, 

and other species and their ecosystems. I am hopeful that today’s 

hearing will shed some additional light on these effects and identify research gaps. While the problem of marine debris is apparent 

there are also no clear answers on how to best solve it. 

The United States has taken major steps to address issues here 

at home, and the plastics industry has proactively pursued ways to 

address debris in the marine environment. In Alaska and other 

coastal States most debris comes from foreign sources, as evidenced 

by the volume of materials collected on our shores every year bearing labels written in Chinese, Russian, Indonesian and many other 

foreign languages. 

As a result of the tsunami, in 2012 the Japanese government— 

in a remarkable gesture given the enormous suffering Japan endured—gifted $5 million to the U.S. Government to assist in debris 

removal and response efforts. This one-time infusion of funds supplemented NOAA’s modest annual congressional appropriation for 

the Marine Debris Program. The authorization for the Marine Debris Program has lapsed, but fortunately Congress has continued 

to fund this important work. 

But beyond funding response and clean up work, one of the 

things that we hope this Committee’s experts will help us address 

is how can the United States help better encourage sanitation and 

management practices, particularly in developing countries, as it 

relates to ocean debris and what innovative ideas exist to solve 

these problems. These are some of the questions we hope will be 

answered today. 

I am pleased to have a distinguished and diverse panel of witnesses here this morning. I want to thank all of you for being here. 

Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member 

Whitehouse for his interest in this topic and his encouragement to 

hold this hearing. Although at first glance you might not see the 

similarities between Alaska and Rhode Island, being the largest 

and smallest States in the Union, respectively, we both love our 

oceans. In fact, Rhode Island is the Ocean State and Alaska has 

more ocean coastline than the rest of the United States combined, 

so this issue matters to all of us. 

With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member Whitehouse. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We got away 

with being the Ocean State by being among the first 13, when 

there was less competition. 

Let me express first my appreciation to you for your interest and 

for this action on the problem of marine debris. As you say, Alaska 

and Rhode Island have many differences. But we share a common 

dependence on and affection for our healthy oceans. 

To put it mildly, this Committee does not always see eye to eye 

on the issues under our jurisdiction. But we are on the same page 

today. Some colleagues may try to argue that humans aren’t causing climate change. But there is no denying man’s role in the startling amount of plastic trash that now litters our oceans and 

coasts. The problem is pervasive and obvious. 

A Rhode Island example comes from one of the most dangerous 

and demanding sporting events on the planet, the Volvo Round of 

the World Ocean Race, which had a stop in Newport, Rhode Island, 

this past summer. The sailors on those racing vessels had seen the 

world, and they told of a littered ocean. So littered, in fact, that 

they had to make daily debris checks for marine debris fouling 

their keels and slowing down the racing boat, even in the far away 

South Atlantic waters. 

Ocean Conservancy reports that the 2014 International Coastal 

Cleanup took over 16 million pounds of trash from beaches around 

the world. Save the Bay, represented here today by Executive Director Jonathan Stone organizes Rhode Island’s participation in the 

International Coastal Cleanup. Last September over 2,000 volunteers participated in beach clean ups in Rhode Island. They collected more than 19,000 pounds of trash from our beaches during 

the single day event, and that is just a small snapshot of the bigger 

problem. 

When plastic enters the water, it never really goes away. A study 

of seabirds found that in 2014, among 80 species studied, 90 percent of individual birds had plastic in their bellies. This albatross 

is filled with discarded lighters and other plastic junk that it mistook for food. 

It is not just birds. Thirteen sperm whales beached themselves 

on the German coast in January with plastic in their stomachs, including a 43-foot long shrimp fishing net and a large piece of a 

plastic car engine cover. Leatherback turtles are found with stomachs full of plastic bags mistaken for the jelly fish on which they 

feed. Scientists have documented harmful plastic interactions in 

nearly 700 species. 

Marine debris does not have to be eaten to be a hazard. Turtles 

and porpoises and manatees drown or starve in entanglements, as 

do sharks, which must move to breathe. 

Through wave action and UV exposure under the sun, plastics 

continually break down into smaller and smaller pieces. The smallest pieces, microplastics, are ingested by a wider swath of the food 

chain, mixing in with plankton blooms and other elemental food 

sources. Plastic is now found in every corner of the marine environment, from sandy beaches on rumwood islands, to arctic ice cores, 

to deep sea sediments, to ocean gyres in the faraway Pacific. 
4 

Dr. Jenna Jambeck, who is testifying today, found that 80 percent of the plastic in the ocean originates from land. Each year, an 

estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic waste enters the oceans. 

At present rates, the mass of waste plastic in the ocean will outweigh the mass of all the living fish in the ocean by the middle of 

this century. Let me say that again. At present rates, the mass of 

waste plastic in the ocean will outweigh the mass of all the living 

fish in the ocean by the middle of this century. 

Over 50 percent of the plastic waste in the oceans comes from 

just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and 

Sri Lanka. Their upland waste management systems are a failure, 

so plastic and other trash makes its inevitable way to the sea. 

Senator Sullivan and I are both members of the Senate Oceans 

Caucus. Our bipartisan caucus has made marine debris a priority 

issue, and we are determined to make progress. Perhaps the 

present rethinking of the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement will give 

us a chance to encourage the filthy five marine debris countries to 

clean up their act. 

Thank you again, Chairman, for calling this hearing, and I appreciate very much the wonderful panel of witnesses who have 

come here today. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Now I would like to welcome the first witness to our panel, Mr. 

Jim Kurth, the Deputy Director, United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. You will have 5 minutes to deliver your opening statement, 

and a longer written statement will be included in the record. 

Mr. Kurth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM KURTH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. KURTH. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking 

Member Whitehouse and Subcommittee members. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today, and I would note I have had the good 

fortune to live and work for the Fish and Wildlife Service in both 

Rhode Island and Alaska. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Rhode Island was more fun, right? 

Mr. KURTH. I am not going to pass judgment. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I was going to avoid asking you that question 

because I thought it might embarrass my colleague here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KURTH. They are both wonderful places. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good answer. 

Mr. KURTH. Marine debris ranging from abandoned vessels to 

fishing gear, plastic bags, balloons, food wrappers, and many other 

consumer products is a pervasive threat to the world’s oceans. It 

injures and kills wildlife, degrades habitats, interferes with navigation, and costs communities, fishing and maritime industries millions of dollars annually. In addition microplastics created by the 

breakdown of bottles, bags, and other larger debris, as well as the 

toxic chemicals they contain, pose a risk to human health as they 

accumulate in the marine food web. 

Up to 80 percent of marine debris originates on land: the litter 

sucked into storm drains or blown into waterways, to stray garbage 
5 

from landfills, and small particles discharged from industrial operations. It injures and kills wildlife for many miles inland on its 

journal to the ocean. 

Other debris is generated at sea from lost fishing equipment and 

vessels, cargo containers swept overboard and illegal dumping. 

Large storms and tsunamis can also deposit enormous amounts of 

debris into coastal areas and deeper waters. 

At Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, 

a storm surge from Hurricane Sandy in 2012 scattered tons of debris over a 22-mile stretch of beaches, salt marshes, and forested 

areas. It took months to remove the debris, which included downed 

trees, construction materials, appliances, glass, trash, and over 175 

boats from nearby marinas, many of which leaked fuel and other 

contaminants. More debris was swept out to sea when storm surges 

receded. 

As a former wildlife refuge manager I have seen the impacts of 

marine debris. It is heartbreaking to see a sea turtle dead from ingesting a plastic bag it thought was a jelly fish, or to find a dead 

albatross chick with her stomach filled with plastics. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service works through its coastal refuges 

and friends groups to mobilize local communities for the International Coastal Cleanup each September, an event that helps 

raise public awareness while removing significant amounts of debris. 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge provides nesting habitat 

for nearly 3 million seabirds, including endangered Laysan ducks, 

albatross, and 19 other seabird species. Hawaiian monk seals, 

green sea turtles, and spinner dolphins frequent Midway’s coral lagoons. 

The island memorializes one of our Nation’s most important 

naval victories. Unfortunately, albatross and other seabirds gathering food for their chicks carry over 5 tons of plastic back to Midway each year. The stomachs of nearly all the dead chicks we see 

on Midway contain plastics, including cigarette lighters, parts of 

toys, fishing gear fed to them by their parents. 

We partner with NOAA and the Coast Guard to remove between 

5 and 10 tons of debris at Midway and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands annually. We have removed nearly 1 million pounds of shipwrecks at Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuges. The iron from these wrecks was fueling the growth of 

invasive organisms, smothering some of the Islands’ pristine coral 

reefs. With the shipwrecks gone now, these reefs are beginning to 

recover. 

The 3.4 million acres of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge provide essential habitat for some 40 million seabirds, over 

30 species. We have engaged with Pribilof Islanders to work with 

fishermen to remove nets and other debris from fur seal rookeries, 

and we supported clean up efforts in the Aleutians, along the Alaska Peninsula, and in the Gulf of Alaska. 

At Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge a Youth Conservation Corps 

crew pulled more than 15,000 pounds of debris off the beaches of 

Halibut Bay a few summers ago. Efforts like these are important, 

but they are a short-term fix. These beaches and hundreds of miles 

of other beaches, marshes, and other coastal habitats nationwide 
6 

start accumulating debris again at the next high tide. We focus on 

public education because we don’t have the staff or resources to 

regularly patrol and clean up most areas. 

This brings me to my main point: The scale and complexity of 

this problem outstrips the ability of any agency or nation to address alone. Stopping debris at the source is vital, and we can’t do 

that unless we work with public and private partners at a local 

scale with a global focus. 

Through the Federal Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating 

Committee we are working to implement a government-wide comprehensive approach focused on source prevention. The future of 

marine wildlife depends on our success. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you in the future to address this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurth follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you for that opening statement. I appreciate the fact that both in your remarks and Senator 

Whitehouse’s remarks you emphasize the importance of volunteer 

communities throughout the country, really, that are focused on 

that. 

Let me start my questions by asking about the role of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Again, I want to thank the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, which oversees NOAA and 

Oceans, and I appreciate Chairman Thune and Ranking Member 

Nelson for being flexible to allow us to hold this hearing here. 

As you know, Mr. Kurth, NOAA is the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for being focused on oceans, but many of the 

species that are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service are negatively impacted by marine debris. 

What authorities or additional things can your agency do with 

Congress’s help to better allow the Service to respond to this issue, 

of course keeping in close coordination with NOAA? 

Mr. KURTH. Mr. Chairman, we rely on an essential partnership 

with NOAA to address these resources. The area where we perhaps 

have the most interest is in our ocean and national wildlife refuges 

and marine monuments. One of the authorities we lack, that 

NOAA has and the National Park Service has, is to recover damages when national wildlife refuges are injured. 

For example, I mentioned the ship wrecks at Palmyra Atoll. 

Now, while those wrecks occurred prior to becoming a refuge, so 

the case isn’t precisely the same, had that happened today we have 

no authority to recover civil damages for the effects of that shipwreck on the reef. 

In the President’s budget request he transmitted a proposal 

called the Refuge Resource Protection Act that would give us precisely the same authority that our sister agencies have to recover 

damages from third parties when we are injured by them. That is 

an important authority that we are lacking. 

But once again, this is an important partnership that we can’t 

do on our own without NOAA and the help of the Coast Guard and 

others. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask a related question. You mentioned 

that Fish and Wildlife Service is a member of the Interagency 

Committee on Marine Debris. Can you explain to us a little bit 

more of the work of the Committee and whether you think it is an 

effective venue for coordinating the broader Federal Government’s 

response to these issues? 

Mr. KURTH. I am not an expert on that Committee, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Have you been to any of the meetings or anything? 

Mr. KURTH. No. I am not a member of that Committee. 

Senator SULLIVAN. But Fish and Wildlife is a member? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. And it is reflective—in my statement I mentioned that none of us can handle this alone; it requires all of the 

people with an interest in ocean and all the landowning agencies, 

the regulatory agencies that have tools to bring to the table to work 

together, and I think that is the focus of this Committee is it is not 
18 

a problem that anybody alone can solve, and we have to bring all 

of the tools that we have in the toolbox together. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask a question on the science. Do you 

think that the Federal Government and the scientific community 

have a sense of the impact of marine debris ingestion on wildlife 

and the broader food chain? Some of the statistics that Senator 

Whitehouse just mentioned in terms of how much is ingested is 

really stunning. 

Do you think we have a good understanding of that from a scientific community? And what steps should the Service be taking to 

broader the understanding, particularly to science, of these issues? 

Mr. KURTH. I think that we know a great deal, but I also believe 

that the ocean is our last unexplored part of our planet, that there 

is so much about the ocean environment that we have yet to learn. 

The Service works in partnership with others. 

For example, at Palmyra Refuge we have the Palmyra Research 

Consortium that includes NOAA, many of our major oceanographic 

research institutes to look at those core reef ecosystems in the 

nearby ocean waters to learn about how the ocean is changing and 

the effects of a changing world on the ocean environment there. 

There is a great deal that still is to be learned about the ocean and 

this topic. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And finally, I think this will be a topic for the 

next panel as well, but as I mentioned in my opening statement of 

course we can always do a better job on this as a country. But a 

lot of the debris, as Senator Whitehouse mentioned, comes from 

other countries. What are your recommendations that we can do 

working with other countries on this topic? Literally, my State is 

the recipient of their pollution, and I think there has to be a deeper 

way in which we can address this with these other nations because 

it certainly seems like a core element of the problem. 

Mr. KURTH. Well, I think you are right, perhaps this next panel 

will know more. I think we need to be engaged with the world because so much of this is about education. I think that in the developing world they don’t necessarily have any idea what happens to 

the plastics and other debris that goes into the rivers and out into 

the ocean. There are limited resources in many of those places, but 

it is going to take a concerted effort of research, of education, engagement, and then the development of technologies that can more 

effectively deal with this. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thanks, Chairman. 

Thanks, Mr. Kurth, for being here. You mentioned the albatross, 

and I don’t want to anthropomorphize too much, but when you 

think how far the mother albatross has to travel in order to collect 

food to feed the chicks, I think that they have been banded and 

tracked, and they have thousands of miles that they travel. They 

skim the surface of the ocean looking for food, and a lighter looks 

a fair amount like a squid to them, so they come back to where the 

chicks are and regurgitate up what they have picked up. 

That is how you get these pictures of the little albatross chicks 

starving to death with stomachs full of plastic. And sometimes it 

helps, I guess, when there is an image like that in people’s mind 

to trigger their sympathies. 
19 

But I think it is also important that we understand the scale of 

this problem as well, and I wanted to ask you, within Fish and 

Wildlife which are the programs that engage the most with the marine debris problem, and how engaged are they from a budget point 

of view? And if that is too complicated a question to answer right 

in our next few minutes, could you make that a question for the 

record? Just give me a little layout. 

Mr. KURTH. Sure. It is a complicated question. Certainly, our national wildlife refuges, our migratory bird program, our marine 

mammal program all have interest in this topic. And you are exactly right, these species range quite far. 

I had the good fortune a couple of summers ago to be on our research vessel TECLA in the Aleutian Islands. They were feeding 

albatross there. I asked our crew, where are those birds coming 

from, and they said Midway Atoll. And I said, there is no way. I 

said, that is over 1,000 miles away. And the response was that is 

the closest land, it is the closest nesting site. 

So those birds use an enormous area of ocean water, and it is remarkable how they find things like a cigarette lighter. It is amazing how many cigarette lighters there are in the ocean, and it is 

heartbreaking. 

But whether it is the albatross or petrels or sea lions or other 

things, turtles, the impact from marine debris is part and parcel 

to what all of us in Fish and Wildlife Service care about. I would 

be happy to expand on that in the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And we see these pictures of the dead 

baby albatrosses with their stomachs filled with lighters and other 

trash, and we see the pictures of marine mammals that are entangled in netting or other things and have drowned or starved. But 

it is harder to see the microplastic as it breaks down and gets to 

the level of almost molecular plastic. Could you talk a little bit 

about what Fish and Wildlife is doing to look at the effects of that 

as it enters the food chain? 

Mr. KURTH. More of the science that would be done by that by 

the Government would be done by NOAA. As the Chairman mentioned they really are the principal ocean research agency. We are 

more focused on our marine national monuments and refuges and 

on the species that we have jurisdiction for. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you seeing any uptake through that? 

Mr. KURTH. The literature clearly indicates that, and I think 

your next panel will have some experts that can give you more information, and I can supplement for the record with some of the 

additional things that the Service is concerned about. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the vast majority of vessels that 

might dump or wreck on marine areas that you protect are insured, 

so to ask them to pay their price for what they have done, I gather 

you are the only Federal agency with responsibility for Federal 

property that doesn’t have the right to sue for civil damages when 

people harm your resource? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, I can’t say we are the only one, I wouldn’t 

know. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Compared to the Park Service. 

Mr. KURTH. Yes, the Park Service has it, NOAA has it, the Bureau of Land Management has these authorities. 
20 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. KURTH. And it just seems reasonable in these difficult financial times, when we don’t have enough resources to do things, that 

if somebody damages the property of the United States they would 

be liable to pay for those damages. We just simply don’t have that 

statutory authority in the national wildlife refuge system. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, if you could summarize for me as a 

question for the record what the most significant ways are that 

your organization engages with the marine debris problem and how 

much budget connects to that, and also other than this recommendation for the authority to pursue civil damages, what your 

top five recommendations for the Committee would be. 

Mr. KURTH. I would be happy to do that, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thanks, Mr. Kurth. I appreciate it. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you 

for holding a really very important hearing. I am from a landlocked 

State in regard to oceans but certainly understand the importance 

and the economies of many States. Tourism is built on people from 

Arkansas going to the ocean. 

But I want to follow up a little bit on the Marine Debris Coordinating Committee. You mentioned that you hadn’t really attended 

the meetings. 

Mr. KURTH. Generally, the Committee is attended by the people 

who are more focused on that topic. Unfortunately, I am in more 

of an administrative role. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I understand. 

Mr. KURTH. And I am not the expert that I used to be. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But you all are active? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Is that a good vehicle? Is it an area 

that we as a Committee should press? 

Mr. KURTH. It is essential in this day and age that Government 

agencies collaborate and we don’t duplicate. None of us have the 

resources to do it all by ourselves, so any mechanism that allows 

us to share science, to inform each other of our work activities, to 

get synergies out of our agencies’ mission is an important thing. 

Senator BOOZMAN. As I saw the pictures and things, Senator 

Carper and I are co-chairs of the Recycling Caucus, and recycling 

plastic can result in energy savings up to 87 percent and keep the 

plastic out of the ocean. So it really does highlight some of the efforts that we are trying to make there, to do that. 

Also, that is perhaps something that we can help some of our 

overseas entities that aren’t doing as good a job to collaborate and 

show them how they cannot only clean the oceans up, but also it 

is good for them, good for their economy. 

Mr. KURTH. Absolutely. I think the United States has long led 

in the development of cost effective technologies for recycling, and 

to the extent that we can export those to the developing world it 

will certainly help in this regard. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 
21 

I had a few other follow up questions, and I know Senator Inhofe 

was interested in following up with some questions as well. 

But let me go back to an issue that I don’t think is uniquely 

Alaskan, but we certainly have a big challenge with it, and that is 

the instance where owners of abandoned and derelict vessels are on 

the shores of different States. Certainly in Alaska there are a lot 

of these; they are unable to be identified, so nobody is able to be 

held accountable for their recovery. 

In this kind of instance, which we have a number of these, do 

you have any ideas of what can be done to clean up this kind of 

debris? It is not necessarily the debris that is getting into the digestive systems of animals, but it is still a significant problem, and 

it is a big problem in Alaska. 

Mr. KURTH. I wish I did have an answer, Senator. When I 

worked in Alaska we had a derelict vessel offshore of the Arctic 

Refuge where I worked, and it had been there for decades. No one 

quite really knew what to do about that. I think it is something 

that we are going to all have to come together and find out; when 

there is not a responsible party how do we work together with the 

affected States and with government agencies that have authority, 

because it is a problem that doesn’t have a ready answer, at least 

to my knowledge. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So there is always the issue of, well, we can 

just fund clean up on that, and of course that is one way to look 

at it. As you know, all agencies’ budgets are kind of stretched. 

The one area that I have thought about on this topic that seems 

to have some potential is that there are so many motivated volunteers to help with the clean up. Are there authorities or ways in 

which we can encourage that to make sure that they are encouraged or kind of a Good Samaritan kind of situation in terms of the 

law, where if someone is going out, trying to do good work, if something happens, that they are not going to be held liable for any 

mistakes? Are there things that we can be doing, more innovative, 

more—as you mentioned—public-private partnerships that we can 

do in this regard that can help an issue like that that is not just 

about, you know, more funding? 

Mr. KURTH. Volunteers are at the heart of how we have been 

able to do most of the clean up activity where there is not a responsible party. I think that we have the authority and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has over 40,000 volunteers. On our national wildlife refuges, they accomplish approximately 20 percent of all the 

work that gets done in the national wildlife refuge system. And 

Congress several years ago did pass the Volunteer and Community 

Partnership Enhancement Act that gave us authority to hire volunteer coordinators. 

But you are right, the effects of budget cuts have hurt. Over the 

last few years we saw our volunteer numbers go down because we 

have lost the capacity and some of these coordinators to do it. It 

is one of the most cost effective investments that we can make, is 

to make sure we have people that can coordinate volunteer work 

and use it as a force multiplier for the limited staff we have. We 

have partnerships with volunteers and community groups in almost every aspect of what we do on the Service. 
22 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask one final question on the foreign 

country issue. What programs does Fish and Wildlife Service have 

currently where you engage with other countries, particularly some 

of the countries that Senator Whitehouse noted in his remarks? 

Mr. KURTH. We have a very robust international conservation 

program, but it is focused more on the trust species we have and 

then on illegal wildlife trade. We work a great deal in Africa interdicting trade in elephant ivory and rhinos. We work with people 

that are illegally taking sea turtles and entering them into interstate commerce, with migratory birds. 

But many of those countries in the developing world, the marine 

debris issue has not been the focus of our work. We work closely 

with China on any number of things, on wetland conservation, giving them technical assistance on rivers and protected areas, but 

the management of solid waste onshore really isn’t the mainstay of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s expertise. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sure you are aware of the problems that Long Island and 

New York City face in terms of managing their solid waste and 

preventing contamination into our waterways. When Hurricane 

Sandy hit we faced flooding and contamination on a scale that we 

have never seen before in our area. 

What can all of us learn from that situation, and how can we improve our resiliency so the consequences of a natural disaster are 

not solid waste garbage contaminants floating in our waters? What 

have you found to have been successful? 

Mr. KURTH. I think that when we look at coastal resiliency we 

have to balance how we harden infrastructure and how we utilize 

green infrastructure. We saw in many of the coastal areas that we 

manage—I mentioned Forsythe Refuge in New Jersey, where those 

coastal wetlands and the green infrastructure helps to attenuate 

storm surge and builds resilience in the ecosystems. The wetlands 

in Delaware at Prime Hook Refuge are another example. 

So there is certainly in places like New York City hardened infrastructure as part of the equation, but where we can have more 

natural coastal features, those dunes, those coastal wetlands, they 

attenuate the effects of storm surges. It is not a solution everywhere, but we have been very fortunate to have significant funding 

after Hurricane Sandy to build resilience back into some of the 

coastal environments that we managed, and we think that is one 

component of an effective strategy for coastal resilience. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. An unrelated question, but I know that you 

are an expert on this. I wanted to get your views on an important 

decision that the State of New York is having right now with regard to Plum Island. Many of my constituents on Long Island and 

I support the idea of turning it into a wildlife refuge in order to 

conserve this piece of land for future generations. With your extensive background with the refuge system, can you speak to the value 

and benefits of creating a refuge on a location such as Plum Island? 

Mr. KURTH. We are a cooperating agency in the environmental 

impact statement that is looking at that. As you know, there is a 

lot of infrastructure and potential contamination at Plum Island, so 
23 

we are encouraged to continue to working with folks. But the Service is always cautious if we bring a unit into the refuge system that 

issues that might relate to physical infrastructure that is remaining or contaminants are addressed before it would be appropriate 

to be a refuge. So we continue to be engaged in and work on that 

study looking at the options for how we can repurpose that and include conservation as a purpose for Plum Island. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Another area I am interested in—I don’t 

know if you have expertise in, but one of the concerns about marine pollutants is that plastics are broken down into microplastics, 

produce pollutants in the environment, and often animals digest 

these toxic plastic pieces unknowingly and make them sick and develop other issues. We had this issue with microbeads, and we were 

successfully able in Congress to ban them because it had so many 

horrible effects for killing fish in a lot of our rivers and water bodies. 

So how can these plastic and toxic pollutants affect the health of 

marine life and the food chain that rely on them, ultimately affecting humans? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, it is just not those microbeads, but it is also 

the deterioration of other plastics as they break down that are ingested, and they accumulate in the marine food chain. And you are 

right; I confessed earlier that I am not an expert on those subjects, 

and I think you have some folks following me on the next panel 

that maybe can get more into the deeper science of it. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Can you talk a little bit about ghost fishing and the effect from 

the fishing industry and what the steps are that can be taken to 

reduce the likelihood of derelict fishing gear? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. Ghost fishing is a term that is used for the take 

of fish or shellfish after fishing equipment is either abandoned intentionally or somehow gets washed overboard, and it is very significant. I think that it is localized, so for me to quantify it for you 

would be geographic specific and perhaps more than I can do. But 

whether it is lobster traps or crab traps or fishing nets, it continues 

to fish 24/7 for years and years on, and the amount of marine life 

that it takes from the sea is very significant. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. And how does that ultimately, then, affect 

the fishing industry from your perspective? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, every fish or shellfish that is caught by derelict 

fishing equipment is a fish that isn’t caught and the profit not returned to a commercial fisherman as part of the allowable catch for 

those. So it is a significant resource that is basically being wasted, 

where there is no return for the fisherman. It is simply a waste of 

a resource. 

I think it is a great example of a type of marine debris that 

doesn’t pop into people’s mind. They think of the sea turtle with 

the six-pack or the plastic bag they have ingested, or the cigarette 

lighter in the albatross, and they don’t think about these derelict 
24 

fishing gear out there continuing to take and waste shellfish and 

fish for years and years. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. A few years ago watermen in the Chesapeake Bay region were paid to clean up derelict crab pots. Is there 

an opportunity to engage the fishing industry in cleaning up debris 

to improve the health of fisheries which they depend upon? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, absolutely. I think watermen in Chesapeake 

Bay and people that fish for a living throughout the country oftentimes are amongst the most knowledgeable people about those marine ecosystems. Obviously there is a cost to that, and it is something that I think that we need to look to find effective partnerships. I think some of the people that will follow me will talk about 

how some of the various organizations out there are at the heart 

of some of those partnerships, and certainly government agencies 

can help facilitate that as well. 

Senator MARKEY. In your testimony you discuss successful marine debris educational outreach programs. Could you describe 

what one of those programs might look like? 

Mr. KURTH. I love the example I used earlier of the Pribilof Islands because it is this remote place with people whose whole life 

and tradition is tied to the sea, and they know and they are responsible for, and with a little facilitation and explanation, go out 

there and get the derelict fishing nets out of those fur seal rookeries. Some of the most important fur seal places in the world. 

That is one end of the spectrum, and we can go right to Rhode 

Island Beach, where we get school kids out there helping, perhaps 

not removing tons of things, our YCC crew in Kodiak. Maybe 

15,000 isn’t going to change the world, but they learn about the 

issue; they become engaged conservationists. They care, and they 

can help spread that message of prevention and reuse and recycle 

to others in their communities. 

Senator MARKEY. So thank you for helping to focus us upon these 

issues. We are just now at the fifth anniversary of the disaster 

which the tsunami caused at Fukushima and the amount of manmade debris that went into the ocean and traveled 4,000 miles, still 

traveling. So your ability to help us to focus upon this rising phenomenon of manmade debris in the ocean is just so important, so 

we thank you for that. 

Mr. KURTH. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Kurth, as I mentioned to you earlier I have one major 

interest in this area. For 20 years I was a builder and developer 

in an area called South Padre Island, Texas. There are some areas 

other than the East Coast and Alaska that have beaches. It is 

unique with its ridley sea turtle. There are only a few places in the 

world where they come in, and they actually lay their eggs to go 

back and come out, and then the little critters get out, and they 

have to try to make their way out. 

Now, one is north of Vera Cruz; one is just a little bit north of 

South Padre Island. That’s an incorporated town. The island—you 

are familiar with it, others may not be—is actually 140 miles long 

and four blocks wide, so you can only build on the southern tip of 
25 

it. But there is one area just north of that where they do come in. 

Nobody knows why. And just like north of Vera Cruz. Well, there 

is a lot of value, of course, to two sources there. One is to get the 

mother when she comes in to lay her eggs, because they can predict 

pretty much when it is, and then get the little ones going back out. 

There is a lady whose name is Ila Loetscher. She was the Turtle 

Lady, referred to as the Turtle Lady, and about 40 years ago I 

would work with her. I would actually go down and sit out all night 

long. We would rotate around on watches to keep people from getting them as they are coming in, the value of the leather and all 

that. And she lived to be 100 years old, and she was active. Now 

I think it is her granddaughter down there is doing the same thing. 

Anyway, I am kind of hooked into that thing, and I am concerned 

because this has a direct effect. Now, what I would like for you to 

do is say what are things that we can do. This is protect and there 

is a lot of interest in there, but also there is a lot of damage that 

is done not just by the predators that are waiting to get them, but 

by debris and things like that. 

I was down there about 3 weeks ago, and they had one tub that 

had a turtle that did survive. It had ingested a plastic bag, I guess 

it was, and I know this is just a handful. There have been a lot 

of issues, turtle excluders on fishing boats and all that. But what 

do you know about that particular species, and what we can do, 

and what you can do to be of help in that protection? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, Senator, there is nothing that causes me greater fear than to think that a U.S. Senator may know more about 

this than I do. No, I think that the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is one 

of a number of turtles that do nest along the Gulf of Mexico. You 

are exactly right to be fascinated about why these creatures pick 

certain spots. I am happy that there are still some things that 

science doesn’t really understand. It will give a new generation the 

opportunity to learn and explore the oceans in ways that we 

haven’t quite figured out yet. 

But to protect, there are so many aspects of that. One is to have 

secure habitat; the other is to make sure that there is not too much 

disturbance, whether that is from predators or from inconsiderate 

people. I was a Federal wildlife officer for the better part of a dozen 

years and remember patrolling beaches in Florida and seeing teenagers flip sea turtles upside down, which is a death knell, and that 

is just ignorance. That is something that education has to go to. 

There are other things that we don’t think about. Sea turtles, 

when they hatch, they are going to go to the water. But if there 

are lights around, they are drawn to that. So we have worked with 

resorts and restaurants on beaches to have different kinds of lights, 

different kinds of direction, or turn the lights off during that time 

of year when sea turtles are hatching. There are just all these different facets that go into the protection of that creature. 

The great thing about sea turtles is I have never met anybody 

who doesn’t like them and isn’t fascinated. If you sit on a beach 

and see one of those creatures crawling out of the ocean in the middle of the night, and going up there and digging its nest and laying 

eggs, it makes you think there is a whole bunch about this world 

that maybe we don’t fully understand. 
26 

Senator INHOFE. And particularly those critters, because they 

teach them to clap, and they show and demonstrate affection. I 

mean, this is pretty amazing. 

I wonder if a good third option there would be really education 

so people know about this. If enough people do then they would 

make their own force. That is what happened down there in that 

particular isolated area. They became very sacred. But again you 

have the kids turning them upside down who don’t know any better. 

Mr. KURTH. And there are things that go along with communities 

caring. Just learning simple things about how to secure your garbage. Senator Sullivan has it with bears in Alaska. You secure your 

garbage; otherwise, you are going to have them around. And we 

don’t need more raccoons around turtle nesting beaches because 

they are pretty efficient nest predators, so we just need to do more 

so communities understand the resources they have on their beach. 

And that is one of the few things it is not hard to get people to 

care about, and they will work with us once they understand the 

simple things that they can do to make a difference. 

Senator INHOFE. And there are so few areas where they habitat. 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, anyway, thank you. 

Mr. KURTH. Well, I appreciate your interest, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Dr. Kurth, for your excellent 

testimony. 

I am going to ask the second panel to come to the dais. 

Mr. KURTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I am going to welcome Mr. Chris Pallister, 

who is the President and Co-Founder of Gulf of Alaska Keeper; Dr. 

Jenna Jambeck, who is Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Georgia; Mr. Nick Mallos, who is the 

Director of Trash Free Seas Program at the Ocean Conservancy; 

and Mr. Jonathan Stone, who is the Executive Director of Save the 

Bay. 

You will each have 5 minutes to deliver your oral statement, and 

a longer written statement, if you wish, will be included in the 

record of this hearing. 

Mr. Pallister, we will begin with you. You have 5 minutes to deliver your statement. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS PALLISTER, PRESIDENT 

AND CO-FOUNDER, GULF OF ALASKA KEEPER 

Mr. PALLISTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee, for inviting Gulf of Alaska Keeper to participate in this 

important discussion. 

GoAK members started large scale marine debris clean ups in 

2002. In 2006 we organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to tackle the 

marine debris problem in the Gulf of Alaska. Over 9 years Gulf of 

Alaska crews removed 1.5 million pounds of plastic debris from 

1,500 miles of relatively protected Gulf of Alaska shorelines. 

In the past 3 years GoAK’s efforts have focused on the more remote and rugged outer coasts where debris densities range between 

10 and 30 tons of plastic debris per mile. In 2015 GoAK and partners collected an additional 1 million pounds of plastic from ap-
27 

proximately 50 miles of that shoreline. Clean up costs on these remote beaches can surpass $100,000 per mile. Thousands of miles 

remain to be cleaned. 

GoAK’s marine debris work has received significant support from 

Federal and State agencies and the Government of Japan. There 

is no long-term dedicated funding. Consequently, clean up projects 

cannot be properly planned. GoAK is the most active Alaskan marine debris clean up organization and the only one whose primary 

focus is on marine debris remediation and removal. GoAK also conducted an extensive marine debris monitoring program, and with 

the College of William & Mary and the University of Alaska, researches the biological impacts on marine wildlife caused by noxious chemicals leaching from plastic marine debris. 

An astounding amount of marine debris covers the Alaska Coast. 

Countless shipwrecks, immense quantities of creosote treated piling and power poles, loads of treated lumber, massive metal fuel 

tanks and steel drums litter the shoreline. However, the most insidious debris is the vast quantity of plastic that blankets large 

swaths of the Gulf of Alaska coast. In a triage forced by limited resources GoAK focuses on plastic debris removal. 

Plastic marine debris has several main sources. Over 50 percent 

of the plastic debris by weight on Gulf of Alaska beaches is derelict 

fishing debris such as lines, nets, fish totes, plastic pallets, crates, 

baskets, pot gear, buoys, and among the deadliest of all, packing 

bands. Consumer products ranging from tiny plastic cosmetic beads 

to large appliances vastly outnumber all other plastic debris. 

Natural disasters such as floods, typhoons, and tsunamis inject 

millions of tons of plastic debris in the western Pacific, much of 

which ends up on Alaska’s shores. Polystyrene and polyurethane 

plastic foam are 30 to 40 percent of the debris by volume. 

Most foam debris is from structures destroyed by natural disasters, but a sizable component is from freezer holds of sunken fishing vessels, lost refrigerated shipping containers, cargo spills, aquaculture buoys, and deliberate dumping. Shipping container spills 

and shipwrecks add tons more hard plastic debris. 

Plastic marine pollution is one of the most significant environmental issues of our time. Wherever scientists search in the marine 

environment they find plastic debris or the chemical signature of 

plastic components. Plastic marine debris extends from the ocean 

floor to the surface. Every coastal shoreline has a fringe of plastic 

debris from sub-micron particles to giant blocks of polyurethane or 

styrene foam. 

Monstrous pools of plastic debris circle in giant mid-ocean gyres, 

spewing out shore bound debris when disturbed by storms. Nearly 

all marine organisms tested by scientists contain plastic particles 

or carry a biological load of harmful plastic chemicals. From the 

tiniest plankton to the greatest whales plastic marine debris is exacting a largely unrecognized but terrible environmental toll. 

As scientists increasingly link the ingestion of plastic chemicals 

with harmful health impacts, plastic debris potentially threatens 

the viability of commercial fisheries. Consumption of plastic tainted 

seafood and subsistence resources such as contaminated seabirds 

and their eggs threatens human health. Alaska’s fisheries, among 

the world’s most productive, will likely suffer devastating environ-
28 

mental and economic blows from plastic debris unless there is a 

change. 

While the entire marine environment suffers from this manmade 

catastrophe, the Gulf of Alaska’s rich coastal ecosystem has been 

hurt much more than most. China, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the five countries responsible for the greatest contribution to the marine debris problem. All these countries 

fringe the South China Sea or abut the Western Pacific and are the 

countries that buy most of our cheap plastic goods. 

Due to an unfortunate confluence of currents, storms and geography the Gulf of Alaska’s expansive coast receives a massive 

amount of discarded plastic debris from these countries. However, 

while these countries and natural disasters are responsible for approximately 90 percent of the consumer plastic debris by volume on 

Alaska’s beaches, remember that commercial fishing is responsible 

for at least 50 percent of the weight of plastic marine debris on our 

coast. 

There are no rational options other than to confront the marine 

debris problem; it is an international issue and in the case of Alaska a problem that originates in foreign countries or from offshore 

fisheries largely controlled by foreign or Lower 48 fishing companies. Clearly MARPOL Annex V, the international treaty that bans 

plastic dumping on the ocean, must be strengthened and its prohibitions strongly enforced. There is virtually no enforcement now. 

The preventable sources of marine debris such as poor onshore 

waste management, intentional dumping, harmful commercial fishing practices, and reckless commercial shipping can be addressed 

through education and the imposition of taxes and fines to internalize the cost of removing derelict fishing gear or lost shipping 

cargo. 

However, marine debris will always be a problem because of natural disasters, container spills, and shipwrecks. Sustained support 

for aggressive industrial scale debris removal is critical. All Federal 

and State land management agencies with coastal habitat must include funding for maintenance clean ups in their annual budgets. 

They must not have the discretion to ignore this issue. Plastic debris cannot continue to pile upon coastal habitat. It is not inert; it 

will pollute and harm sensitive habitat and wildlife for generations. 

The Federal Government must take the lead by facilitating an 

international response and providing significant funding to remove 

debris that has already landed on our shores. Conservatively it will 

take at least $100 million to clean the most heavily impacted Alaskan shorelines. We recommend that additional Federal money for 

marine debris removal be directly granted to State agencies such 

as Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallister follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Pallister. 

Dr. Jambeck, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF JENNA JAMBECK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 

Ms. JAMBECK. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member 

Whitehouse. It is truly my honor to be here and my privilege. 

What has become evident as I have conducted my research, 

sailed across the ocean sampling plastic, and visited beaches where 

plastic is washing up onshore with every wave is that our plastic 

trash is everywhere. We have heard already you find it in the deep 

sea and the floating polar ice, from the open ocean gyres to our favorite beaches. 

So why do we care about plastic in the ocean? Well, as we have 

heard already, a lot of implications for wildlife. It entangles whales 

and seals, it fills the stomachs of our turtles and our albatrosses, 

and infects even the tiniest animals in our food web. 

Plastics also do not biodegrade, so we have heard they fragment. 

This is what you find on the beach, and it starts to degrade into 

smaller and smaller particles. This is what washes up on the shore 

on the beaches and some of the microplastic, and then this is what 

we pull out of the open ocean. It is about the size of a tip of a pen. 

So in order to respond to the scale of this problem we need to 

understand how much is going into the ocean and our aquatic systems each year. One source from the land is mismanaged waste, 

and that is made up of litter and inadequately managed waste. A 

portion of this plastic waste is then blown or washed into our waterways. 

So once plastic enters our ocean, it is not visible; it is 70 percent 

of our planet so in some cases we don’t see it; it looks pristine, 

even. But to understand the potential risk to our oceans we need 

to understand exposure and impact. Our research informed the exposure side of this equation, so how much plastic is entering the 

ocean every year. But it also made us ask where is all the plastic 

going. 

So in our last year publication in Science we estimated that 8 

million metric tons of plastic entered the oceans in 2010. This is 

equal to a volume of five grocery size bags filled with plastic for 

every foot of coastline in the world. So if we see business as usual, 

so in a projection scenario where we see increasing plastic consumption and population growth, we see this doubling by 2025, to 

17 million metric tons and a cumulative input of 155 million metric 

tons. 

So getting the plastic out of the ocean once it is there has a lot 

of logistical and economic challenges, so knowing the quantities we 

are dealing with from waste and keeping it out in the first place 

is important. If you start to fill your bathtub, and you get distracted, and all of a sudden you run back into the bathroom and 

you see your tub overflowing onto the floor, what are you going to 

do? In some cases you might pick up something really quick if it 

is going to get wet, but in most cases you are going to turn off that 

faucet as soon as possible, and then you are going to address the 

clean up. 
35 

So there are roles for everyone to play in this and finding the 

most appropriate ways to tackle this problem. So when we see— 

we talked about this already, looked across our data—we saw a lot 

of middle income countries with really rapidly developing economies that haven’t been able to build their waste management infrastructure because of the waste per person waste generation that 

happens with economic growth. So that is lagging behind. 

But also in high income countries where we have robust waste 

management practices we still see inputs because of high coastal 

populations and large per person waste generation rates. 

So we know the solutions; we have talked about some. We must 

cut back on plastic waste generation and increase the amount we 

capture and manage properly. This sounds simple. We do know 

how to design and manage waste systems, but waste management 

is more than just a design challenge, and this is something I talk 

about. It also has social and cultural dimensions. 

So we need global participation from various stakeholders. I 

think there has been a lot of global diverse interest. Our discussion 

here today is very important and our work beyond into the future. 

I am optimistic that we can make headway on this problem. 

So increasing reuse and recycling rates of plastic is really important. This can grow with the right economic structure in place to 

motivate the collection of plastic waste and the reprocessing of it. 

Yesterday I attended the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sustainability Forum, and there is a lot of discussion on the concepts of 

circular economy and a lot of innovative things coming out of that 

meeting. 

I think we can also consider green engineering principles and 

how we use plastic and what we use it for. We might redesign some 

products; we might substitute some materials. I think technology 

is another potential help similar to the marine tracker mobile app 

that we developed at the University of Georgia with the NOAA marine debris program. And I think there are a lot of other innovations happening in this space. 

So one last thing I want you to remember today is that people 

are behind many of the numbers I gave you. There are people 

around the world picking up trash off the ground to get enough 

money to eat for that night. There are people around the world just 

learning about this issue for the first time. So I think helping every 

nation develop waste management infrastructure to address the 

issue is critical. It keeps plastic out of our oceans and also has 

large economic and public health benefits. 

So we hold the key to the solutions to this in the palm of our 

hands. By changing the way we think about waste, designing products for circular materials management, we can open up new jobs 

and opportunities for economic innovation. I think in addition we 

can improve the livelihoods of millions of people all around the 

world while protecting our waterways, our wildlife, and our ecosystems. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jambeck follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Dr. Jambeck. 

Mr. Mallos. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS MALLOS, DIRECTOR, TRASH FREE 

SEAS PROGRAM, OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Mr. MALLOS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Nick Mallos, and I serve as the Director 

of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program. I am honored to 

be here to speak to the Subcommittee about the growing problem 

of marine debris, and today I hope to convey, first, the magnitude 

of the problem, the need for more research, and the need for systemic solutions. 

Plastic debris exists in every region of the ocean. More than 8 

million metric tons of plastic now enter our ocean every year. And 

if current trends continue the ocean could contain as much as 1 ton 

of plastic for every 3 tons of fin fish by 2025. 

As a marine biologist I have been fortunate to see firsthand the 

harm caused by plastic debris. Plastic has impacted more than 690 

species of marine wildlife worldwide. For example, plastic bags 

block or rupture the stomachs of sea turtles like the Kemp’s ridley 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Plastics in the digestive systems of the Pacific oysters of the 

Northwest reduce reproductive ability by nearly 50 percent. And albatross chicks on Midway Atoll starve or choke on plastic bottle 

caps like the very ones you see here from Midway that their parents feed them after foraging from thousands of square miles of Pacific Ocean surface waters. 

For more than 30 years Ocean Conservancy has been at the forefront of the marine debris dialogue, working to tackle it from every 

angle. Beginning on the South Padre Island, Texas, beach in 1986, 

our International Coastal Cleanup has mobilized people all across 

America and more than 150 countries around the world around a 

single focus: keep trash off of our beaches, out of our waterways 

and the ocean. 

Since the Cleanup’s inception, more than 225 million items of 

trash, weighing more than 110,000 tons, have been removed from 

our beaches and waterways. Working with these volunteers we 

have been able to construct the Ocean Trash Index, and item-byitem, location-by-location data base highlighting the most persistent forms of marine debris. It is the largest data base of its 

kind. 

Consistently, plastic items are the most common debris found, 

making up 84 percent of all debris items collected during the clean 

up. Plastics also pose the greatest threat to our ocean and our people. However, clean ups alone are not enough. We also need to stop 

trash from getting to the beach in the first place. 

Given that in 2011 Ocean Conservancy founded the Trash Free 

Seas Alliance with partners like Dow, Procter & Gamble, and the 

World Wildlife Fund to unite thought leaders from industry, conservation, and academia to create pragmatic real world solutions to 

the issue of plastic debris. The Alliance is focused on a significant 

role that a lack of waste management in developing economies 

plays in plastic waste leaking into the ocean. Our 2015 report, 

Stemming the Tide, found that active efforts to improve waste 
51 

management in just five southeast economies could reduce the 

amount of plastic entering our ocean globally by nearly 50 percent. 

Stemming the Tide also stresses that efforts to minimize the 

amount of waste we are generating in the first place must begin 

now to fully address the threat of plastic debris. To its credit Congress has long recognized this threat to our oceans by creating the 

Marine Debris Program at NOAA, funding clean activities all 

around the United States, and recently passing legislation banning 

plastic microbeads. 

But I am here to tell you more action is needed to build better 

data driven policy solutions to stop plastic from entering the ocean 

in the first place. This need is well articulated in a letter to the 

Trash Free Seas Alliance from leading marine scientists around the 

world. A copy of that letter is included in my written statement for 

reference. 

Put simply scientists and policymakers need to know more about 

where plastic debris originates, where it goes once in the ocean, 

what happens to it when it is there, and what impact it is having 

on the ecosystem. Better understanding in these four key areas will 

help us refine and design the most effective solutions. For this purpose we encourage Congress to fund more research. 

However, we already know enough to act now. We need to work 

globally to support programs that improve waste management and 

that minimize the amount of waste being generated to keep all 

types of marine debris from entering the environment in the first 

place. 

Finally I would like to share with the Subcommittee these letters 

from more than 10,000 concerned citizens throughout the country 

in support of immediate action to address the growing threat of 

marine debris to ocean health. I respectfully request they be included in the hearing record. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

Mr. MALLOS. Again, I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify on this important issue, and I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallos and the referenced information follow:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. That was great testimony. 

Mr. Stone, you have 5 minutes for your oral testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN STONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SAVE THE BAY 

Mr. STONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Whitehouse 

and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to be here 

today on this important topic. I am going to share with you a 

slightly different perspective on the marine debris problem. 

Our organization, Save the Bay, was founded in 1970 and is the 

largest environmental group in Rhode Island, which, again, we are 

a small State, so that may not be saying too much. But we are a 

major force in the environmental community in southern New England. Our mission is to protect and improve Narragansett Bay. 

Much like the estuaries up and down the eastern seaboard, Narragansett Bay is one of the largest estuaries in New England and 

has been designated by the Federal Government as an estuary of 

national significance. Again, like other estuaries along the East 

Coast, the Bay is an important recreational and commercial resource for literally millions of people. It is also an important natural resource and habitat for commercial and recreational fisheries, 

hundreds of species of birds, marine mammals, shellfish, and other 

marine animals. 

Probably most relevant to this conversation more than 2 million 

people live in the 1,600-square-mile Narragansett Bay watershed. 

More than 90 percent of Rhode Island’s population lives within a 

10-minute drive of the coast. 

Marine debris is a significant pollution problem in Narragansett 

Bay and along Rhode Island’s south coast, and as Nick spoke of a 

few minutes ago Save the Bay participates each year in the Ocean 

Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup. We organize clean 

ups led by volunteers across the State in southern New England 

each and every year. 

Last year, on a single weekend, almost 2,200 volunteers collected 

nearly 10 tons of trash along 65 miles of coastline, and I can tell 

you that virtually none of that came from the Pacific Ocean. That 

is a local, local problem. So the point I would like to emphasize for 

this Committee today is that this is not just an international problem; it is a local problem. 

The next chart, the pie chart, highlights the many types of trash 

and debris we remove each year, everything from derelict fishing 

gear and tires to tens of thousands of plastic cigarette butts. I remember back in the day cigarette butts weren’t plastic; they biodegraded. Now they are plastic; they do not biodegrade. We collect 

beverage containers, food wrappers, and on and on and on. 

Most insidious and disturbing is the rapid accumulation of thousands upon thousands of fragments of plastic waste as it breaks 

down over time into smaller particles. These are virtually impossible to clean up and accumulate year after year. I have a very 

short video here to illustrate the point. Hopefully it will play here. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. STONE. Marine debris is a human health and safety hazard. 

It also degrades Rhode Island’s iconic beaches and coastline, which 

attract millions of visitors each year and drive economic activity in 
420 

our State. It harms animal species that inhabit the Bay. It has 

been observed, for example, that nesting osprey chicks suffer when 

they get tangled in fishing line that the osprey parents have used 

to construct the nest. Small bits of plastic, as you have heard from 

other panelists today, are ingested by fish and birds, and important 

coastal habitats are damaged by plastic debris. 

Most disturbing of all, marine debris is a chronic problem. It is 

not a problem without solution. There are solutions. In Rhode Island specifically we know that marine debris is caused by two 

things—illegal dumping and littering and polluted stormwater runoff. The solution to the stormwater problem is to capture runoff in 

order to filter and clean it before it reaches the waterways, the Bay 

and the coast. This requires investments in ongoing maintenance 

in stormwater infrastructure. 

The Federal Government plays an important role through the 

Department of Transportation the U.S. EPA to encourage States to 

develop stormwater management programs and to assist States in 

the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. 

Our experience in Rhode Island is that stormwater improvements have additional benefits that go far beyond marine debris including reducing beach closures due to bacterial contamination, 

protecting drinking water supplies, reducing localized flooding, 

making neighborhoods more pleasant and livable. 

Thank you very much for your attention to this important topic. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stone follows:] 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Stone. 

I want to thank all of you for your outstanding testimony and 

what you do beyond the testimony here. You are all leading organizations or in research to help address this problem, and very much 

appreciate that. 

I want to ask a few follow up questions. 

First, Mr. Pallister, I appreciated your testimony where you said, 

look, it is a big issue, but sometimes you need to prioritize, and you 

came down squarely in terms of the prioritization with regard to 

plastics, is that right? 

Mr. PALLISTER. Yes, correct. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And let me just ask the other panelists, would 

all of you agree with Mr. Pallister? If we were going to be really 

trying to focus on this prioritize our efforts would that be the proper area to focus on? Is everybody in general agreement on that, 

plastics? 

Mr. MALLOS. Yes. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I feel like I am in the movie The Graduate, 

right? 

Mr. MALLOS. Yes. I would say I completely concur that plastics 

are the priority focus. But I think when we think about solutions 

particularly as it pertains to many of the developing economies, as 

spotlighted by Dr. Jenna Jambeck’s and others’ work, simply addressing plastics in the waste stream is not a viable option. You 

actually have to address the entire waste stream to ensure you are 

mitigating the threat of plastics. 

So completely agree plastics is the most concerning part of the 

marine debris issue but solutions may look at managing the entire 

waste stream. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Look, Mr. Mallos, I thought you made a really 

good point about when we do clean up we are treating the disease, 

but we are not really preventing it, and we need to look at how to 

prevent it. So let me get back to the issue of the international element to this. 

Dr. Jambeck, you focused on that, and Mr. Pallister, I think you 

also talked about 90 percent, which was pretty stunning. Does the 

majority of this plastics debris from these five countries come from 

the shore? We have had a treaty, the MARPOL Treaty, which I am 

sure you are familiar with, but that focus is on dumping from 

ships. Does this debris that we are talking about, particularly from 

the five developing countries, come from the shore? And you have 

touched on it, Dr. Jambeck, you touched on it in your testimony; 

why is this such a problem? 

Ms. JAMBECK. So just going into a little bit more detail of the research, what we did is look at a 50-kilometer buffer in 192 countries around the world. It is the coastline, and population density 

is a large driver as well as the quantity of waste that each person 

in that area creates. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So it is pollution that is coming from shores, 

not ships. 

Ms. JAMBECK. Correct. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And why do you think those five countries? 

Senator Whitehouse, he emphasized it. What is going on there that 

is not going on in other countries? 
426 

Ms. JAMBECK. So these are middle income countries who have 

started to have rapidly developing economies, which means that 

there is a lot of influx of, I would say, consumer goods and a lot 

of packaging. So as people are able to afford those kinds of goods, 

unfortunately the waste management infrastructure in those countries to handle the waste is absolutely—science shows that there is 

a coupling between economic growth and waste generation. So the 

infrastructure isn’t there to handle it. 

Also the increase in plastic in the waste stream has happened 

very quickly. The production of plastic around the world went all 

the way up to 311 metric tons. So it is also an awareness, and I 

think someone touched on this. People don’t know the implications 

of plastic in the environment. Things weren’t made of plastic before, so they are having to have a mind shift of both infrastructure 

and then having this new waste stream that they need to address. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And in your research have you gone to a number of these countries? 

Ms. JAMBECK. I have been to India, which is one that has a pretty extreme case as well. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And do you think that most of them would 

recognize that they have a problem, or would they be kind of like, 

hey, we don’t really have a problem here? 

Ms. JAMBECK. No, I think they do know. And there are a lot of 

grassroots efforts within these countries, and I think working with 

folks in the countries in a context sensitive design is important 

when addressing the issue. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So we have one international convention, the 

MARPOL Convention, as I mentioned, that addresses this from 

ships. Do you think that we need to do something else from an 

international perspective that addresses this issue, particularly 

plastics from shore? 

Ms. JAMBECK. I think that there is a lot of great discussion happening at the United Nations level. I think the U.S. should be a 

leader and helping in those discussions. And I know that there is 

a meeting happening later this month, and I am hopeful that there 

will be some resolutions. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask one final question. 

Mr. Mallos, you talked about the Trash Free Seas Alliance. I 

think that is a really interesting group that brought together the 

scientific community, environmentalists, industry. Can you explain 

a little bit more on what was the origins of that; how it has 

worked? Because to me the way we need to address this—certainly 

we need to get our international partners engaged, but all different 

stakeholders engaged as well, and you seem to have done that already through this Alliance. 

Mr. MALLOS. So the Trash Free Seas Alliance was founded in 

2011, and it is really built on the existing successful models seen 

in the sustainable seafood movement, alliances that were out there 

in the tropic forest alliances and others. The mandate of the Alliance is really to bring together all of the diverse stakeholders that 

need to be a part of the discussion. 

This is a massive problem, and there is no silver bullet. So we 

are going to need a holistic solution that includes minimizing the 

amount of waste we are generating, better managing the amount 
427 

of waste that is currently in the system, and mitigating the waste 

that is already out there through clean ups and other mechanisms. 

So bringing together the members of industry who are either 

manufacturing plastics or making goods out of the plastics, bringing together the thought leaders in academia like Dr. Jenna 

Jambeck and others who are providing us novel, groundbreaking 

science on this, and then bringing together the NGOs and conservation organizations that are trying to drive forward policy solutions together build and provide us the necessary arsenal of weapons to actually tackle this issue at all angles. 

As I noted currently we are providing—working to try and jump 

start waste management in these developing economies, and I 

think it is really important to underscore that this is not currently 

a China problem or a Philippines issue, but this is rather an unintended consequence of rapid development. So thinking about how 

we work in these countries with the folks on the ground that are 

already leading this issue and already recognize that waste management is a challenge, coming at it from that angle and bringing 

together the global resources like the members of the Trash Free 

Seas Alliance possess is a winning recipe. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you to a terrific panel. 

Let me start with Mr. Pallister. You used a phrase in your testimony, the ‘‘chemical signature of plastic components.’’ Could you 

elaborate on that phrase? 

Mr. PALLISTER. Yes. It has always been my fear that the chemicals in plastic are much more dangerous than the physical things 

they cause, like ingestion, entanglement and everything. It reminds 

me of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and all the chemicals were 

killing the birds in mass quantities compared to them getting killed 

by power lines and things like that. 

But now scientists are looking and they are finding chemicals 

from plastic, all inherent chemicals, the metabolites that break 

down from the chemicals, in all kinds of marine organisms. I think 

Dr. Jambeck would attest to that, too. And a lot of those chemicals 

are very, very toxic; they have very significant impacts on human 

health, and one of the primary researchers on a paper that was 

just published on thiolate is in the room here and she would know 

more about this than I, if you want to talk to her later. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you start with a piece of plastic that is 

floating in the ocean; it degrades and degrades into tiny little bits. 

Ultimately, those tiny little bits get taken up by some tiny little 

creature, and in that creature it can deteriorate further or be absorbed in a way that lets the chemicals loose from the plastic, and 

at that point, as creatures feed on it, it begins to bioaccumulate up 

the food chain, is that right? 

Mr. PALLISTER. That is exactly right. And the chemicals like 

pthalates that are put in the plastic to make it softer aren’t very 

strongly bonded to the plastic, and they leech out very easily. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So this could come home to roost in Alaskan salmon or other fish? 
428 

Mr. PALLISTER. Oh, absolutely. The one slide we had there, the 

researchers are finding pthalates in practically every marine organism they look at up there, and nobody is really putting a lot of 

time and money into that, and to me I think it is a tremendous 

threat not just environmentally but also to human health and the 

commercial health of our fisheries up there. It would be just devastating if the loads of pthalates get so high that we can’t eat the 

fish. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Jambeck, the plastics that you have 

studied, how long do the various major types of plastic last? What 

is their curve as they biodegrade? 

Ms. JAMBECK. So they fragment over time, and we don’t really 

know. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How much time? Are we talking centuries? 

Ms. JAMBECK. You know what? We were in our scientific working 

group starting to address sort of the mechanisms and the speed of 

fragmentation, and we are not there yet; we don’t really know. We 

know that it goes in, like I said, like this, and then on the beach 

it is washing up here. But it is a very long period of time, we suspect, but at the same time we already are seeing these fragments 

and a lot of this plastic has gone in in the last 50 years. So we really need to know more about that, and we really need to do more 

research. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Mallos, what do you think about the 

notion of biodegradable plastics? Is that just a way of accelerating 

this bad process, or is there some better way to deal with that 

issue? 

Mr. MALLOS. So biodegradable plastics are designed to break 

down biologically in very specific industrial settings. Standards 

exist that test and guarantee that those plastics will in fact perform that way when applied with X temperature. The challenge is 

those conditions exist very few places in the natural environment. 

And particularly when we look at the ocean environment, which 

has cooler temperatures, wind and radiation, UV radiation, et 

cetera, we know that biodegradable plastics perform just like traditional plastics, fragment at a rapid rate. So certainly there is need 

for more research to look at material and product innovation and 

design, but at the moment biodegradable plastics are not a solution 

to the ocean plastic problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And Mr. Stone, in terms of the array of 

stuff that Save the Bay sees coming ashore in Rhode Island, which 

in our case has probably not been coming from those Pacific countries, it would have to travel a very long way to get there; a lot 

of it appears to be packaging. Are there efforts that can be undertaken or should be undertaken to brand some form of ocean safe 

packaging, so that a consumer can have a sense that this product 

will in fact biodegrade in a proper way and try to move the consumer toward seeking a better product in the same way that people 

go out of their way to buy dolphin safe tuna if they are given the 

choice? 

Mr. STONE. It is a good question. I think the rule of prevention 

is the path that probably is going to give you the most effective 

method of reducing pollution at the source. So I think what you 
429 

have raised gets to this biodegradable question about how can 

packaging companies innovate in ways that produce materials that 

do degrade and are more environmentally friendly, and I think to 

the extent that the products actually perform as promised that is 

probably a step in the right direction. 

But I think there are other things that are as important. Recycling ends up being extremely important, getting people to reuse 

recycle to prevent these packaging products from entering the environment and to be contained within the normal waste stream is the 

first step. That way you don’t have the products washing into the 

environment off the streets and off the urban landscape. And in the 

Far East the runoff issue is the primary source. It is mostly this 

heavily developed landscape that is sort of where these plastic 

products come from when they end up in the sea. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time is up, but I really want to thank 

Chairman Sullivan for hosting this. I think this has been a very 

productive, well attended, and bipartisan hearing. I think that the 

witnesses have been terrific. 

I would like to make it a matter of public record that Dr. Kurth 

is still here. He stayed to listen to the witness testimony. I don’t 

know that I have ever actually seen that before. Usually, Administration witnesses scoot for the door the instant that they can. So 

I think it is significant that he stayed to listen through all of this, 

and I appreciate him doing that. And I hope that being called out 

that way is not inappropriate, but I was impressed. 

My final comment will be that I, in my opening remarks, mentioned the Trans-Pacific Trade partnership. For those of us who are 

very skeptical about the extent to which it bakes in false advantages for products that are made in those countries, the false advantage of not having an effective water management system in 

your country so that you dump millions of tons of plastic into the 

world’s oceans, and that makes your products cheaper compared to 

a competing American product that not only has to support its own 

cost, but the infrastructure cost of a working waste management 

system, is exactly the kind of advantage that, first of all, makes me 

nuts about that agreement. 

But it gives us a real, I think, opportunity to focus on that is no 

fair basis on which to make a trade distinction. The more we can 

drive these countries to clean up their act, I think, as Dr. Jambeck 

said, you surge up into a level of economic development where you 

are starting to use plastic for the first time, and it becomes ubiquitous, but you have a concomitant responsibility to bring your 

waste management infrastructure up to snuff as well. And if we 

are not going to urge them to do that through our trade policies, 

then shame on us. 

But again, Chairman Sullivan, thank you for letting me go over 

here a minute, and thank you for this hearing. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No problem, Senator Whitehouse. Matter of 

fact, as Chairman of this Committee, I am going to take the prerogative to ask just a few more follow up questions, and if you have 

any more, feel free to ask. 

I just want to, first, thank the Committee again. This has been 

a really good panel. 
430 

Mr. Pallister, given that you have traveled quite a distance here, 

from Alaska, to come testify, I wanted to ask another question to 

you, a little more Alaska specific. Can you describe some of the 

challenges on the clean up of marine debris that we face in parts 

of the country, Alaska, but there are other parts that have very, 

very remote areas, very remote areas of our coastlines? 

Mr. PALLISTER. It is extremely difficult in Alaska because we 

have virtually no shoreline that has vehicle access to it, so you get 

there by boat or you get there by air, and right now we are working 

on Montague Island, which is a notoriously horribly polluted area. 

We have 10 people out there working. We have to move them with 

helicopters. So you can imagine the cost. And this is a shoreline 

where 30 tons of plastic debris per mile exists. It is extremely rugged; the weather is horrible. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Did I hear that right? Say that again. 

Mr. PALLISTER. Thirty tons of plastic debris per mile. Montague 

has 74 miles of shoreline just like that, and we have been working 

on it for three summers now, and we have only cleaned 9 miles of 

it, and it is costing a tremendous amount of money. And we are 

a nonprofit. We are not in it for the money; it is by the seat of our 

pants. It is a dangerous place to work, it is incredibly challenging, 

and there are thousands of miles like that along Alaska coasts, and 

it is extremely rich. 

But I wanted to go to back to the Trans-Pacific Trade Treaty you 

are working on now. There is an opportunity here because shipping 

is protected under an international treaty, but here is an opportunity. There are a lot of shipping companies that lose containers, 

and nobody ever goes after them for the damage they cause onshore. 

In 2012, January 2012, the China Ocean Shipping Company’s big 

transport ship, the Yokohama, lost 29 containers in the northern 

Gulf of Alaska. The debris from those containers has now spread 

over thousands of miles of shoreline. So this is kind of official notice to the Federal Government now, you have a statute of limitations of 2 years for the landowners, which would be the Forest 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the rest of them, to 

go after the China Ocean Shipping Company for damages to clean 

all that up. You are talking tens of millions of dollars of potential 

resource for clean up work. 

Also, that big ship, I think it was a ship that went down in the 

Bermuda Triangle last year and killed a bunch of sailors, but it 

also lost 200 and some containers. Nobody is talking about getting 

recovery for the plastics that are going to be coming out of those 

containers for generations, and it is something that ought to be explored. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mallos, one other. I am very interested in some of the alliances that you have worked on. In 2011 the global plastics industry 

led an international effort that resulted in the Global Declaration 

for Solutions on Marine Litter. Can you talk a little bit about that, 

what motivated the stakeholders to do that and what has been accomplished since its adoption? 

Mr. MALLOS. So the Declaration on Marine Litter was announced 

at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference in Honolulu, 
431 

and I think what the Declaration underscores is the recognition 

and acknowledgment by the global plastics industry that they have 

a role and responsibility in crafting solutions. We believe very 

strongly that the plastics industry and the consumer goods industry have a role to play in not only helping to develop solutions but 

also looking at ways to finance and provide resources to implement 

solutions. 

That is precisely what we created the Trash Free Seas Alliance 

platform to do. And it is worth noting several of the signatories to 

the Declaration are in fact members of the Trash Free Seas Alliance and are quite active in helping us look at how we not only 

craft solutions but implement them looking at the political boundaries, looking at the management systems currently in place. So 

there is the recognition by the industry, and there has been active 

engagement and solutions put forth by them to tackle this problem. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, listen, I want to thank the panelists 

again. This is one of these issues, in my view, that not enough 

Members of Congress, not enough Americans are aware of, and it 

is certainly something that we should all be concerned about. And 

I do think that what you have done, and it is a very important 

service, is not only describe some of the challenges, but put forward 

ideas for solutions both at the clean up stage but also at the origins 

of this problem. 

So I can tell you Senator Whitehouse and I are already talking 

about maybe looking at some ideas to address this, so I think you 

have furthered a bipartisan consensus on the need to take action 

here. So we will stay tuned. But thanks again for all your hard 

work. Thanks for your excellent testimony. 

I will let Senator Whitehouse close here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just before we sign off, I would like to 

offer each of these four witnesses the same opportunity offered Dr. 

Kurth, who is still here, which is to give us a highlight reel of up 

to, say, five recommendations that you would make to Senator Sullivan and myself by way of things that you think we could do to 

be helpful, and that will give us a good array of ideas to consider. 

I thank all the witnesses. I thank the Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ