Proceedings of the

Workshop on 

At-sea Detection 

and Removal of 

Derelict Fishing 

Gear

Honolulu, HI

December 9-10, 2008

NOAA PIRO Observer Program

Kris McElwee and Carey Morishige (eds.)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-34

January 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Response and Restoration

Marine Debris Division
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

their use by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON AT-SEA DETECTION 

AND REMOVAL OF DERELICT FISHING GEAR

December 9-10, 2008

Honolulu, HI, USA

Kris McElwee and Carey Morishige (eds.)

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 Office of Response & Restoration

 NOAA Marine Debris Division

 Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA

 I.M. Systems Group, Inc.

 Rockville, MD 20852, USA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-34

January 2010

1, 2

This document should be cited as follows: 

McElwee, K. and C. Morishige (eds.). 2010. Proceedings of the Workshop on At-sea Detection and 

Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear. December 9-10, 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOSOR&R-34.

For copies of this document, please contact:

NOAA Marine Debris Division

N/ORR, SSMC-4

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

www.MarineDebris.noaa.gov

1, 2

1

2
  

       

   

       

   

                   

       

       

       

           

             

         

             

             

Contents

Background.....................................................................................1
 

Workshop Structure ......................................................................4
 

Strategy ...........................................................................................7
 

Next Steps .......................................................................................11
 

References.......................................................................................11
 

Appendices
 

Appendix I: Table of Contents of Background Papers ....12
 

Appendix II: Agenda...........................................................15
 

Appendix III: Participants..................................................16
 

Appendix IV: Presentations ...............................................18
 

Appendix V: Discussion Notes ..........................................62
 

Appendix VI: Gap Summary Table....................................65
 

Appendix VII: Strategy Storyboards .................................69
 

Appendix VIII: Strategic Action Outline ..........................82
 

Appendix IX: Strategic Action Details ..............................84
 
                       

                     

                             

                                   

                           

                       

                       

                     

             

                        

               

                               

                         

                             

                           

                           

                       

                         

                             

                         

            

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

Background

Derelict fishing gear (DFG) is a threat to marine ecosystems, posing entanglement

hazards for marine life, smothering the living substrate upon which it settles, and in at

least one case to date serving as a vector for the introduction of alien species (Zabin et al.,

2003). Across the Pacific, DFG is now recognized as a major environmental threat to

coastal and nearshore areas. A regional “hotspot” for DFG is the Hawaiian Archipelago,

particularly the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, due to their proximity to the North

Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone, an area where ocean currents accumulate DFG

from the North Pacific Ocean (Figure 1).

Figure 1.	 Location of the Hawaiian Archipelago relative to the main Pacific Ocean

currents and the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone.

In response to the threat posed by DFG, NOAA and USCG have conducted an 11‐year DFG

removal effort in the waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, collecting 635 metric

tons to date. These efforts were scaled back in 2006 and 2007 to target the approximately

18 metric tons of DFG then estimated to accumulate annually (Figure 2). However, this

deposition rate has recently been revised, indicating that more than 50 metric tons of

DFG is becoming entangled in the natural resources of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine

National Monument each year (Dameron et al., 2007). This revised deposition rate, the

sensitive species at risk from DFG, and the high cost of removing DFG from aquatic

environments warrants the exploration of removal efforts targeting DFG at sea, prior to

its contact with these sensitive habitats.

1
       

                      

               

                           

                                 

                     

                       

                         

  

                     

                       

                         

                           

                                 

                           

       

             

             

                     

                         

   

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Total Weights of Marine Debris Removed from the NWHI, 1996-2008 

NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Coral Reef Ecosystem Division 

5 8 28 25 

68 

107 118 126 

57 

21 

65 

32 

5 13 

41 

66 

134 

241 

359 

485 

542 

563 

628 

660 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

1996/97 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Years 

Weight (standard tons) 

Annual (tons) 

Cumulative (tons) 

Figure 2.	 Annual and cumulative weight of marine debris removed from the

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 1996‐2008 (through Sept. 29, 2008).

Two potential uses of an at‐sea detection capability are: 1) seeking solutions to locating

debris for removal, and; 2) conducting a census of marine debris to assess the scale of the

problem and determine the fraction of DFG that enters shallow‐water sensitive

environments. The appropriate management action is likely to be different if very little

(e.g., <1%) or a large amount (>20%) of the DFG at sea enters shallow‐water environments

annually.

Recent research suggests that DFG concentrations can be modeled, which would

substantially reduce the search area and improve efficiency of detection (Kubota, 1994;

Pichel et al., 2003). Manned flights over the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone

in 2005 confirmed these model predictions, identifying 122 pieces of DFG (Pichel et al.,

2007). The potential exists for large amounts of DFG to be located and removed at sea. A

2008 pilot project to conduct such an effort revealed the following areas in which

additional work was needed:

 Enhanced coordination and mutual understanding among scientists and

technology experts regarding project planning, goals, and implementation

 Enhanced understanding of at‐sea debris movement rates relative to the rate of

movement of the Transition Zone Chlorophyll Front and its proxy, the 18°C sea

surface isotherm

2
                       

                           

           

               

               

                     

                       

      

                     

                 

                      

                       

                   

                       

        

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

 Capability to launch, fly, and recover an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in up to

25‐knot winds and associated sea states
 

 The development of a UAS with autonomous flight capabilities
 

 Selection of an ideal sensor type and quality
 

 Testing of anomaly detection software on DFG in various sea states
 

If feasible, a preemptive at‐sea detection and removal strategy would achieve several

major successes concurrently:

 Proactive prevention of DFG‐induced damage to the species and habitats of

Hawaii and other affected areas on the Pacific Rim
 

 Immediate reduction of the DFG threat to pelagic species and habitats
 

 Reduction of the DFG threat to coastal and insular species and habitats
 

throughout the affected areas on the Pacific Rim and Hawaii

 More effective allocation of marine debris funding by addressing the DFG problem

closer to the source

3
       

  

                           

                     

                         

                 

  

   

                   

                       

                           

                  

                   

                       

                     

             

                         

                             

                           

               

                             

                       

                           

                   

                 

                         

                         

                         

              

                           

         

                         

                       

     

                         

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Workshop Structure

A summit of NOAA, other federal agency, and private sector experts in marine debris,

oceanography, biology, and remote sensing technology was held to identify existing

knowledge, gaps in understanding, and actions that can be taken to allow progress

toward at‐sea detection and removal of derelict fishing gear.

Workshop objectives:

	 Development of an action strategy through government and private sector

expertise to research, develop, and test technologies and protocols to assess the

amount of DFG in the North Pacific and ultimately detect and remove DFG from

the pelagic environment before it reaches sensitive nearshore environments.

	 Identification and synthesis of existing information on the behavior and

movement of marine debris in the North Pacific; appropriate sensor, UAS, and

anomaly detection technologies; and activities that have been undertaken to date

to detect and track derelict fishing gear.

Given the wide variety in expertise and experience of workshop participants and the

limited time available for the meeting, it was determined that a method to share the

essentials of the state of our knowledge was necessary. To accomplish this preparation, 17

informal background papers were prepared by workshop participants with information

on their area of expertise pertaining to the at‐sea detection and removal of marine debris.

Papers were solicited in three broad subject‐matter areas: 1) marine debris, 2)

oceanography, and 3) technology (see Appendix I, table of contents from the collection of

background papers). Each paper was written following the template below:

Introduction – Brief description and history of the topic, including terminology

used. What is the importance of this topic in addressing marine debris issues?

What’s Known?– What are we certain about? What information and data do we

have?

What’s Very Likely? – What are we fairly certain about? What information and

data will help us be more certain?

What’s Not Certain? – What are we unsure about? What don’t we know? What

information and data are missing?

What is Needed? – What early actions (1–2 years) are needed? What mid‐term

actions (2–5 years) are needed? What longer‐term actions (>5 years) are needed?

Figures and Tables
 

References
 

The collection of background papers was distributed to participants one week before the

meeting.

4
                       

                       

                         

                           

                       

                       

                           

               

     

       

       

     

                       

                       

             

                           

                           

                         

                     

                           

                           

                         

                           

                         

                       

                           

                         

                       

                                 

            

                           

                         

                               

                         

                       

                             

                         

                           

                             

           

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

The two‐day workshop was held December 9–10, 2008 in Honolulu, Hawaii, at the

Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort and Spa (see Appendix II, agenda, and Appendix III,

participants). The first day was spent reviewing the state of knowledge in the three

subject‐matter areas of 1) marine debris, 2) oceanography, and 3) technology. Brief

presentations on various aspects of each subject‐matter area pertaining to the at‐sea

detection and removal of derelict fishing gear were given by experts in the field

(Appendix IV). Each presentation discussed the four questions:

1. What is known?

2. What is very likely?

3. What is not certain?

4. What is needed?

Additional information on the state of knowledge based on the experiences of the

participants was also shared and discussed during presentations. A bulleted summary of

the discussions is presented in Appendix V.

The afternoon of the first day was spent identifying and discussing gaps in knowledge

that limit our capability to detect marine debris at sea. A gap‐mapping activity was

conducted in four breakout groups comprising a mix of individuals from the three

subject‐matter areas. A summary table of all gaps identified within the background

papers was used as a resource during this activity (Appendix VI). Within each group,

participants took numbered gap cards (one gap per index card) and grouped them by

commonality. Once done, each group of similar or related gaps (“gap theme”) was

reviewed, discussed, and rearranged as needed by all members of the breakout group. The

overall objective of this activity was to familiarize all workshop participants with the

identified gaps in knowledge and then to define linkages between those gaps.

The second day of the workshop was spent working in the previous day’s integrated

breakout groups and in subject‐matter expert groups to begin to build out the

connections between gaps and identify the various items (activities, pieces of knowledge,

etc.) needed to address those gaps and to take us one step closer to the at‐sea detection

and removal of derelict fishing gear.

To do this, the day began with a storyboard‐creating activity. Members worked in their

original breakout groups to review the results of the previous day’s gap‐mapping activity.

Groups were asked to develop a primary question that needed to be answered in order to

detect derelict fishing gear at sea. Once that question (or questions) was identified,

groups then began identifying sub‐questions and “gap themes” related to these questions.

They also worked to define linkages between gap themes as well as additional gaps that

weren’t identified in the background papers. In a step‐wise or storyboard fashion, groups

then worked to identify strategic actions needed to address particular gaps or gap themes.

At the end of the activity each group had created several strategic storyboards to help

answer their main question(s) (Appendix VII).

5
       

                           

                     

       

                             

                           

                             

                         

                         

                         

                             

                         

  

       

                             

  

                

                  

                        

                      

                  

                           

            

                             

                   

                     

               

NOAA Marine Debris Program

During a break, all participants had an opportunity to browse and review the other

groups’ strategic storyboards. This was followed by presentations explaining each group’s

storyboards and thought process.

The afternoon of the second day was used to build upon the storyboard activity by

beginning to flesh out those strategic actions that would help improve our capability to

detect and remove marine debris at sea. Participants were grouped, this time, by area of

expertise: 1) marine debris, 2) oceanography, and 3) technology. The actions outlined on

each storyboard were distributed by subject matter to the appropriate group. Based on

what they had seen and learned throughout the workshop thus far, participants worked

together to capture some details on the strategic actions and activities in their area of

expertise. For each strategic action, a template was filled out with the following

information:

 Action needed (short title)

 What gap does this action address, and how? How does this gap relate to marine

debris?

 What are steps to carrying out this action?

 What organizations and individuals need to be involved, and how?

 Who has the technology, expertise, resources, and materials to carry this out?

 What are the impediments to overcome to carry out this action?

 Are there other (non‐marine debris) benefits to this action?

The strategic actions are grouped by theme in Appendix VIII, and the strategic action

templates are summarized in Appendix IX.

The workshop ended with a discussion of some of the immediate actions needed to begin

effectively addressing the at‐sea detection and removal of marine debris. Additionally,

participants engaged in a discussion on continued future collaborations and the

immediate next steps moving forward from this workshop.

6
                       

                           

                         

                     

                         

                         

                               

                             

                   

                   

                         

      

                       

         

                       

                   

                             

                 

                           

                       

                       

                         

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

Strategy

In an attempt to distill the common elements of the strategies developed by each

breakout group, we have created an overall strategy. The storyboards that each breakout

group developed (Appendix VII) were combined into this overall strategy, focused

specifically on detecting derelict fishing gear at sea (Fig. 3). Other related objectives,

while important to the overall goal of understanding and decreasing marine debris, were

not included in this strategy. The goal of the overall strategy is to develop the capability

for detection of derelict fishing gear at sea. Needed actions fall under four main areas

(sub‐strategies): characteristics and behavior of derelict fishing gear, characteristics of the

operational environment, modeling of derelict fishing gear location, and direct detection

of derelict fishing gear. Some of the actions are sequential; others can proceed

simultaneously or independently.

Figure 3. Combined strategy map on the detection of derelict fishing gear.

Characteristics and Behavior of DFG

The goal of this sub‐strategy is to provide information needed to develop functional

sensors and predictive models. Compiling existing information and addressing critical

gaps in understanding of the characteristics of DFG, as well as those of the operational

environment (see next section), are the basis for developing appropriate sensor‐platform

systems and predictive models. The remote sensing experts stressed that the first step in

building a requirements document is understanding the nature of the “target.” The

oceanographers also need to understand the characteristics of the item being modeled,

because various objects are acted upon differently by wind and currents depending on

7
       

                         

                     

                       

                               

                     

                           

                    

                             

                             

                         

                       

                           

                

                       

                         

                             

             

                           

                           

                             

                                 

                         

      

                       

                     

                         

                               

   

   

                         

                         

                         

                     

                             

                         

                         

                           

                       

NOAA Marine Debris Program

their size, vertical profile, and buoyancy. The type of material, size, concentration of

encrusting organisms, and other factors determine the optical properties, buoyancy, and

movement patterns of DFG. An understanding of the optical properties and movement

patterns of DFG is needed in order to assess the utility of various sensors and develop

accurate models, respectively. Because most observations of derelict fishing gear have

been anecdotal, and data have not been gathered on nets’ size, composition, and changes

over time, several actions were suggested to fill this gap.

One proposed step was collecting a variety of DFG samples from the open ocean for

testing with sensors. While DFG is collected off reefs in the NWHI every year, those

samples may be significantly altered by wave action during their passage over the

forereef; samples of DFG found onshore may also be unlike open‐water samples.

Understanding the orientation of gear in the water was also identified as important both

for modeling its movement and for selecting appropriate sensors.

Relevant characteristics may be narrowed if the overall strategy focuses on specific types

of DFG targeted for removal. As the properties (size, color, spectral characteristics, etc.)

are defined for the desired type of DFG, this information must be relayed to remote

sensing developers and modelers for their efforts.

Empirically testing the behavior of nets in the ocean was identified as another important

step. Some poorly understood processes include the rate at which nets are separated from

attached floats and buoys, the rate at which nets become fouled and sink, how quickly

and at what depth the fouling organisms die and are eaten or decay, and how quickly or

indeed whether these “cleaned” nets then resurface or whether they continue to sink

below some depth.

Conducting field experiments by attaching satellite tags to DFG can provide empirical

data on the relationship between DFG movement and oceanographic conditions (wind

speed, water currents, weather, swells, etc). Also poorly understood is how and where

nets and lines create the tangled piles that are removed from the reefs and shorelines of

the NWHI.

Characteristics of Operational Environment

The goal of this sub‐strategy is to provide information needed to select the appropriate

sensors and sensor platforms for direct detection. Sensors must be able to distinguish

between floating or subsurface DFG and the surrounding water, sun glints, and white

caps at appropriate spatial scales across the spectrum of environmental conditions.

Therefore, the choice of sensor will take into account not only the characteristics of the

target but also the environmental factors that might confound measurements, such as the

presence of whitecaps or marine mammals that might be difficult to distinguish from

manmade materials. Such factors as wind, sun position, cloud cover, wave height, and sea

surface characteristics will determine the suitability of various aerial platforms in terms of

8
                       

                         

                 

                             

                       

                             

           

                             

                                 

                           

                       

                       

            

                         

                           

                       

                     

                       

                   

                           

                       

                           

                         

        

           

                       

                             

                           

                         

                         

                             

                           

                             

                 

                 

                        

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

power needed to fly in certain wind conditions and constraints on launching and

recovering aircraft safely during various times of the year.

The main step within this sub‐strategy is determining the location and time of year for

detection and then developing an operational requirements document. This can be used

by the sensor and sensor platform group to assist in selection of the appropriate system.

Modeling of Derelict Fishing Gear Location

The goal of this sub‐strategy is to develop models to forecast location and movement of

DFG. There are two reasons to model DFG locations. One is to narrow the search area for

direct detection and eventual at‐sea removal. The other is to develop a stratified sampling

scheme for quantifying the amount of DFG in the oceans. While many oceanographic

data sets and circulation models exist, the relationship between circulation, wind, and

debris movement is not well understood.

Using both satellite data and profiling drifters, ocean circulation models are available that

provide realistic ocean current fields at high resolution. These models are the basis for

determining the movement and concentration of DFG. While a general knowledge of

DFG concentration is available (e.g., convergent zones), finer resolution on location and

movement requires incorporation of processes that drive eddy formation, wind fields, and

known characteristics of DFG transport as a response to oceanographic conditions

(weather, wind and water currents). This is critical to improve the utility of these

predictive models. Accuracy of model predictions could be tested by attaching satellite

tags to DFG found at sea and comparing their actual movement to the model’s

predictions, as well as confirming through direct detection the presence or absence of

DFG at predicted locations.

Direct Detection of Derelict Fishing Gear

The goal of this sub‐strategy is to develop sensor‐platform systems for short‐ and long‐

range detection. The design and choice of a system will depend upon the mission goals

(e.g., targeting for removal vs. estimating amount), but the steps are common to either

goal.

As the characteristics and behavior of DFG under various conditions are determined, the

sensor community can provide a list of sensors that can collect data with the appropriate

resolution for field testing. A critical aspect of this is to continue to refine the anomaly‐

detection algorithms used to distinguish DFG at‐sea based on data from the sensor array.

While data sets for a number of sensor technologies exist to develop and test the

detection capabilities of these algorithms, including video, high resolution photographs,

LIDAR and thermal imagery, other potentially useful sensors, including hyperspectral

imagery and synthetic‐aperture radar (SAR), have not been tested with DFG targets.

9
       

                           

                           

                       

                     

                         

                           

                 

           

                       

                 

       

       

     

                 

                     

           

             

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Ideally, field tests would occur at a permanent testing site equipped with anchored DFG

at known locations. Fields tests may indicate which of the selected sensors perform best

at detecting targeted DFG. Once the best‐performing sensors have been identified, their

specifications (size, weight, electrical needs, etc.) and characteristics of the operational

environment can be used to select or design the sensor platform. Proposed short‐ and

long‐range platforms could be tested at the permanent testing site to select the most

effective. Comprehensive in‐field testing of short‐ and long‐range platforms will be

required to make adjustments before final implementation.

Specific steps needed to achieve direct detection of DFG include the following:

1.	 Identify candidate sensor suite based on characteristics of DFG.

2.	 Develop permanent testing site.

3.	 Develop partnerships for preliminary testing.

4.	 Run preliminary sensor tests.

5.	 Determine potential platforms based on defined environmental conditions and

sensor requirements.

6.	 Conduct systems analysis of down‐selected options: sensor + platform + bounded

environment.

7.	 Build prototype of selected sensor‐platform combo.

8.	 Test selected sensor‐platform combo in the field.

10
                       

   

                           

                         

                         

               

                             

                       

                             

          

                       

                         

                         

                         

                     

                       

                       

     

                           

       

                             

                       

             

                           

                         

                         

                   

      

                             

                   

                     

Proceedings of Workshop on At‐sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear

Next Steps

Two themes came through in the closing discussion: a desire to expand, refine, and

distribute the background papers, and the need to attract partners and funding to

implement the detection strategy. To address the first item, two potential methods were

discussed: publication and broader‐than‐usual distribution of a NOAA Technical

Memorandum and publication of a special issue of a scientific journal. To address ways to

attract partners and funding for implementing the strategy, suggestions were made to

better quantify the impacts of not detecting and removing derelict fishing gear so that a

compelling cost‐benefit argument could be made.

Additionally, it was felt that a compelling, carefully crafted, and easily understood

summary of the project and needs should be developed and shared among workshop

participants. This “elevator pitch” as well as more detailed information could be made

available to participants so they would be poised to intrigue and attract emerging

partnership and funding possibilities from outside the world of marine debris.

References

Dameron, O.J., M. Parke, M.A. Albins, and R. Brainard, 2007. Marine debris accumulation

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: An examination of rates and processes. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 54:423‐433.

Kubota, M., 1994. A mechanism for the accumulation of floating marine debris north of

Hawaii. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 24(5):1059‐1064.

Pichel, W., J. Churnside, T. Veenstra, D. Foley, K Friedman, R. Brainard, J. Nicoll, Q.

Zheng, and P. Clemente‐Colon, 2007. Marine debris collects within the North Pacific

Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1207‐1211.

Pichel, W.G., T. Veenstra, J. Churnside, E. Arabini, K.S. Friedman, D. Foley, R. Brainard,

D. Kiefer, S. Ogle, and P. Clemente‐Colon, 2003. Ghost Net‐Derelict net detection in

the North Pacific and Alaska waters using satellite and airborne remote sensing and

surface drifters. In: Thirtieth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the

Environment, Honolulu, USA.

Zabin, C.J., J.T. Carlton, and L.S. Godwin, 2003. First report of the Asian sea anemone

Diadumene lineata from the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers,

Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey for 2003, Part 2: 54‐58.

11
               

   

APPENDIX I. Table of Contents from Collection of
 

Background Papers
 

12
              

         

         

                     

                     

       

         

                 

             

                         

                     

     

                   

       

                     

         

                       

         

               

   

At‐Sea Detection and Removal of Marine Debris:
 

A Collection of Background Papers
 

Contents
 

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................3
 

Kris McElwee and Carey Morishige
 

MARINE DEBRIS

2. Lessons Learned from Seven North Pacific Subtropical Gyre Voyages Aboard
 

Oceanographic Research Vessel Alguita to Detect, Quantify and Remove Plastic Debris
 

and Ghost Nets ....................................................................................................................................14
 

Charles Moore and Marcus Eriksen
 

3. Reef Removal of Marine Debris from the NWHI ...................................................................21
 

Tony Perry, Kyle Koyanagi, and Russell Reardon
 

4. Hawaii Longline Fishers’ Role in Removing Derelict Fishing Gear and Other Marine
 

Debris.................................................................................................................................................... 26
 

Sean Martin
 

5. The Fourteenth Coast Guard District’s Marine Debris Program .......................................... 29
 

LCDR Joseph Zwack
 

6. Ecological Impacts of Marine Debris in the NWHI...................................................................... 31
 

Elizabeth Keenan and Danielle Jayewardene
 

7. Economics of At‐Sea Detection and Removal of Marine Debris ........................................... 34
 

Justin Hospital and Howard Wiig
 

8. Incentives for Marine Debris Removal at Sea by Maritime Industry.......................................42
 

Carey Morishige and Kris McElwee
 

OCEANOGRAPHY

9. North Pacific Circulation, Productivity, and Migration........................................................ 48
 

Carey Morishige
 

13
                   

                         

               

           

         

                     

         

                 

                           

                 

             

   

               

       

                     

   

10. Near‐Surface Currents and Debris Pathways Estimated From Drifter Trajectories and
 

Satellite Data ....................................................................................................................................... 57
 

Nikolai Maximenko
 

11. Lagrangian Tools for the Detection of Regions of Convergence and Divergence in the
 

Surface Ocean: Implications for the Accumulation of Marine Debris....................................62
 

Paulo H.R. Calil and Kelvin J. Richards
 

TECHNOLOGY

12. The GhostNet Project........................................................................................................................66
 

William Pichel, James Churnside, Rusty Brainard, Tim Veenstra, and Dave Foley
 

13. At‐Sea Removal....................................................................................................................... 82
 

Tony Perry, Kevin Wong, Kyle Koyanagi, and Russell Reardon
 

14. Tools to Locate and Address Marine Debris in the Open Ocean......................................... 87
 

Dave Foley, Rusty Brainard, William Pichel, and James Churnside
 

15. Potential Sensors and Platforms ........................................................................................... 93
 

Tim Veenstra
 

16. Remote Sensing for Marine Debris ....................................................................................... 98
 

Dr. Thomas H. Mace
 

17. Locating and Tracking Derelict Nets on the High Seas .............................................................100
 

Tim Veenstra
 

14
     

     

                 

     

   

         

   

     

         

           

       

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

               

APPENDIX II. Agenda
 

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Introduction 8:00 – 8:30 Registration/check‐in

8:30 – 8:45 Opening remarks – Mike Seki

8:45 – 9:30 Introduction of Participants

9:30 – 9:45 Workshop Introduction

9:45 – 10:00 Workshop Overview

10:00 – 10:15 BREAK

Session 1: State of

Knowledge

Panel I Marine debris ‐ Presentations

10:15 – 10:30 Charles Moore, AMRF

10:30 – 10:45 Russell Reardon, CRED

10:45 – 11:15 Panel Discussion

Panel II Oceanography – Presentations

11:15 – 11:30 Evan Howell, PIFSC

11:30 – 11:45 Nikolai Maximenko, UH

11:45 – 12:00 Paulo Calil, UH

12:00 – 12:30 Panel Discussion

12:30‐1:30 LUNCH

Session 1: State of

Knowledge

(Cont’d)

Panel III Technology – Presentations

1:30‐1:45 Tim Veenstra, ATI

1:45‐2:00 Dave Foley, NOAA

2:00‐2:15 Bill Pichel, NOAA

2:15‐2:45 Panel Discussion

2:45‐3:00 BREAK

Session 2: Gaps 3:00‐5:00 Break‐out groups to identify and group knowledge

gaps

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

8:00‐8:30 Recap Day 1

Session 2: Gaps

(Cont’d)

8:30‐10:00 Break‐out groups to link gaps and identify strategic

actions

10:00‐10:30 Break + Gallery Walk

Session 3:

Strategic Planning

10:30‐12:00 Break‐out groups by discipline to develop strategic

actions

12:00‐1:30 Lunch

Session 3:

Strategic Planning

(Cont’d)

1:30‐2:00 Work on group presentations

2:00‐2:30 Group presentation and Q&A for Marine Debris

2:30‐2:45 Break

Session 4: Next

steps

2:45‐3:15 Group presentation and Q&A for Oceanography

3:15‐3:45 Group presentation and Q&A for Technology

3:45‐4:45 Priorities and next steps

4:45‐5:00 Closing remarks – Robbie Hood

15
   

   

       

       

         

     

       

   

             

   

   

             

   

         

       

       

   

       

   

         

   

   

           

   

   

   

       

         

         

           

        

           

APPENDIX III. Participants
 

Last Name First

Name Email Affiliation

Allen Arthur Arthur.A.Allen@uscg.mil United States Coast Guard

Berthold Randy Randall.W.Berthold@nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center

Brainard Rusty Rusty.Brainard@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Coral Reef Ecosystem

Division

Calil Paulo Calil@hawaii.edu University of Hawai'i

Carter Jamie Jamie.Carter@noaa.gov NOAA Pacific Services Center

Churnside Jim James.H.Churnside@noaa.gov NOAA Environmental Technology

Laboratory

Donohue Mary Donohuem@hawaii.edu University of Hawai'i Sea Grant

College Program

Ericson Steve Steve.Ericson@lmco.com Lockheed Martin

Fangman Sarah Sarah.Fangman@noaa.gov NOAA Office of National Marine

Sanctuaries

Foley Dave Dave.Foley@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries CoastWatch

Hoeke Ron Ronald.Hoeke@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Coral Reef Ecosystem

Division

Hood Robbie Robbie.Hood@noaa.gov NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Program

Hospital Justin Justin.Hospital@noaa.gov NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries

Science Center

Howell Evan Evan.Howell@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem &Z

Oceanography Division

Jacobs Todd Todd.Jacobs@noaa.gov NOAA Office of National Marine

Sanctuaries

Keenan Elizabeth Elizabeth.Keenan@noaa.gov NOAA Papahānaumokuākea Marine

National Monument

Kobayashi Don Donald.Kobayashi@noaa.gov NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries

Science Center

Kosaki Randy Randall.Kosaki@noaa.gov NOAA Papahānaumokuākea Marine

National Monument

Krasutsky Nick Nick.Krasutsky@lmco.com Lockheed Martin

Mace Tom Thomas.H.Mace@nasa.gov NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

Maximenko Nikolai Maximenk@hawaii.edu University of Hawai'i

McElwee Kris Kris.Mcelwee@noaa.gov NOAA Marine Debris Program

Moore Charles CMoore@algalita.org Algalita Marine Research Foundation

Morishige Carey Carey.Morishige@noaa.gov NOAA Marine Debris Program

16
   

       

         

       

   

         

           

   

         

       

       

   

      

         

           

   

         

               

             

           

Last Name First

Name Email Affiliation

Nishimura Erin Erin@archinoetics.com Archinoetics, LLC

Perry Tony Tony.Perry.III@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Coral Reef Ecosystem

Division

Pichel Bill William.G.Pichel@noaa.gov NOAA Satellite Oceanography and

Climatology Division

Pickett Matt Matt.Pickett@noaa.gov NOAA Office of National Marine

Sanctuaries

Polovina Jeff Jeffrey.Polovina@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem and

Oceanography Division

Reardon Russell Russell.Reardon@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Coral Reef Ecosystem

Division

Sault Maryellen Maryellen.Sault@noaa.gov NOAA National Geodetic Survey

Seki Mike Michael.Seki@noaa.gov NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries

Science Center

Veenstra Tim TVeenstra@atiak.com Airborne Technologies, Inc.

Watabayashi Glen Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov NOAA Office of Response and

Restoration

Wiig Howard HWiig@dbedt.hawaii.gov Hawaii Dept of Business, Econ Devel

& Tourism

Wong Kevin Kevin.Wong@noaa.gov NOAA Fisheries Coral Reef Ecosystem

Division

Woodward Lee Ann Lee_Ann_Woodward@fws.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Woolaway Chris Chris@woolaway.com Chris Woolaway & Assoc., LLC

Zwack Joe Joseph.M.Zwack@uscg.mil United States Coast Guard

17
APPENDIX    IV. Presentations
 

18
M�����al� ������, ��a�����, � ��t� 

��a�a�t������ t�� �������� ����l�� 

�l�� ���l� a�� �l��al_��al�� ����at���� 

Marine Debris At-Sea Detection and Removal 

Workshop: Workshop Goals: 

Opening Remarks - Solutions to locating pelagic debris 

- Census of marine debris 

December 9-10, 2008 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

La��� ��al� ���a����a��y �

������ ��� l��� t��� ���t����t���

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

T���� alt���t�y � A���l 1998

Enhanced chloropigment responses to physical environment also 

reflect substantial increases in large eukaryotic phytoplankton; namely 

diatoms & dinoflagellates, suggesting enhanced transfer efficiency to 

higher trophic levels at these dynamic areas. 

Isopycnals (at) on 

peridinin concentration 

(mg/m3) 

D 

E 

P 

T 

H 

N+N isopleths on 

fucoxanthin 

concentration (mg/m3) 

LATITUDE

SSTF interface – 

note increases at 

depth! 

27°_30°N lat., May 1998

Embedded cyclonic 

meander ... red 

contour is 

nutricline defined 

as 1M N+N isopleth 

� A question of scale? 

• Gyre circulation 

• Basin- scale fronts 

• Mesoscale meanders & eddies 

� ... and why do we care? 

• Regions of Convergence & Divergence (re: accumulation, 

census influence) 

• Energy (trophic) transfer dynamics 

• Natural hotbeds for fisheries, marine mammals, sea 

turtles, & seabird interactions 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

19
�

DELI �Debris Estimated 

Likelihood Index� Ma��, 

����t��t�, � UA�

20
–

– –

� DFG removal important in NWHI –

protected species

� Estimated 52 MT/yr accumulate in NWHI

� Desire to intercept DFG before damage

Introduction 

Kris McElwee 

NOAA Marine Debris Program 

����������

� Loss of fishing gear – large nets, persistent 

� Impacts entanglement, coral damage, ghost 

fishing 

����������

� Loss of fishing gear – large nets, persistent 

� Impacts entanglement, coral damage, ghost 

fishing 

� Cleanup efforts in NWHI costly, dangerous 

����������

� Loss of fishing gear – large nets, persistent 

� Impacts entanglement, coral damage, ghost 

fishing 

� Cleanup efforts in NWHI costly, dangerous 

� Amount and distribution of derelict fishing gear 

in near-surface waters unknown 

����������������

� NOAA at-sea cruise with ATI in 2008 – 

involved marine debris, oceanography, 

and technology experts 

�������������

� GhostNet Project – 2001 to present 

� ����������������������������������

Monument declaration – 2006 

� Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and 

Reduction Act – 2006 

21
�

�

�

�

�������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

–

–

�

�

�������

�

�

������

�

�

�

����������������

Establishes NOAA Marine Debris 

Program – components, grants, 

clearinghouse 

U.S. Coast Guard – improve Annex V 

implementation, NRC study 

Re-establishes Interagency Marine 

Debris Coordinating Committee 

����������������

Mapping, identification, 

impact assessment, 

prevention, and removal 

efforts 

Reduce adverse impacts 

of lost and discarded 

fishing gear 

Outreach and education 

��������������

What is the mass balance of DFG? 

How well do we understand the impacts 

of DFG on natural resources of interest? 

What is the cost (both economic and 

ecological) of removing DFG at sea 

compared to the cost of removing it from 

reefs and other habitats? 

��������������

Take stock of marine debris, oceanography, 

and technology knowledge and gaps around 

these objectives 

Locate derelict fishing gear for removal 

Discuss a census of marine debris 

Develop strategic action plan to fill gaps 

Build interdisciplinary collaboration and 

partnerships 

����������

Solutions that draw on more than one 

discipline 

Detecting derelict fishing gear at sea 

����������

Revised draft background paper 

Policy changes and funding are not 

guaranteed 

A plan that allows us to move quickly to 

capture opportunities 

22
–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Workshop Mechanics 

Workshop Objectives 

� Take stock of marine debris, 

oceanography, and technology knowledge 

and gaps around these objectives 

Locate derelict fishing gear for removal 

Discuss a census of marine debris 

� Develop strategic actions to fill gaps 

� Build interdisciplinary collaboration and 

partnerships 

Workshop Overview 

Session 1: State of Knowledge 

Session 2: Gap Mapping 

Session 3: Strategic Planning 

Session 4: Next Steps 

Session 1: State of Knowledge 

� Describe our state of knowledge in three key 

topic areas: 

– �������������� What are the sources, 

characteristics, and behavior of marine debris at sea? 

– ������������� What are the oceanographic 

processes that transport or move marine debris at 

sea? 

– ����������� What technology is available or 

needed to help detect and track marine debris for 

removal at sea? 

Session 1 – cont’d 

� For each topic area 

10 minute presentations based on the 

background paper 

5 minutes clarifying questions 

Panel discussion to: 

� Add to the list of knowns 

� Identify other information and data sources 

including past and ongoing studies and literature 

Session 2: Gaps – Commonalities 

� What do we need to know to improve our 

capability to detect marine debris at sea? 

Review knowledge gaps identified from 

background papers 

Identify commonalities 

Add or delete gaps 

Set the stage for action planning 

23
 

 

�

–

–

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Mapping Gaps – Day 1 

O7 Oceanography 

Gap 

T7 Technology 

Gaps 

M20 Marine 

Debris Gap 

O20 Oceanography 

Gap 

O31 Oceanography 

Gap 

T10 Technology 

Gaps 

T2 Technology 

Gaps 

M1 Marine 

Debris Gap 

M5 Marine 

Debris Gap 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for 

each group 

Theme Theme Theme 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for 

each group 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for 

each group 

Session 2: Gaps – Linkages 

Define linkages between gaps in 

knowledge 

Develop a logical sequence of questions 

Identify strategic actions drawing on one or 

more disciplines to address gaps 

Session 2 : Mapping Gaps - Day 2 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for each 

group 

T7 Technology 

Gaps 

M5 Marine 

Debris Gap 

O20 Oceanography 

Gap 

Strategic 

Action 

Strategic 

Action 

Strategic 

Action 

Strategic 

Action 

Strategic 

Action 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for each 

group 

Larger question 

stating gap in 

knowledge for each 

group 

T10 Technology 

Gaps 

Hawaii Marine Debris Action Plan

 ����� 

 

� ������ ���� �����

 ���������

 �����

 ���� �

 ����������

 ���������

 �� ���������

 ���� ����

 ���������

����������

 ��

����������

 ��

����������

 ��

����������

 ��

����������

 ��

Session 3: Action Planning 

Goal: ���������������������������������

������������������������������������

������

Objective: To increase our capability to 

detect marine debris at sea 

Strategic Actions 

Strategic Action Template 

Action needed (short title): 

What gap does this action address and how? 

What are steps to carrying out this action? 

What organizations and individuals need to be 

involved, and how? 

Who has the technology, expertise, resources, 

materials to carry this out? 

What are impediments to carry out this action? 

Are there other (non-marine debris) benefits to this 

action? 

24
�

�

�

Session 4: Next Steps 

Identify opportunities to partner and 

leverage 

Identify key priorities 

Next steps for the plan and background 

paper 

25
 

 

 

Welded Aluminum Construction

 � � � � 

 

 

CAPTAIN CHARLES MOORE 

ALGALITA MARINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

www.algalita.org 

North Pacific Subtropical Gyre 

Voyages Looking for 

Ghost Nets 

1999, 2000, 2002 (2), 2005, 

2007, 2008 

����������� ORV Alguita: Manta Trawl 

26
 

- 

 

-

 

How do nets and other debris 

behave in the open ocean? 

Do they move with wind or 

surface currents? 

Buoyancy of common plastics in Sea Water 

� Polyethylene 0.79-0.97 

� Polypropylene 0.90-0.92 

� Polyethylene/Polypropylene ~ �

� Polyamid resin or Nyion 6/10 (Unfilled) 1.09 

� Polyamid resin or Nylon 6/6 (Unfilled) 1.13 1.15 

� Polyamid resin or Nyion 6/12 1.06-1.08 

� Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 1.34-1.39 

� Polystyrene (unexpanded) 1.04-1.09 

� Polystyrene (Foam) < 1 

� PVC Flexible (Filled) 1.30 1.70 

� Cellulose acetate 1.35-1.42 

� Polyester urethane 1.1-1.25

 ���� ������� �� ������ ������ � 

Buoy on Drogue Marking Net 

27
Ghost Net Satellite Tracking 

28
29
 

 

 � �� ���

A Day’s Catch – Chasing Windrows 

Affordable Housing for Fish 

SORTING SHEET FOR MACRO DEBRIS BY TYPE 

Days of Survey -- 4 Total Distance Surveyed -- 159 km Start Date 8-23 Finish Date 8-26-99 

Width Surveyed -- 2000 m (2.0 km) Start Time 0800 Finish Time (Daylight) 1800 

Item Num 

������������ ��������� Styrofoam/ Bottle Polypro/Monofil Fishing Float Misc �� �����

����������� Foamed Pl. Line Fragment Related Plastic Unid ���������� �����������

F 5 700dx175 27467 Tire 22700 

F 6 8853 1 Rolled up zori factory foam sheet after soles cutout as f ishing float 1240 

F 6 1 Rope to hold roll above 260 

F 7 90x50x20 50 1 "Litac Float Sanshin Kako Ltd." 6 

F 8 270diam 9360 1 1586 

F 9 300diam "Dairyland Sour Cream 4 liters" (in French and English) Lid Canada 70.4 

F 10 270diam 19180 "Litac Float Sanshin Kako Ltd." 1 Japan 1698 

F 11 60x175 1 Curved Fragment 23.2 

F 12 110x85x25 Bait Cont 16.3 

F 13 160dx300 1 Entire bleach type bottle very brittle, broke easily 154 

F 14 6356 Volleyball USA 454 

F15 380dx510 22756 1 Float 3116 

F 16 45x40x20 1 0.35 

F 17 250diam 1 Japan 1135 

F 17 no grow th - hole in bottom 1 "55" only marking 59.5 

F18 460dx865h 27467 1Float 3859 

F 19 370diam 7378 "Litac Float Sanshin Kako Ltd." 1 Japan 3116 

F 19 20dx1190L 1 392 

F 20-300diam 9080 "The Second Pu Tuo Plastic Factory" 1 Taiwan 1900 

F 21 320diam 24062 1 1589 

F 21 12dx2900L 1 227 

F 22 1Ton Mass (estimated - not retreived) 908000 

F 23-300diam 7718 1 1754 

F 23 1 7.4 

F 24-370diam 62198 "Hansung" 1 Taiwan 3688 

F 24 12dx1000L 1 78.5 

F 25-137diam "KU 45" Bait Cont 53.6 

F 26 267x 102 Shoe Sole 35.9 

F 27-300mm 1446 1 Taiwan 1900 

F 28 483x432 10 1 69.5 

F 29 370 Drum Germany 2270 

400dx800 mm Chemical Drum w ith liquid inside later f ound to be seaw ater by CRG Labs (drum discarded by lab) 

F 30 70dx260 227 Glass 392 

F 31 300x190 56 Plastic "CAN" Canada 155 

F 31 4dx180L 1 1.4 

F 32 1Tangled Mass 2096 

F 33 400diam 11464 "MAX - 13" Donan(translated from Japanese) 1 Japan 3972.5 

Totals 245498 8290.85 701 911121.8 93.1 22339 25530 968076 

������� 20 5 3 9 3 10 5 

Gyre Debris Collected between 35 30 N Lat. 137 30 W Lon and 34 35 N Lat. 142 05 W Lon 

30
 ��� 

��

 

 

 

JELLYFISH ENTANGLED IN NET FISHING LINE 

Valella Vallela captured in Manta Trawl Sample/333micron mesh 

Valella Valella with Plastic Particle embedded / Angel White of C-MORE/OSU 

Valella Valella with several plastic particles / Angel White of C-MORE/OSU 

�pp��� �p ������ ���� � 2008 G �p ���

���� 2008 ����� 

����

Plastic 

Total Count 27683 62378 

Plastic 

Total Weight (g) 423.76 668.71 

Average 

Plastic/Plankton 

Ratio 

5.2:1 46.4:1 

Average Plastic 

Density 

(count/m3

) 

1.51 2.6 

1.6 

8.9 

1.7 

31
Myctophid, Sp. 

90% Mesopelagic Biomass 

32
Nanoscale titanium dioxide (TiO2) is produced commercially for 

widespread use in pigments, plastics, cosmetics, and sunscreens. 

In 2008, Danavaro et al. estimated that at least 25% of applied 

sunscreen is washed off during swimming and bathing, accounting for 

a potential release of 4,000–6,000 tons/year of sunscreen in reef areas 

Tethya aurantia incubated for four hours in 0.0125 mg/ml of industrial titanium dioxide approximately

40nm ESEM images were acquired with a FEI Co. XL30 FEG ESEM (Philips Electron Optics, Eindoven, 

The Netherlands). Imaging was in wet mode at 5.2 Torr, 5 C, using an accelerating voltage of 20 kV. 

Specimens were not conductively coated prior to imaging. Location of titanium dioxide was confirmed 

utilizing EDS (Elemental detection analysis) A. Outer sponge spicule with titanium dioxide nanoparticle 

aggregate, B. Inner sponge tissue with titanium dioxide nanoparticle aggregate, C. Diatom in outer 

sponge tissue with titanium dioxide nanoparticle aggregate. ) D.. Inner sponge tissue with titanium dioxide 

nanoparticle aggregate, ) E,F. spicule with titanium dioxide nanoparticle aggregate, G, H. Inner sponge 

tissue and megasters with titanium dioxide nanoparticle aggregate, I. Diatoms in outer sponge tissue with 

titanium dioxide nanoparticle aggregates. 

Nanoparticles Affect Reef Sponges, eg. Tethya aurantia 

Slide Courtesy Andrea Neal, PhD. 

D E F 

A B C 

G H I 

ALGALITA MARINE RESEARCH 

FOUNDATION www.algalita.org 

33
 

At-Sea Detection and Removal 

of Derelict Fishing Gear 

NOAA Cruise Experience 

Kyle Koyanagi, Chief Scientist OES 08 02 

JIMAR Marine Debris Operations Manager 

NOAA PIFSC Coral Reef Ecosystem Division 

Introduction / Background 

� Programs to identify, locate, 

track and remove debris while 

at-sea may become an 

important and complementary 

effort to ongoing nearshore, 

reef, and beach clean up 

efforts. 

� At-sea removals would prevent 

subsequent environmental 

impacts to fragile nearshore 

ecosystems from large 

conglomerates of marine 

debris. 

� A 17-day experimental 

effort (MAR 24-APR 9, 

2008) to detect and 

remove marine debris in 

the North Pacific SubTropical Convergence 

Zone (STCZ), conducted 

aboard the NOAA Ship 

������������������ shed 

light on some of the 

operational challenges 

ahead. 

OES 08 02 Oscar Elton Sette 

34
�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

 -

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

Marine Debris Detection Methods Used 

on OES 08 02 

Debris Estimated Likelihood Index (DELI) maps 

Hydrographic and Biological Sampling 

Ship based observers using “Big Eye” binoculars 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) surveys 

Debris Estimated Likelihood Index 

(DELI) Maps 

Near real-time 

satellite data (SST, 

Chl- ) was utilized 

during the cruise to 

help direct the vessel 

to the general vicinity 

of high debris 

likelihood. 

Hydrographic and Biological Water 

Sampling 

“Big Eye” Binoculars 

Visual surveys with 25X150

binoculars from the Flying 

Bridge (40 ft above the water). 

Survey protocols were adapted 

from ship-based visual cetacean 

surveys. 

3 primary stations: port and 

starboard Big Eye observers 

and a data recorder. Types and

sizes of marine debris were 

recorded and specialized 

software converted distance and 

bearing into position. 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

Ship-based UAS test 

flights were conducted 

to evaluate UAS 

technology for marine 

debris surveys to 

detect debris targets 

for removal or 

attachment of satellitetracked marker buoys. 

Pre-flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat/UAS recovery team & 

Avon/debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

Survey 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

����������������������������

������������������������

35
-

 

 -

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

-

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

-

 -

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat-UAS recovery team 

& Avon-debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

Survey 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat-UAS recovery team & 

Avon-debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher-assisted 

Survey 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

Or launcher... 

By hand... Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat-UAS recovery team & 

Avon-debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

Survey 

36
-

 -

Survey

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

-

 -

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat/UAS recovery team & 

Avon/debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Small boat 

recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Recovered debris Tagged debris 

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat/UAS recovery team & 

Avon/debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

Survey 

UAS water-landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

37
-

 -

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

-

 -

-

�����������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������

�

�

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat/UAS recovery team & 

Avon/debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

Survey 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

Pre flight checklist 

& safety brief Launch Safeboat/UAS recovery team & 

Avon/debris recovery team 

Launch UASHand or launcher assisted 

Survey 

UAS water landing 

UAS recovery 

Recover debris 

Tag debris 

Small boat 

recovery 

Wind Limitations 

Winds >18 knots created 

challenging conditions for 

the launch and recovery of 

the UAS and small boats. 

Visual surveys with Big 

Eyes were difficult with 

increased seas and wind 

generated white caps 

38
�

�

�

�

�

�

–

�

–

–

�

�

�

�

�

Low Lying Fog and Cloud Limitations 

Satellite data was of 

limited use (poor 

coverage). 

UAS was grounded 

(limited visibility of 

aircraft or usefulness 

of video feed). 

Limited range of the 

“Big Eye” operations. 

Derelict Fishing Gear Characteristics 

DFG tends to float 

slightly submerged 

making it challenging to 

spot unless floats, etc. 

are attached. 

Environmental factors 

such as rough seas, rain, 

fog, low light, and glare 

further increase the 

spotting difficulty. 

Small Boat Operations 

Small boats: maneuverable 

but limited load capacity 

Large conglomerates may 

have to be sectioned 

Dangerous, physical work 

No lee or protected water 

Marine Debris Removal Challenges 

Ship fouling 

risk 

Type and

condition of 

debris are 

factors (poor

lift points) 

Overboard 

risks for crew 

Direct Recovery: 

OES 08 02 Cruise Conclusion 

Additional ground-truthing and validation of DELI 

maps would benefit future survey efforts. 

A long-endurance (manned or unmanned) 

aircraft which could fly over the area of interest 

prior to ship arrival could provide timely

observations over a large area and help direct

the ship to debris concentrations. 

39
�

�

�

�

�

Cruise Conclusion (Cont.) 

Ship-based UAS may be a promising approach 

to increase the effectiveness of marine debris 

survey and removal operations... 

But, additional work needs to be done to develop 

and test methodologies, sensors and detection 

software, particularly for various weather and sea 

states (e.g. whitecaps) before we attempt a full 

scale operational effort. 

FAA constraints on UAS are a current limiting

factor in survey operations. 

Cruise Conclusion (Cont.) 

Image stabilization and other technologies would 

benefit shipboard Big Eye observers. Additional 

work is needed in estimating debris sizes and 

densities, including standardizing protocols specific 

to marine debris and calibration of 

observers/observing in various weather/sea

conditions. 

Safe methods with minimal risk to vessel and crew 

are needed for open ocean removal or tagging of 

marine debris in challenging weather and sea

conditions. 

We know its out there. 

Now if we could only find it... 

Debris crew atop 24,000 kg of debris 

40
41

6

23

0

 �

 �

 �� 

 ����������������������

 North Pacific Ocean northern part of Earth’s largest ocean North Pacific Circulation, Circulation of upper layers mainly wind-driven


 Characterized by three main “zones” in the north (N of Eq. Zone)
 Productivity, and Migration Subtropical Gyre –warm, strati���������������������������

 Subarctic Gyre – cool, vertically mixed, high chlorophyll waters

Evan Howell, Carey Morishige, and Michael “Transition” zone – Mixture of these two regions

Seki Transition zone region of high surface convergence (large scale) 

������������� �������������

 Surface circulation wind-driven Two main gyre systems

 Westerlies north of 30°N South - subtropical gyre (warm, low productivity upper layer) 

 Easterly trades to south Subarctic gyre to the north (cold, more productive upper layer)

 Four main currents: Kuroshio, North Pacific, California and N. Equatorial In between is “transition” zone which is mixture of two regions 

60°N �������������� �������������� Winter-Spring 50°N 

Subarctic Frontal Zone Can see extent to depth from subsurface data (17°/20°C) Multiple large scale fronts

 SSTF: 28°- 30°N (~20°C) 40°N 

Transition Zone Temperature (�C), 1996-2000 In situ chloropigment (mg/m3), 1996-2000 19 23 STF: 32°-34°N (~17°C) 23 30°N 22 21 22 20 19 17 

18 16 15 15 Subtropical 16 Frontal Zone 15 14 20°N 16 15 14 (A) Distinct seasonal surface signatures 17 22 23 2019 160°E 170°E 180 170°W 160°W 150°W 140°W 130°W 21 (“migrates” north to south) 0 5 10 15 20 25 

SST (°C) 18 16 16 15 14 14 

1 

15 14 13 60°N 

 Thickness and migration of front also D 22 18 19 19 17 18 1818 17 

E 

P 16 50°N Subarctic 19 Frontal Zone 

21 

changes to to interannual (ENSO) and 19 15 13 � T 18 17 20 14 16 14 

decadal events (PDO) H 40°N 23 21 19 

22 

North Pacific Transition Zone 1 

16 17 

19 20 14 

18 17 15 15 

15 13 16 16 

30°N MD: These events can alter the southern Summer 21 21 20 22 1

extent of this convergent region (reach 20 

18 16 

19 

(B) 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.60.60.6 0.4 0.4

17 14 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 

160°E 170°E 180 170°W 160°W 150°W 140°W 130°W 

NWHI or not) 0.4 

20°N 

15 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0. 15 14 15 13 13 0.4 0.4 0.2 

 5 10 15 20 25 30 

SST (°C) 
 

 

 

 

 

�����

 

 

 

 

– = 

�����

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

�������������� �� 

�������������� ���������������

��������������� ���������������

Transition zone chlorophyll front 

Proxy for TZ conv/productivity line, roughly 

STF (~17/18°C) 

Seasonal N-S oscillation min in Jan-Feb, max 

Jul-Aug 

Depending on year, can reach NWHI 

Also important migration pathway pelagics 

������� ������

Very likely that we will see effects on system from climate 

change 

Climate affects transition zone and hence large scale 

convergence zone in North Pacific 

Also have observed N/NE expansion of oligotrophic NP 

Subtropical Gyre (warmer, more stratified less productive 

upper layer) 

Changes in climate may affect ocean in other ways (e.g. 

ocean acidification) 

Change in oligotrophic area in NPSG for 

December from 1998 2006 (red new 

area) 

As with everything, additional information is needed on 

circulation and productivity/biology 

Effects of climate (ENSO, PDO) on variability and structure of 

transition zone 

More physical and biological subsurface data (e.g. temp, 

nutrients) is needed (subsurface structure important on certain 

scales) 

Basic biologic time series (zooplankton, micronekton) are 

missing for much of the North Pacific 

1-2 years 

Increased collaboration between climate scientists, 

oceanographers, and modelers to synthesize results and 

improve predictive models 

Improved coordination of ocean-monitoring activities among 

involved entities 

Expansion of spatial and temporal coverage (long term data 

collection over an increased area) 

2-5 years 

Synthesize information to quantify relationships among 

various parts of the ecosystem (~IEA) 

Increase the number of Argo floats with additional 

instrumentation (e.g., Fluor, O2, NO3, PO4) to measure the 

subsurface of STCZ 

>5 years 

Comprehensive ecosystem, ocean-atmosphere, and 

biophysical models of the North Pacific Ocean are needed, 

inclusive of the information and data stored and utilized in 

location-specific models that currently exist 

Additional satellite support for continuation and increase in 

monitoring efforts is also needed (geostationary with adequate 

coverage?) 

42
Topic: Modeling Approaches for Locating and 

Predicting the Movement of Debris 

Title: Near-surface currents and debris pathways 

estimated from drifter trajectories and satellite data 

Nikolai Maximenko, University of Hawaii 

Collaborators: 

Peter Niiler, Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

Jan Hafner, University of Hawaii 

Cara Wilson, NOAA 

Introduction/Background

Mean near-surface currents as derived from trajectories of >11,000 drifters 

Introduction/Background

Drifter trajectories into the NP 

convergent zone 

Drifter trajectories from the NP 

convergent zone

 at no n 

 Most harmful debris is produced by men

 Men-produced debris lives long

 Debris motion is driven by ocean currents and wind

 In mid-latitude subtropical gyres, large amount of debris is 

collected by converging wind-driven ocean currents

 at ��r� �ik��� 

 Near-surface currents are a combination of geostrophic 

currents (controled by sea level), Ekman currents (controled 

by local wind), and high-frequency oscillations (inertial 

oscillations, tides, surf, etc.)

 Relatively large scale (>100km) geostrophic currents can be 

derived from satellite altimetry. (1km altimeter is to be 

launched in 2016).

 Relatively large scale Ekman currents can be derived from 

satellite winds (QuikSCAT). 

Mean geostrophic currents 

at sea surface 

Mean Ekman currents at 

15m depth 

43
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 -

 -

 

 at �ot ��rtain 

What is the morphology (small-scale texture) of density of 

marine debris? 

What is the role of local fronts? 

Is their a practical proxy (SST, ocean color, etc.) that can be 

used assess debris distribution using satellite data? 

Under what conditions debris from the North Pacific 

Convergence Zone is discharged on beaches/reefs? 

Vertical structure of Ekman currents (how sensitive motion of 

debris to its vertical extent?)

 at i ���d�d 

Near future (1-2 years) 

North Pacific data base of debris (types, life time, source 

areas) 

Data base of observed debris patches and events of its 

massive landing. 

Initial setup of operational system to hindcast debris 

distribution in the North Pacific. Setup of mechanisms for 

feedback and iterative improvement of the system. 

http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu

 at i ���d�d 

2-5 years 

Study ocean currents important for debris motion 

Ekman spirals 

frontal processes 

others 

> 5 years 

Design and deploy autonomous drifting stations collecting 

debris in open ocean 

44
Introduction/Background 

Lagrangian Detection of Transport Barriers – Lyapunov 

Exponents 

Unstable manifolds (straining regions) 

Unstable can be identified as maxima in Finite-Size 

Manifold Lyapunov Exponents. 

Unstable manifolds allow to predict 

structures below the resolution of the 

dataset because which result from the 

time-dependent evolution of the 

mesoscale flow 

Act as transpor barriers, control the 

formation of fronts, exchange and mixing 

Stable 

Manifold 

deltaf=60km 

delta0=0.01km 

Hyperbolic point 

day 1 

day 2 day 3 

45
day 4 day 5 

day 6 day 1 

day 2 day 3 

46
day 4 day 5 

day 6 

What’s known and very likely? 

Unstable manifolds to some extent shape the distribution of 

surface buoyant materials by creating transport barriers and 

“sticky” surfaces in the flow field 

Detection of unstable manifolds using satellite derived surface 

ocean velocities can be used to guide salvage operations to likely 

locations of debris 

To our knowledge there has not been any systematic study of the 

relationship between the location of debris sightings and the 

underlying Lagrangian features of the ocean currents 

Such a study would greatly increase our knowledge as to the 

utility of the flow descriptors described here in identifying likely 

locations of debris 

What’s Not Certain? 

How well satellite derived products detect the actual 

manifolds in the flow is an area of active research 

Floating debris is subject to the actions of both the wind and 

the very near surface currents. To what extent this affects 

the trapping nature of unstable manifolds is unknown 

What is Needed? 

Early actions 

(i) comparison of past debris events with the detection of unstable manifolds, in 

order to understand how the flow field affects debris distribution 

(ii) regional modeling studies to assess the space and timescales of debris 

dispersion and accumulation at the meso and submesoscale. 

Mid- to long-term actions include 

(i) adding prediction to our capabilities by using regional ocean observing systems 

(ii) detailed modeling studies to investigate the impact of wind and very near 

surface currents 

(iii) deliberate debris release experiments where the debris is tracked and the 

relationship to the underlying flow field assessed 

47
What’s Very Likely? 

• Bulleted list of items that we are fairly certain of, based on 

what we know 

• Include additional information that might help us be more 

certain 

• Keep in mind relation or applicability to marine debris 

48
–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Potential Sensors and 

Platforms 

�����������������������

���������

� A tool to carry the sensors necessary for identification, 

tracking and recovery of marine debris 

� Increases spatial coverage over ship view 

� Platforms to consider include: 

Satellite 

Manned Aircraft 

Unmanned Aircraft 

??? 

�����������������������

���������

� Satellite 

Greatest spatial coverage 

Helpful in identification of convergence areas 

Able to track convergence areas 

Not capable (yet) of actual debris identification 

Limited to available satellites/sensors 

Proved successful with GhostNet Project 

�����������������������

���������

� Manned Aircraft (land based) 

Reduced spatial coverage 

Requires greatest manpower effort (crew) 

More flexible than satellite (adapting to weather and 

debris field movement) 

Actual onboard visual decisions by crew 

Limited range and loiter time 

Few commercial aircraft can meet necessary 

requirements for range and payload 

�����������������������

���������

� Unmanned Aircraft (land based) 

Reduced spatial coverage 

More flexible than satellite (adapting to weather and 

debris field movement) 

Limited range and loiter time 

Few unmanned aircraft can meet necessary 

requirements for range and payload 

Restricted by current FAA regulations 

�����������������������

���������

� Unmanned Aircraft (ship based) 

Limited spatial coverage 

Greatest flexibility for weather issues 

Greatest loiter time near ship (multiple launches) 

Limited in payload 

Low risk exposure to personnel 

Limited choice of aircraft 

Restricted by current FAA regulations 

49
�����������������������

�

�

���������

�

�

�

�

�

�

–

–

–

–

–

–

�

�

–

–

–

–

�

�

�

�

�

�������

GhostNet Project tested a variety of satellite and airborne 

sensors in North Pacific and Gulf of Alaska waters 

There are other potentially effective sensors but no 

known field data available for use with DFG 

�������������

No single platform can perform all the necessary 

requirements for at-sea detection and tracking 

Platform costs vary greatly depending on scope and type 

of debris detection required 

UAS operations are overly restricted by the FAA 

It is very hard to replace the human eye with a suite of 

airborne sensors and software 

Limited aircraft (manned and unmanned) for marine 

survey on high seas 

�������������

�������

Different sensors will be most effective under varying 

conditions including: 

Ocean region 

Sea state/wind 

Ambient light 

Water surface temp to air temp differential 

Turbidity 

Sun angle/sun glints 

�������������

�������

Duplicity of sensors across different platforms is useful for 

ground truthing and resolution 

Untested sensors include: 

Airborne SAR 

Hyperspectral 

Fluorescence 

???? 

�������������

�������

�������������������

Sensor development will improve and cost will go down 

Sensor size will get smaller allowing use on UAS 

Better sensors than those currently tested will be 

available 

UAS development will continue to improve rapidly in the 

next few years 

FAA regulations will become friendlier to UAS operations, 

specifically on the high-seas 

50
�

�

�

–

–

�

�

�

�

�

������������������� ���������������

New or different sensor performance in actual field 

environment 

New satellite sensor (GeoEye 1/2 meter) performance for 

actual debris detection 

Other potential platforms? 

Ship towed balloon or glider 

Ship based helicopter 

Continued UAS testing and refinement in actual field 

conditions 

Continued development of UAS platform/sensor 

integration 

Defined UAS survey methodology 

Testing of airborne SAR and hyperspectral sensors 

Targeted effort to change current FAA regulations or gain 

specific exemptions for UAS ocean survey work 

51
�����������������������

Tools to aid at-sea detection 

and removal efforts 

Dave Foley, Rusty Brainard, William Pichel, and 

James Churnside 

�����������������������

 Evaluate opportunity cost for at-sea interdiction of large 

marine debris

 Identify zones of debris accumulation

 Develop methods for direct detection of debris at sea

 Test system with in situ assets for actual removal

 Use survey results to develop plans that optimize 

return upon a range of allocated resources

 Provide options for operational implementation to 

managers 

������������

 Successive Scaling

 Identify zones of debris accumulation using ocean 

models or satellite data

 Guide aircraft for direct identification and position

 Direct recovery by ship already on station in 

general area 

�������������

 Debris continues to accumulate on the NWHI at a fairly steady 

rate

 The density of debris in the vicinity of the winter-time TZCF is 

significantly higher than that of surrounding waters

 The TZCF demonstrates significant seasonal and interannual 

variation that provides a mechanism for years of particularly 

heavy deposition on the NWHI 

�������������������

 Wide range of scales must be resolved by models and direct 

observations

 Mesoscale (100 km, 3-7 days)

 Seasonal (1000 km, 1-3 months)

 Interannual (10000 km, > 3 years) 

52
�����

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

��������������

Sources 

Points of origin 

Numbers introduced at those points 

Temporal changes in rates 

Transport models 

OSCURS 

OGCM 

Surface drift 

Other (?) 

���������������

1-2 year plan 

Develop transport models to produce debris density maps 

under a variety of seeding scenarios 

Develop methods for direct at-sea detection using a 

variety of remote-sensing techniques 

Satellite 

Piloted aircraft 

Autonomous aircraft 

2-5 year plan 

Integrate two items above to produce a sampling plan to 

conduct a census of the North Pacific 

���������������������������

2-5 year plan (continued) 

Prepare a variety of schemes for operational application 

Beyond 5 years 

Execute supported operational schemes 

53
 -

-

 -

 - 

- 

-

-

 –

 – 

–

–

���������������

����������������

��������������

���������������

��������������

������������

����������

�����������������������������������

������� ����������������������

��������������������� �������

������: 

Alaska Needs Workshop: Airborne and Space-based Remote Sensing 

Technologies - sponsored by NASA and State of Alaska – May 2001 

��������: 

“High Seas Driftnet Detection and Tracking in the North Pacific Waters Using 

Satellite and Airborne Remote Sensing.” 

�����: 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea 

North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone 

��������������������� ������������

������������������������������: 

Tim Veenstra: PI Airborne Technologies, Inc. 

James Churnside NOAA/ESRL 

William Pichel NOAA/NESDIS 

Dale Kiefer - Univ. of Southern California 

Evelyn Brown Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage 

Nettie LaBelle-Hamer Alaska Satellite Facility, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks 

Julie Stinson Business Integration Group 

Eric Rogers Scientific Fisheries 

Additional GhostNet Team Members 

Dave Foley NOAA/NMFS 

Rusty Brainard and Kevin Wong – NOAA/NMFS 

Kris McElwee and Carey Morishige NOAA Marine Debris Program 

Simeon Ogle – Univ. of Southern California 

Elena Arabini, Karen Friedman, Christopher Jackson NOAA/NESDIS 

Jeremy Nicoll, Don Atwood Alaska Satellite Facility 

Now many others ... 

��������������������� �����������

����������

1. Circulation models 

2. GhostNet drifting buoy 

3. Ocean GIS 

4. Satellite Remote Sensing 

5. Aircraft Remote Sensing 

6. Aerial Debris Surveys 

7. GhostNet Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) 

8. Ship/UAS Surveys 

������������������������� ������������������

�����������������������

����������������������

����������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

First GhostNet Survey 

��������������������� ����

�������������������� �������

Gulf of Alaska Marine Debris Survey 

July 20 – August 2, 2003 

54
 

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��� ����������

�������������������������������������������������������

Infrared Imager 

Visible RGB Camera 

Green laser (532 nm) imaging LIDAR 

Computer with anomaly detection 

Visual search 

Infrared Radiometer - SST 

MicroSas Optical Sensor - OCR-507 

GhostNet Aircraft 

Instruments LIDAR Image of Log 

RGB Image 

Enhanced Image 

Debris 

Debris located in Kayak Island Convergence Area 

����� �� � ��� �� � � �� ���� � ����� � �� 

��� ��������

 

55
 

 

 

 

 

� 

 � 

Text

��������

�

�

�

� 

�

�

�

�

�

�

���������������������������� �������������������

�������� ���������������� ���������� ���

����������������

�������������������������

�������������

�����������������������

���������������������������

������ ����

������ ������ ����

�����

�������

����������������������

�� � �� ��� 

� � � �� �� �� ����

� � 

� �� 

 � ��

 ��� � ����

 

 

��� �� � � �� � ���

 � �� 

� �� ��� � �� �����

Gulf of Alaska Debris sightings 

�����������

Debris in Gulf of Alaska 

Debris found mostly in convergence areas, frontal areas, eddies 

Not much debris in central Gulf of Alaska 

Satellite Data: 

Altimeter data key to mapping eddies 

Single-orbit, full-resolution chlorophyll and SST imagery are the most useful 

data for mapping eddies under cloud-free conditions 

SAR imagery useful under cloudy conditions 

Aircraft Data: 

Anomaly detection software is essential for in-flight analysis 

Thermal IR is not effective for debris detection. 

Good communications is critical for flight planning. 

Real-time satellite data integrated with aircraft GPS would be helpful. 

For LIDAR to be effective, swath width must be much larger. 

��� �� � � �� �� � �

�� �� �� � ��� ����

NOAA P3 Flights from Hawaii to the 

North Pacific Subtropical Convergence 

Zone 

Flight 1 – March 18 

Flight 2 – March 27 

Flight 3 – March 29 

Flight 4 – April 3 

������� ����������

���� ���������� a

��������

�������� ����

������� ����

�����������������

������ �������

56
� 

 �

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ����

 �� �� � �� �� � �� �� �

�� ��

 �

����� ��� �� �

 � ����

 � 

� � �� ���

� �� �

��� �� � �� �� �� 

����� � � �� 

��� � � � �� �� � �� �� � �� �� � �� 

 

 � �

 ���� � � ��� ���

�� �� ����

��� � � � ���

�� 

���������������������������������

���������������������������

����������������������������������

����������������������������

��������

��������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

����� � ����

�� 

 � ���� ��� �� �� ����� 

� �� � ��� 

���� �� ��

�� �� ��� ��

��� � ���

�

���� 

���

��

��

�

��

���

�

���

� � � �

� �� �� �����

���� �� ��

 � �

�� �� �� ��� ���

� �

� �

� �

������������

�����������

����

Nets were common in North Pacific Convergence Zone, but floats are most 

common form of debris 

Debris was found concentrated just north of the location of the Transition 

Zone Chlorophyll Front at this time of year 

Visual observations are an efficient means of accurately spotting marine 

debris from aircraft. 

Satellite-derived chlorophyll and SST maps and debris observations can be 

used to derive a Debris Likelihood Index which may be useful for indicating 

the geographic regions that can be most efficiently surveyed for marine 

debris; the usefulness of this Index needs to be assessed. 

Many animals were sighted in debris areas. 

57
�����������������������������������������������������������

������������� ������

��������������������������������

������� ��������������

��������������

����������

�����

������������������������

�������

�������������

������������� ��������

��������

�������������������������������������

� ��������������������������������������������������������������

� �������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������

� ������ ��������������������������������������������������

��������������������� ��������������������������

���������������

�����

������

�

�

� 

�

� 

�

�

�

�����

��������

�

�

�

� 

�

 

�����

�������������

� 

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��������������

��������������

������

��������������

����������

����������

�����������

����������������

��������� ������

Are there areas in the Bering Sea with substantial debris? Where are they? 

Is there still a lot of debris just south of the Aleutians as reported by Mio et 

al., 1990. 

How much debris is generated by the various fisheries in the Bering Sea 

(U.S. and Russian)? What is the fate of this debris? 

Will a combination of information on fishing activity and effort and accurate 

oceanic and near shore circulation modeling allow accurate 

predictions of beach debris accumulation? 

What is the debris situation in the Arctic Ocean and on its shores? How can 

GhostNet best connect with the NOAA thrust in the Arctic? 

What is the rate of marine debris deposition on representative shorelines of 

Alaska? Where are the hot spots? 

Are eddies really hot spots for MD presence? 

Are there oceanic convergence areas in the Gulf of Alaska or Bering Sea 

where MD aggregates in the open ocean? Is there a seasonal cycle if 

such convergence occurs? 

Where does the MD that washes up on the Pribilofs Islands come from and is 

it washed ashore seasonally? Do St. Paul Island and St. George Island 

have similar marine debris deposition rates? 

What is the impact of MD on marine mammals in Alaska? On salmon? 

Can oceanographic models or coupled ocean/atmosphere models be used to 

predict where MD will collect on shore and where the hot spots are? 

What are the best models to use? How can they be validated? How can they 

be used for oil spill trajectory forecasts? 

What are the MD objectives and priorities of NOAA in Alaska, the State of 

Alaska, and NGO conservation groups in Alaska? How does GhostNet 

fit into these priorities? 

How much MD is present? How distributed? 

How does distribution change with time? 

Is total amount of MD increasing or decreasing and at what rate? 

What happens to the MD? 

What remains in summer in the area of the wintertime convergence? 

How much macro debris (especially derelict fishing nets) is in the easternand western “garbage patches?” 

What is the “life cycle” of MD in the garbage patches? 

What is the best strategy to survey the MD in the North Pacific? 

What is the best way to use a UAS and ship together to survey MD? 

What UAS capabilities should be the ultimate goal for GhostNet? 

Will the new higher-resolution satellite sensors do a better job of spotting 

debris from space? 

58
 � 

����������������������������

�

�

�

� 

� 

��������������������������������������

���������

� 

� 

�

�

�������

 

�� 

�� � � � � � 

 � 

������������������������������������

���������������

��������������������������

Continue development and testing of UAS 

Develop a circulation modeling capability for GhostNet 

Validate the circulation model with archived buoy drift information and with 

GhostNet buoy deployments 

Test satellite detection of nets with the new GeoEye-1 satellite 

multi-spectral data 

Develop a practical ship/UAS survey strategy and test it. 

���������������

Survey the North Pacific to estimate the amount of debris and its 

distribution. 

Survey the garbage patches to determine amount and distribution of 

debris. 

Develop a post-hurricane marine debris survey strategy and test it. 

Implement an operational at-sea marine debris detection and recovery 

program. 

> 

� ?? 

� � � � http://www.highseasghost.net/index_new.html 

�� � ��� � 

� � � � � 

ftp://orpheus.pfel.noaa.gov/outgoing/dfoley/pifsc/cred/deli/ 

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/mecb/sar/gnet/ghostnet07.html

 � � � http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/welcome.html

 �

 � 

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/projects/atsea_cruise.html 

http://trekme.com/oceandebris/ 

59
–

–

–

–

–

–

–

���������������

�����������

��������������������������

��������������������

�������������������

� ���������������������������������������

�����������������������������

� ��������������������������������������������

��������������������

� �������������������������������������������

����������������������

�������������������������

� �������������������������

� ���������������������������

� �������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������

���������

� ���������������������������������������������������

�������

� ���������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������

� �������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������

� ���������������������������������������������������������������

������������

� ������������������������������������������������������

������������������������

� ������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������

�����������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

�������

������������������������������������������������������������

������

��������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

���������

�������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

� ���������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

� �����������������

��������������������

�����������������������

������������������

�������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

60
�������������������

����������������

��������������������

61
       

   

                       

                       

                           

     

                           

                       

                   

               

   

                    

                 

                 

           

   

                               

        

                             

                       

                     

     

     

     

   

               

       

                 

               

       

           

         

         

                   

   

APPENDIX V. Discussion Notes
 

Tiered approach

	 No single platform can perform all necessary steps from detection to removal.

	 Having a short‐range detection mechanism on a removal ship is critical to

pinpoint areas of high density. At this point remote sensing and modeling give too

large a range.

	 We need to reduce the search area. This is broken down into two questions:

o	 Can DFG be parameterized to allow for tracking and modeling of debris

movement?

o	 What is the optimum system for reducing the search area?

Strategies for selecting detection technology (presented by three groups)

Strategy A:

1.	 Develop parameters that describe DFG for modeling and model validation.

2.	 Develop parameters that describe DFG for remote sensing detection.

3.	 Stratify entire search area using satellite imagery and models.

4.	 Validate strata using a statistical sample.

Strategy B:

1.	 Look at the life cycle and distribution of DFG. Oceanography has a role in this, so

that should be considered.

2.	 Look at the technology and find the best sensor suite to detect and track DFG.

Oceanography will also influence the choice or development of the best sensor

suite. The sensor suite breaks down into these three action items:

 Evaluate existing data.

 Do field tests.

 Work on open development.

Strategy C:

1.	 Decide size of DFG of interest (min, max).

2.	 Collect examples of DFG.

3.	 Deliver variety of examples of DFG/sheeting to sensor team.

4.	 Identify candidate sensor suite against components by DFG.

5.	 Run preliminary tests in simulated environment.

6.	 Use/improve circulation models to target likely environments.

7.	 Profile environment (include seasonal, interannual variability).

8.	 Determine potential platforms against defined environment.

9.	 Systems analysis of down‐selected options: sensor + platform + bounded
 

environment.
 

10. Test‐off/fly‐off/comparison matrix/system selection.

62
                                 

                       

                             

                 

                       

                         

                       

                     

                         

                       

           

                   

                         

     

                     

                               

   

                     

                           

     

                           

           

     

                   

                     

       

                       

                                   

     

                       

                     

   

   

     

   

       

                         

       

Unknowns

 What is the shape of DFG in the open ocean? The shape of debris will change its

trajectory. For modeling, we need to come up with a general shape.

 Vertical extent of DFG in the water column is very important. It is important to

define the general characteristics of debris for modeling efforts.

	 Is neutrally buoyant debris affected by downwelling? Does it subduct? How do

fouling organisms affect density of nets? We need a better sense of vertical

movement. Density of nets might change with temperature; there might be a

temperature barrier/point along the water column where nets sink and no longer

float.

 We need a better understanding of the life cycle and distribution of DFG.

 How does DFG move with/within the zones (e.g., STCZ)? Smaller questions to

resolve to answer the bigger question:

o	 How important are zones and how do we measure them?

o	 What is the degree of predictability of debris distribution at oceanic fronts in

the North Pacific?

o	 How should we survey and map; how good are the maps?

o	 What is the total abundance of DFG in the N. Pacific and how does it change

over time?

o	 What is the large‐scale life cycle of debris sources and sinks?

o	 What is the behavior (movements) and fate of DFG after it enters the ocean?

o	 Is tagging effective?

	 Do we know the strength of small‐scale convergence? What would it take to get

stuff out of a convergence zone?

Cost/Importance/Scale of problem

 How much does it cost? How much money is available?
 

 What are the ecological considerations? (for prioritization and to ensure methods
 

don’t have negative impact)

 What is the cost of doing nothing? What are the start‐up costs?

 One thing before we get started is to show how important it is, to show the cost of

not doing something.

Strategies:

 Is it worth it to develop a research/monitoring plan and associated costs?

 Develop and validate a mass balance for DFG (scale the problem):

o	 Identify sources

o	 Identify sinks

o	 Quantify “standing stock”

o Partition pathways
 

 Estimate costs of impacts.
 

	 What is the best technology for low‐cost debris collection from large areas (e.g.,

autonomous platforms in STCZ)?

63
                       

       

                     

   

                   

               

                         

                               

                 

                           

         

	 How do economic impacts and liability concerns lead to political interest and

public awareness of DFG?

	 What are the economic considerations of DFG mitigation (emphasis on detection

and removal)?

	 What are the economics of DFG impacts and recovery strategies?

	 To what extent is DFG a hazard to navigation?

	 One possibility is to look internationally at the manufacture and sales of fishing

gear. If we know those figures and the amount discarded on land, we might be able

to estimate the volume that’s being lost at sea.

	 Suggestion of developing a “road show” and an elevator speech to get attention for

the program and enlist partners.

64
       

     

                     

                     

                   

                       

                             

   

               

                 

                   

                   

                     

                       

                     

                             

                         

                       

                 

               

                     

                                   

                       

                       

                               

                       

       

                       

               

                     

                        

                       

                       

                         

               

               

                       

                           

                         

                       

     

APPENDIX VI. Gaps Summary
 

Derelict Fishing Gear Characteristics

M01. What are the ecological impacts of DFG on the open ocean?

M02. What are the navigational impacts of DFG on the open ocean?

M03. What is the cost of large‐scale at sea DFG removal?

M04. What is the accumulation rate of DFG on the Main Hawaiian Islands?

M05. What is the cost (both economic and ecological) of DFG removal at sea compared to

removal from reefs/habitats?

M06. What is the effect of wind on net movement?

M07. What is the effect of tagging devices on net movement?

M08. What is the age of nets and lines in large aggregations?

M09. What is the photodegradation rate of different types of line?

M10. What is the average size and weight of aggregations found at‐sea?

M11. What is the average size and weight of aggregations found on reefs?

M12. What is the level of funding for future reef removal efforts?

M13. How do we determine whether nets that are on the reef need to be removed?

M14. What is the timeline of benthic community recovery after nets have been removed?

M15. What are the effects of nets in high and low energy habitats?

M16. How much DFG is present in the North Pacific?

M17. How is DFG distributed in the North Pacific?

M18. How does DFG distribution change with time in the North Pacific?

M19. Is the total amount of DFG in the ocean increasing or decreasing and at what is the rate?

M20. What is the fate of the DFG that is in the ocean?

M21. What is the “life cycle” of DFG in the so‐called garbage patches?

M22. How does the density of DFG debris vary from east to west along N. Pacific STCZ?

M23. Would at‐sea marine debris removal significantly decrease the amount of debris that

accumulates in the NWHI?

M24. What is the morphology of the MD patch in the North Pacific?

M25. How heterogeneous is the density of the MD patch?

M26. What are the characteristics of individual clusters within the MD patch?

M27. What is the vertical distribution of a net in the water column?

M28. What is the timing and location of introduction of MD into the environment?

M29. What is the number of nets that are currently circulating the ocean?

M30. If a net is located in a convergence zone, does it stay there?

M31. What percentage of nets end up on shore?

M32. Is the rate of lost nets increasing or decreasing?

M33. What is the economic impact of marine debris to navigation, fisheries and ecosystems?

M34. How much DFG needs to be removed to mitigate economic impacts (e.g., for incentive

program feasibility)?

M35. How do we have an incentives program and avoid “freight‐for‐hire” and liability concerns?

M36. What incentives can be established to maintain/ increase participation from the longliners

at Pier 38?

65
                       

                     

                           

               

                     

                     

               

                                 

                       

               

                 

               

                             

                         

                         

                           

         

                 

                 

                             

                                 

                             

   

                               

     

                           

   

                           

       

                             

                     

                         

                     

                       

                     

                 

                             

                         

               

                     

M37. How can we utilize longline fishing boats to tag/mark derelict fishing gear?

M38. What is the political will and commitment to establish large‐scale measures?

M39. What are concrete estimates of the interaction of MD with fisheries, protected species, sea

birds, beach users, the shipping industry, and marine navigation?

M40. What strategies could be used to develop profitable products from MD?

M41. How do we forecast the direction or speed of a net/DFG?

M42. Do convergence zones contain the majority of the nets/DFG?

M43. Do tagging buoys separate from nets? If so, are we tracking the buoy and not the net?

M44. How do we gather data for identifying and tracking convergent areas in sub‐optimal

weather conditions?

M45. How do we identify and track sub‐surface nets?

M46. How do we sustainably fund a monetary incentives program?

M47. How will fishermen locate marine debris at sea?

M48. How will fishermen safely remove debris at sea? And in the quantities sufficient to mitigate

impacts?

M49. Is the behavior of marine debris based on debris vertical size and shape?

M50. What is the distribution of parameters (e.g., size, shape, buoyancy) of marine debris?

M51. What is the distribution of marine debris in the N. Pacific? (including documented events

of debris landing on beaches)

M52. What is the lifetime of marine debris? (degradation rate?)

M53. How much DFG is currently present in pelagic and island‐associated environments?

M54. How much DFG is added each year to these “stocks,” and from what fisheries and

locations?

M55. How much and at what rate is DFG is being deposited in high‐risk areas (e.g., the Hawaiian

Islands)?

M56. How much DFG is modified each year through sinking or degradation into pieces too small

to entangle?

M57. How many individuals of threatened and endangered species are killed each year at sea as a

result of DFG?

M58. How much volunteer time and in‐kind services are provided by beach cleanups and at‐sea

removal efforts?

M59. Do micro‐ and meso‐debris floating near the ocean surface serve as a proxy indicator for

accumulation zones of DFG?

M60. What is the rate and pattern of dispersal of DFG from the STCZ in spring?

M61. Do nets move at the same rate as the convergence zone?

M62. Will a combination of fishing activity and effort information with accurate oceanic and

nearshore circulation modeling allow accurate predictions of beach and reef debris

accumulation?

M63. What is the best strategy to survey DFG in the North Pacific?

M64. What percent of the ocean floor is impacted by marine debris?

M65. How much floating debris ends up on the seafloor?

M66. Is there a yo‐yo effect of debris changing buoyancy from getting fouled then having the

fouling mechanisms die off and decompose at depth? If so, how does it work?

M67. How many fishing nets are made and sold?

M68. What size derelict fishing gear do we need to look for?

66
                       

                   

                           

                             

                         

   

                           

       

                               

                           

           

                           

                           

               

                 

                             

   

                                 

                   

                         

                             

   

                   

                     

     

                       

           

  

                       

                             

                             

                     

                       

                       

                         

                         

                       

                   

               

M69. What are the signatures of derelict fishing gear that can be detected?

M70. How do we prioritize removal efforts based on economic/ecological impacts?

Oceanography

O01. What is the effect of large‐scale oceanic regimes (Niño/Niña) on the convergence zone and

debris distribution?

O02. How can we survey large ocean areas and direct removal efforts to large probability areas?

O03. How will climate change affect North Pacific ocean circulation and thus marine debris

movement and accumulation?

O04. How does external input (e.g., air and water pollution, CO2 loading) affect the North

Pacific system (e.g., circulation, ocean‐atmosphere interaction)?

O05. What are the effects of ENSO and PDO (changes in SST, sea level pressure, wind patterns)

in the composition and movement of the frontal zone and subsequent effects of the

movement and accumulation of marine debris?

O06. What is the timing, duration, and mesoscale aspects of the composition of the frontal

zone?

O07. How will the expansion of oligotrophic areas in the North Pacific affect marine debris

deposition in the Hawaiian Islands, specifically the NWHI?

O08. Can convergence information be integrated in time to determine potential MD

accumulation?

O09. What is the relationship among the salinity front, the SST fronts, and the Transition Zone

Chlorophyll Front?

O10. What is the role of local fronts and convergences and how do they compare with the effects

of stirring and mixing by ocean gyres flow and eddies?

O11. How well do satellite derived products detect the actual manifolds in the flow?

O12. How do wind and surface currents affect the trapping nature of unstable manifolds? Is the

“stickiness” decreased?

O13. What are the effects of ocean acidification on productivity and community composition?

(possible effects to primary and secondary productivity and thus detection of convergence

zone by chlorophyll concentration?)

O14. What is the relationship between the location of debris sightings and underlying

Lagrangian features of the ocean currents?

Technology

T01. How can we further refine the search area given by DELI maps?

T02. What close‐range survey method can effectively locate debris in a variety of sea states/ met

conditions?

T03. What is the best platform (vessel) for at‐sea removal of large net aggregates in different

weather conditions?

T04. What is the most efficient/cost‐effective configuration of ship, aircraft, UAS, & satellite

remote sensing to locate and recover derelict nets on an operational basis?

T05. What UAS capabilities should be the ultimate goal for the GhostNet Project?

T06. How well does the DELI pinpoint oceanic convergence? How accurate is the DELI?

T07. Is there a SAR signature that provides new information on location of oceanic

convergence?

T08. Is there correspondence between the SAR signatures and SST or color fronts?

T09. Can oceanic convergence be measured at high resolution remotely using time‐integrated

scatterometer and altimeter wind drift and geostrophic current information?

67
                     

       

                         

           

                   

                               

       

                       

     

                             

                         

                       

         

                             

                               

           

                           

                           

                     

                             

                   

                             

                 

                       

                           

                           

                           

   

                   

                 

T10. What combination of instruments has the capability for digital recording and unassisted

classification of debris sightings?

T11. Can satellite remote sensing be used to identify individual MD targets? Or is convergence

tracking the most we can expect?

T12. Can the new GeoEYE‐1.5 be used to identify individual nets?

T13. What is the potential use of both optical and microwave sensors for the direct and indirect

detection of marine debris?

T14. Can we use hyperspectral/multispectral sensors to map MDs based on water states

associated with MDs?

T15. What equipment can be used to announce the presence of DFG and minimize threat to

navigation?

T16. What Coast Guard technology and equipment can be used for at‐sea detection efforts?

T17. Can the source of marine debris be obtained through seeding models with information

(e.g., from GhostNet 2005 survey)?

T18. Does technology presently exist or is available to the civilian sector, for direct detection of

marine debris at sea over areas sufficiently large to provide a statistical basis for a debris

census that covers the N. Pacific?

T19. How do we detect floating nets using remote sensors (e.g., microwave, radars, in shorter

wavelengths)?

T20. How do we directly detect plastics (e.g., floats) using sensors (would rely on subpixel

analysis of hyperspectral imagery to reveal chemical bonds in the plastic)?

T21. How do we indirectly detect the interfaces between parcels of water that may trap debris

(e.g., using a scatterometer for wind lines and current‐related features)?

T22. What is the effectiveness and feasibility of the use of sensors not currently utilized, to

detect marine debris (e.g., SAR imagery or hyperspectral imagery)?

T23. What, if any, new sensors would be available and effective for fieldwork?

T24. Would indirect detection techniques be reliable across a variety of sea states and water

conditions?

T25. Can DELI maps provide a quantitative estimate of debris density (sightings per sq km)?

T26. Can we develop protocols to use shipboard observers to estimate debris densities in various

weather/ sea conditions?

T27. Can we detect the density and size of DFG “patches”?

T28. What is the most effective platform to carry sensors?

68
APPENDIX    VII. Storyboards
 

69
How does DFG move with/within the zones (e.g., STCZ)? 

Q1B How important are 

zones and how do we 

measure them? 

Q1B How should we 

survey and map; how 

good are the maps? 

Strategic Action 1-5 

Compile and combine 

information and data 

that exists or has been 

collected on oceanic 

movement, etc. 

Strategic Action 1-7 

Build a comprehensive 

circulation model (to the 5-10 

km area). 

Q1B What is the total 

abundance of MD in the N. 

Pacific and how does it 

change over time? 

Q1A What is the degree 

of predictability of 

debris distribution at 

oceanic fronts in the 

North Pacific? 

Gaps 

M25, M44 

O14, O03 

T26 

Gaps 

O05, O06, O12 

T06 Q1A What is the large scale 

life cycle of debris sources 

and sinks? 

Q1B What is the behavior 

(movements) and fate of 

MD after it enters the 

ocean? 

Q1A Is tagging effective? 

Strategic Action 1-4 

Test various types of tags for 

their effectiveness and tag 

loss. 

Strategic Action 1-3 

Test how various types of 

tags affects movement of 

nets. 

Group 1 

70

Gaps 

none 

Gaps 

M17, M27, M31, M32, 

M50, M54, M55, M60 
Q1B How well do the 

sensors we have 

identified work? 

Q1B What sensors do 

we want? 

Strategic Action 1-8 

Look at the effectiveness 

of the UAS (e.g. with 

manned aircraft). 

Strategic Action 1-2 

Figure out a way to have a 

permanent sensor and 

platform (test bed) for 

detecting DFG at sea. 

What are the most cost-effective methods for locating/removing DFG? 

Q1B What are the 

economic considerations of 

marine debris mitigation 

(emphasis on detection and 

removal)? 

Q1A What are the 

optimal sensors for 

direct and indirect 

detection of MD? 

Gaps 

T04, T11 

Gaps 

T12, T13, T16, T22 

Q1A How do economic 

impacts and liability 

concerns lead to political 

interest and public 

awareness of MD? 

Gaps 

M05, M12, M23, M33, M34, M57 

Q1A What are the 

economics of MD impacts 

and recovery strategies? 

Strategic Action 1-10 

Identify funding agencies and 

collaborative avenues for 

marine debris mitigation. 

Strategic Action 1-9 

Create a business plan for 

marine debris removal with a 

defensible budget. 

Q1A What is the best 

technology for low cost 

debris collection from 

large areas (e.g. 

autonomous platforms 

in STCZ). 

Strategic Action 1-11 

Quantify costs associated with marine 

debris impacts (market and non-market). 

Group 1 

71
What are the most cost Group 1 -effective methods for locating/removing DFG? 

Strategic Action 1-12 Compile and 

synthesize data on marine debris 

navigation hazard events (e.g., fund white 

paper). 

Strategic Action 1-13 

ID and recruit reliable fishing industry partners. 

Q1B How can the fishing 

industry partner in helping 

to solve the MD problem? 

To what extent is MD a hazard 

to navigation? 

Gap 

T15 

Gaps 

M36, M37, M39, M46, M47, M48 

Q1A How do we involve 

fishers in data collection, 

tagging and removal of MD? 

Is there a role for fishers in detection (and 

removal)? 

72
Strategy 2B-2 

Collect examples of DFG. 

What are my tools to 

find and analyze 

DFG? 

Where does the funding come from? (overlies all strategies) 

What is the profile of 

a DFG aggregation 

and its environment? 

Where is it 

(environment, 

depth, 

weather, etc.)? 

Requirements Document 

What: Target characteristics 

How: Instruments capable 

of looking 

Where: Environment 

With What: Platform 

Create Scope of Work 

Strategy 2B-1 

Decide size of DFG of 

interest (min, max) 

Strategy 2B-2 

Collect examples of DFG. 

Strategy 2B-2 

Collect examples of DFG 

Strategy 2B-3 

Deliver variety examples 

of DFG / sheeting to 

sensor team. 

Strategy 2B-4 

Identify candidate 

sensor suite against 

components by DFG. 

Strategy 2B-5 

Run preliminary tests in 

simulated environment. 

Strategy 2B-6 

Use/improve circulation 

models to target likely 

environments. 

[MAP] 

Strategy 2B-7 

Profile environment 

(include seasonal, 

interannual) 

[Max env’l conditions] 

Strategy 2B-8 

Determine potential 

platforms against 

defined environment. 

Strategy 2B-10 

Test-off/fly-off -> 

comparison matrix -> 

system selection. 

Strategy 2B-9 

Systems analysis of 

down-selected options: 

sensor & platform & 

bounded environment. 

Detection of DFG Strategy Map Group 

2B 

73
What is the most viable way to detect and track DFG? Group 

2A 

DFG 

Current Available Future Life Cycle Morphology Distribution 

Oceanography 

Sensor Suite 

74
Group 

Topic Question Gaps addressed 2A

Sensors How do we determine which sensors are 

adequate to detect DFG and worth pursuing? 

M44 

T02, T07, T09, T10, T11, T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, 

T19, T21, T22, T23 

Incentives What incentives can we use and how do we 

leverage these incentives? 

M35, M36, M37, M46, M47, M48, M58 

Oceanography What convergence scales are most important 

for open ocean accumulation of debris and 

how will this be affected by climate change? 

O01, O03, O04, O05, O06, O07, O08, O09, O12, 

O13 

Temporal Change What is the life cycle of DFG? M03, M04, M09, M18, M21, M30, M31, M32, 

M49, M52, M56, M60, M61 

Distribution What are the large & meso scale 

accumulation zones for DFG in the North 

Pacific? 

M16, M17, M27, M29, M42, M51, M53 

O14 

Economic What have the economic impacts of DFG 

been in the NW Pacific Islands? 

M03, M05, M12, M33, M34, M38, M40 

T03, T04, T26 

Detection What kind of detection capabilities currently 

exist and how can we use current and future 

sensor technology to aid in detection? 

M08, M19, M28, M45, M54, M55, M63 

O02, O10, O11 

T01, T05, T06, T08, T18, T20, T24, T25 

Morphology What is the most common characteristics and 

composition of DFG worthy of retrieval? 

M10, M11, M24, M25, M26, M50 

Ecological What are the positive and negative ecological 

impacts of DFG? 

M01, M02, M13, M14, M15, M20, M39, M57 

Modeling Can modeling be used to characterize mass 

distribution and movement of DFG? 

M07, M23, M41, M43, M59, M62 

T17 

75
C 

What are the properties of 

DFG at sea? 

D 

What data/info do we have/need 

(oceanography)? 

A 

Direct detection of DFG at 

sea what are the 

platforms/sensors? 

How can we survey large ocean areas, and cost-effectively direct 

removal efforts to probability areas? 

B 

How do we determine 

high density areas? 

Input 

F 

What are the ecological 

considerations? (for prioritization, 

and ensure methods don’t have 

neg. impact) 

Group 3 

E 

How much does it cost? How 

much money is available? 

Drivers 

76
A - How do we detect DFG? How well do we detect DFG? 

Gaps 

T02, T10, T11, T12, T16, T18, T19, T99 

New Gap #1 – What is the most effective platform to carry sensors? 

Group 3 

Strategy 3-A1 

Develop or find 

effective sensor(s) to 

use in detecting DFG at 

sea. 

Strategy 3-A2 

Test delectability of 

DFG with multiple 

sensors. 

Strategy 3-A3 

Develop or find effective 

platform(s) to use in detecting 

DFG at sea. 

B – What tools / info can we apply to locating DFG? 

Gaps 

M59, M62, O08, T01, T06, T07, T08, 

T09, T17, T21, T24, T25 

Strategy 3-B1 

Determine the relationship b/w 

oceanographic features and DFG. 

(population, density, distribution) 

Strategy 3-B2 

Conduct surveys to determine 

population density distribution of 

DFG. 

77
C – What are the properties of DFG (at sea). How much DFG? And fate? 

Group 3 

Strategy 3-C1 Understand life-cycle of 

DFG. 

D – What are all the pieces needed to model DFG, and are data available to fill 

Strategy 3-D1 Determine the 

leeway of DFG. 

E – What does it all cost? 

F – What are the impacts of DFG? 

Gaps 

M03, M05, M12, M34, M37, M38, M58 

T04 

Strategy – none 

provided. 

Gaps 

M01, M02, M14, M15, M23, M33, M39, M57 

New Gap #2 – How do we prioritize removal 

efforts based on economic/ecological impacts? 

Strategy. Explore on-site pre-contact removal 

plan. 

78

Gaps

M04, M08, M09, M11, M21,

M26, M27, M28, M32, M42,

M50, M52, M56

Gaps 

M06, M07, M30, M41, M43, M49 
Can DFG be 

parameterized to allow 

for tracking and 

modeling of debris 

movement? 

Reduce the Search Area 

What is the optimum 

system for reducing the 

search area? 

Group 4 

Strategic Action 4-1 

(a) Develop parameters 

which describe DFG for 

modeling and model 

validation. 

(b) Develop parameters 

for DFG for remote 

sensing detection. 

Strategic Action 4-2 

Stratify entire search area 

using satellite imagery and 

models. 

Strategic Action 4-3 

Validate strata using a 

statistical sample. 

Gaps 

M62, 59, 44, O11, T1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 

Gaps 8, 9, 14, 21, 24, 25 

M6, 8, 11, 21, 26, 

27, 50, 52 

79
What is the cost of doing nothing? 

Strategy 4-4 

Is it worth it to 

develop 

research/monitoring 

plan and associated 

costs? 

Strategy 4-5 

Develop and validate a 

mass balance for DFG: 

• Identify sources 

• Identify sinks 

• Standing stock 

• Partition pathways 

Strategy 4-6 

Estimate costs of 

impacts. 

Group 4 

Gaps 

M03, 25, 38, 46, 

52, 54 

Gaps 

M01, 02, 13, 14, 

33, 39, 55, 57 

What, if any, sensors are available and effective for fieldwork? (and platforms) 

Gaps

T13, 16, 19, 20, 26, 10, 18, 22 

New gap = Is there a unique

spectral signature for MDs?

Strategy 4-8 

Develop and execute an experiment to 

determine the most effective system for 

direct detection of MDs. 

80
81
         

                         

                       

           

APPENDIX VIII. Strategic Action Outline

Actions from the different groups are here presented in thematic areas, with some

indication of order within and connectivity among areas. Individual actions are outlined

in greater detail in Appendix IX.

82
83
         

                                   

                     

                               

                             

                          

APPENDIX IX. Strategic Action Templates

Actions are numbered by group (1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4) or “N,” referring to a group of actions

developed within the subject‐matter groups. Specific actions (except for those beginning

in “N”) can be found on that group’s storyboard. Note that many fields are not completed;

these templates are included to capture the group’s work, not to indicate that planning is

complete or offer these strategic actions as ready to implement as they are.

84
 

Action # 

Subject 

Matter Gp Action Needed Gaps Steps Organizations to involve Who has technology Impediments 

Other non-MD 

benefits 

1-2 T 

Develop a permanent sensor and 

platform test bed for detecting DFG 

at Sea. T12, T13, T16, T22 

1-3 M 

Test how various types of tags 

affect movement of nets 

Implement a tagging program with Federal agencies and NGOs , 

Test both vertical and horizontal movement in water, Develop 

recording methods that better classify DFG 

NOAA, USCG, local 

fishing vessels, 

universities 

Tag manufacturers, NOAA, 

USCG, fishing industry 

coops 

Lost tags, different nets will act 

differently 

Other uses for tags 

after testing 

1-4 T 

Test various types of tags for their 

effectiveness and tag loss 

1-5 T 

Compile and combine info and data 

on oceanic movement that exists or 

has been collected M25, O14, O03, M44, T26 

1-7 O 

Build a comprehensive circulation 

model (with 5-10 km resolution) for 

convergence modeling T01, O12, O06, O05 

Navy, CG, JPL, IPRC Post 

Docs, Dave Foley, 

Ocean Water (Jeff 

Polovina) 

Verifying Data, Difficulty of 

working at sea, Question of 

Scale, Understand 

Characteristics of debris 

Model validation, 

Climate Change 

1-8 T 

Look at the effectiveness of the 

UAS (e.g. compared with manned 

aircraft) T04, T11 

1-9 M 

Create a business plan for marine 

debris removal with a defensible 

budget M05, M12 

Use action 1-11 as foundation for cost benefit analysis; See action 

4-4 “is it worth it?” 

1-10 M 

Identify funding agencies and 

collaborative avenues for marine 

debris mitigation 

ID funding resources/agencies including NOAA MDP: Federal, 

NGO, State, Private patrons; Explore “match-making” technology 

to increase (e.g. chat rooms?) collaborative work; Create web page 

repository of funding opportunities; Conduct forums to build 

networking and grant opportunities NOAA NOAA 

Important but not crisis issues, 

so attention is diverted 

1-11 M 

Quantify cost associated with MD 

impacts M24, M33, M34, M57 

Identify impacts (Dovetail with 4-4): economic, ecological, safety; 

Lit search on the area listed above for known information. 

Identify needs, and for each determine plan. This could include 

studies to put $ on entanglement/habitat loss, ship hazards, beach 

cleanups, tourism, etc. 

Fishing community, 

researchers (protected 

species and coral reef) 

City, State tourism 

agencies, USCG 

Hard to assign monetary value 

to loss of life, and loss of 

habitat 

Monetary value for 

reef could transfer 

to ship grounding 

events (estimate 

damage costs) 

1-12 M 

Compile and synthesize data on MD 

navigation hazard events T15 

ID what data exist and obtain data, ID lead organization/individual 

to analyze data (e.g., contract or fed on staff), Publish document in 

appropriate journal (e.g., Environmental Research), *Thorough lit. 

search to include conf. proc., e.g., Environmental Research 108, 

2008, pp. 131-139. (new Moore publication) USCG, NOAA, BoatUS Same 

funding; Incomplete data sets; 

unreported events Safer environment 

1-13 

ID and recruit reliable fishing 

industry partners M36, M37, M39, M46, M47, M48 ID Fisheries impacted by MD; ID Fishing org/agencies to engage 

Mike Stone (Fury 

Group) Brett Payne 

(United Catcher boat, 

other local fishers) 

Individuals with personal 

relationships of integrity 

with individual fishers 

Reliable engagement, 

consistency of motives among 

fishers and mitigation leaders 

2A-1 

Identify the life cycle, morphology 

and distribution of DFG 

M03, M04, M09, M18, M21, M30, 

M31, M32, M49, M52, M56, M60, 

M61; M16, M17, M27, M29, M42, 

M51, M53, O14; M10, M11, M24, 

M25, M26, M50 

Work to quantify the movement of DFG in the open ocean, 

Identify sources and sinks of marine debris, Back calculate amount 

of DFG necessary to have amount deposited on reef (census). 

Mass balance, Lab experiments to understand degradation, 

agglomeration rates, effects of wind/ DFG 

CRED/NOAA, industry 

(fishers) CRED/NOAA 

We don’t have information on 

what’s collecting out there. We 

need industry to provide some 

measure of source. 

2A-2 

Evaluate existing DFG “drifter” data 

from ghostnet, etc 

This action will help us to 

understand the movement of MD 

from previously tagged DFG; O01, 

O03, O04, O05, O06, O07, O08, 

O09, O12, O13; M07, M23, M41, 

M43, M59, M62, T17 Compile available data, Integrate with oceanographic data 

ATI, NOAA, NASA, Navy, 

IPRC NOAA, IPRC, ATI, CG 

Lack of drifter data, size/ scale 

of circulation models 

Search and rescue, 

circulation patterns 

2A-3 Build appropriate sensors 

What sensors are appropriate? 

M44; T02, T07, T09, T10, T11, T12, 

T13, T14, T15, T16, T19, T21, T22, 

T23; M08, M19, M28, M45, M54, 

M55, M63, O02, O10, O11, T01, 

T05, T06, T08, T18, T20, T24, T25 

Evaluate existing data from sensors, Perform controlled tests of 

potential sensors, Field test promising sensors, Open development 

structure for upcoming sensor advancements ATI, NOAA, NASA, USCG ATI, NOAA, NASA 

Knowledge of region→provide 

oceanographic information to 

give idea of what’s an 

appropriate sensor, Knowledge 

of DFG lifecycle/composition 

Potential image 

analysis of other 

objects in the entire 

open ocean 

2B-1 

Decide size of DFG of interest (min, 

max) 

Prioritizing problem; water column or afloat masses? Determining 

what size is “detectable”? by remote sensing 

NOAA, USFWS, 

Engineers?, CG, TNC, 

UH, Non-profits, AMRF 

NASA, Lockheed Martin, 

NOAA CoastWatch, JPL 

Funding, Agreeing on minimum 

detectable size? 

Safety, Hazard to 

Navigation doesn’t 

really fit 

85
Action # 

Subject 

Matter Gp Action Needed Gaps Steps Organizations to involve Who has technology Impediments 

Other non-MD 

benefits 

2B-2 Collect examples/samples of DFG 

Identify how much, where, etc., Who does it?, How it’s done?, 

Who pays?, Timeframe?, Equipment, Resources, Where destined 

Volunteers, 

Stakeholders, 

Contractors, CG, 

Recyclers 

Anyone with a boat! Those 

who have access to beach 

debris 

Funding, Availability, 

Seasonal/weather 

Historical reference 

for future use? 

Recreational benefit, 

Economical benefit – 

tourist areas, Data 

points? 

2B-3 

Deliver variety of examples of DFG 

to sensor engineers Collect, classify, sort, label, package; Deliver 

Boater, Driver, 

Volunteers 

Widely available; USPS, 

DHL, FedEx 

Funding, Traffic, 

Schedule/timeframe, 

Quantities sufficient? 

Economic boost for 

payees 

2B-4 

Identify candidate sensor suite 

against components of DFG 

What we are looking for (profile 

DFG) 

1. define size, minimum/maximum elements 2. define sensors that 

will detect 3. define environment to operate in 4. define 

candidate platforms; evaluate system level for down selection for 

testing against 1-4 

Sensor engineering 

Science/materials 

subject matter experts, 

NOAA DFG collectors DOE, NASA remote sensing Funding at all gates 

Perhaps a suite of 

sensors usable for 

additional detection 

(threats) SAR 

2B-8 

Determine potential platforms 

against defined operational 

environment 

Platform that has range, power, 

mass, etc. 

Define sea state (max) to operate in, Define range/map, Refine 

models for prediction (currents, winds, weather) 

FAA, NASA, Navy, CG, 

Industry Industry FAA, large support team 

2B-9 

System analysis of down-selection 

options Testing to validate options Test against sensor, platform and bounded environment 

NASA/Industry-sensor, 

SCI, End-user? NOAA, Industry Scope, funding 

Better 

understanding of 

sensor 

capabilities/limitatio 

ns; platform 

2B 13 

Bring plastic fishery gear 

manufacturers into the loop to get 

quantity data and explore maritime 

technology 

We don’t know who or where they 

are or how many, Contact 

information, Industry Associations 

Identify Manufacturers – Quantify Sales; Identify Outlets – Sales 

Data; Identify Users – Purchase Data and Replacement Data 

ACC, Foreign Economic 

Liaisons, World Trade 

Organizations, Fishery 

Vessel Masters and 

Agents, UNEP 

State Department -

Business Associations, 

Trade Association 

Cost Funding – Reluctance to 

report data; International 

cooperation – Distance; 

Foreign Language 

Economic 

Information -

Education 

3-A1 

Develop or find effective sensor(s) 

to use in detecting DFG at sea T10, T11, T12, T19 

3-A2 (1 of 

3) Characterize DFG 

1. Obtain DFG (representation of targets at-sea) 2. Test dielectric 

properties, spectra 3. Define morphology, components 4. Pull 

characteristics information from data search (see Technology Data 

Mining Action) 

Navy (ONR), GhostNet, 

Coast Guard, sensor 

manufacturers 

3-A2 (2 of 

3) Define operational environment 

1. Identify geography/range (whole ocean vs. gyre), 2. Identify 

weather conditions, 3. Identify seasons/days, 4. Identify sea state 

(max) 

3-A2 (3 of 

3) Select sensors 

1. Assemble list of sensors, 2.Let out RFP with: a) specs of DFG, b. 

characteristics of debris field (density, sizes of DFG - 1Mon 

surface and larger); 3. Vendors will run tests with their sensors, 4. 

Test in operational setting with constraints 

3-A2 (with 

3 subactions) Test detectability of DFG with 

multiple sensors T18 

1. Obtain DFG, 2. Characterize DFG: dielectric properties, spectra, 

morphology, components 3. Assemble list of existing 

sensors/vendors 4. Define operational environmental constraints; 

geography, weather, sensor, size of area, sea state 5. Evaluate 

platforms that will work with sensors in environment 

Sensor manufacturers, 

labs 

3-A3 

Develop or find effective 

platform(s) to use in detecting DFG 

at sea T2, T16, T18, T28 

3-B1 O 

Determine the relationship 

between oceanographic features 

and DFG 

M59, M62, O08, T01, T06, T07, 

T08, T09, T17, T21, T24, T25 Verification with drifting DFG Navy, JPL, CG, NOAA 

3-B2 

Conduct surveys to determine 

population density distribution of 

DFG 

Determine Sensors, platforms, survey design, and statistical 

analyses 

NOAA, USCG, Sensor 

Experts, Platform 

Experts (folks at this 

workshop) Same 

Sample size required is 

unknown, Inter-annual 

variation, Challenging 

operating area, Funding 

86
 

 

 

 

Action # 

Subject 

Matter Gp Action Needed Gaps Steps Organizations to involve Who has technology Impediments 

Other non-MD 

benefits 

3-C1 Understand the life-cycle of DFG 

M04, M08, M09, M11, M21, M26, 

M27, M28, M32, M42, M50, M52, 

M56 

ID where /how many DFG enter the ocean, Create studies to 

determine: Age of nets (stretch, fouling), Drift, Degradation, 

Behavior (movement), Accumulation on reef/beach 

NOAA, Tony Andrady 

(degradation), Fishing 

community, 

Oceanography 

community, University 

scientists, Algalita Same 

Scale of problem, Unreported 

loss of Fishing Gear, 

Parameters that confound age 

information 

3-D1 

Determine the leeway and vertical 

motion of DFG 

Horizontal trajectory prediction of 

individual DFG; M06, M07, M30, 

M41, M43, M49 

Determine size range and shape of DFG, Pick typical DFGs, 

Test/observe vertical motion, Determine causes of vertical 

motion, Determine if vertical motion affects horizontal motion, 

Determine leeway of typical DFG Leeway – Art Allen Leeway - USCG 

Leeway field experiments 

require ship time 

3-F1 

Explore on-site pre-contact removal 

plan 

M01, M02, M14, M15, M23, M33, 

M39, M57, M70 

Determine feasibility of daily/weekly surface net surveys/removal 

at islands/atolls, Find funding/lead organization, Work out field 

details: # of people needed/how support, What to do with nets 

NOAA, local 

organizations (i.e., for 

NWHI=Monument), 

Coast guard-safety, 

Local recycle/power 

companies, other 

support field camps 

(i.e., seal/FWS Midway) 

CRED, Monk Seal field 

camps, volunteers or 

fishermen ~ mainland, MD 

Program - funding Weather, safety, cost, remote 

People at remote 

locations can 

observe other 

environmental 

events (e.g., 

bleaching) 

4-1 

Develop parameters which describe 

DFG for modeling and model 

validation M50, M27, M21 

Track horizontal movement, Track vertical movement with TDR; 

use different sizes of debris, Develop a fouling rate. How does 

fouling affect density and buoyancy, Develop wind/current effects 

for different sizes NOAA, University, USCG Same 

Any variation in size, density, 

wind, current, type of debris 

will change movement/model 

Add to current 

models; 

search/rescue 

4-2 

Verification/evaluation of existing 

circulation Models. Purpose is to 

stratify (characterize) entire search 

area using satellite and 

models/theory O08, M42, T24, O10, T09, etc. 

Lifecycle/characteristics, Understand interaction of DFG with 

currents/winds, waves, Synthesize existing tagged DFG data, Effect 

of fouling on nets, Scaled down simulation experiments, Synthesis 

of existing models comparison, Predictive capacity?, Nested 

highres develop sub-model Navy, JPL, NOAA, IPRC IPRC Verification data 

Search rescue, 

ecosystem process 

understanding, 

climate change, 

methods of model 

verification 

4-3 

Validate Strata for the entire search 

area using a statistical sample 

Statistical Validation of strata will 

allow improved estimate of debris 

density 

Determine minimum size/parameters of targets to detect, 

Determine acceptable sampling error, Choose survey 

methodology/technology, Implement survey, Report/analyze 

results 

Oceanographers, 

modelers 

How stable in time/space is the 

strategy 

4-4 M 

Determine cost effectiveness of 

research, monitoring and removal 

of MD at sea. 

We don’t have a clear idea of high, 

medium and low DFG 

concentrations and their 

movement over time. We don’t 

know the cost of doing nothing. 

Determine costs of surveys: (a) satellite, (b) aircraft, (c) UAV. 

Communicate cost in terms of square meters 

* Determine cost of each survey 

* Compare to the cost of doing nothing

 i. Cost of beach cleanups

 ii. Costs to navigation

 iii. Cost of ecological impacts 

NOAA, CG, Private 

research orgs, Cities, 

NASA, Lockheed Martin, 

States Same 

Lack of comprehensive plan, 

Lack of cost estimate for plan, 

Lack of cost estimate of doing 

nothing, 

Healthier ocean and 

marine life., Usable 

beaches 

4-5 

Develop and validate a mass 

balance of MD in the North Pacific M03, M25, M38, M46, M52, M54 

Identify sources, Identify sinks, Estimate standing stock, Partition 

pathways NOAA, NASA, DOD Funding and lack of knowledge 

Ecosystem 

information 

N-1 O 

Evaluate efficiency of existing 

circulation models 

Navy, CG, Jet Propulsion 

Lab (JPL), NOAA (Ocean 

Watch), IPRC 

Nikolai Maximenko (IPRC), 

Dave Foley 

Verification data, 

Characteristics and behavior 

movement of DFG, Spatial and 

temporal scales, Difficulty with 

getting in field, Lifecycle of 

DFG, Funding 

Search and rescue, 

Methodology for 

model verification, 

Ecosystem 

dynamics, Product, 

Migration 

N-2 O Lifecycle of DFG/nets 

NOAA CRED, State 

Department, RFMO, 

NMFS RFMOs 

Funding, Not enough data on 

DFG, International 

cooperation, Illegal fishing 

(IUU?) 

N-3 O 

Improve circulation models/ 

verification 

Understand interaction of DFG with currents and winds, 

Synthesize existing (and tagged) DFG data, Continue tagging 

debris, Scale models to ROI, Validate and work on presence 

NAVY, CG, JPL, IPRC, 

NOAA, ATI 

Nikolai, Foley, NOAA, IPRC, 

ATI, CG, Navy 

Verification data, Difficult in 

obtaining field data 

Search and Rescue, 

model verification, 

Ecosystem damage 

N-4 O 

Develop the most effective system 

for direct detection of MD 

T23, T10, T13, T16, T18, T19, T20, 

T22, T26, N1 

Develop a spectral library for MD types, Test sensors against 

known targets from high altitude airborne platforms, 

Hyperspectral (AVIRIS), Multispectral Thermal (MASTER), 

Scatterometer (Polscat), Radar (UAVSAR, GLISTIN, other?), 

NOAA, NASA, JPL, 

Dryden, USGS NASA, Lockheed Martin Funding 

Other UAS 

applications 

87
United States Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke 

Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. 

Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

David Kennedy 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and 

Coastal Zone Management