Assessing and Monitoring

Floatable Debris
Acknowledgements 

James Woodley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Oceans and 

Coastal Protection Division, Marine Pollution Control Branch, Washington, DC, was the 

primary author and project leader for this document. 

Susan Hitch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oceans and Coastal Protection 

Division, provided photos. 

Dacia Mosso, Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, assisted in the effort. 

Seba Sheavly, The Ocean Conservancy, Virginia Beach, Virginia provided valuable 

contributions. 
MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR

I am pleased to provide you with a guidance document, Assessing and Monitoring Floatable 

Debris, which will help states, tribes, and local governments address their problems with 

floatable debris in our waterways and on our beaches. 

In coastal communities across the nation and around the world, there is a growing concern 

regarding the impacts of floatable debris on public health and the marine environment. Because 

of recurring incidents such as entanglement of endangered species, loss of tourism, injured 

beach-goers, eyesore views of coastal areas and damaged property, we are looking for solutions 

to address this growing issue. 

In October 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act. The BEACH Act, among other things, asked EPA to provide technical assistance 

to states and local governments in assessing and monitoring their floatable materials. 

The purpose of this document is to help states, tribes, and local governments develop programs 

to assess and monitor their coastal recreation waters for floatable debris. These programs would 

be used to help identify sources of floatable debris, protect human and animal health and safety 

in those waters, and restore and preserve the overall coastal watershed and aquatic environment. 

We are also concerned about the health of our beachgoers and have initiated a program to ensure 

frequent monitoring of our beach waters, and that the information on water quality is made 

available to the public. EPA has developed the National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants to address these issues. 

EPA hopes that this document, Assessing and Monitoring Floatables Debris, along with the 

efforts from the volunteers and the community, will help strengthen the future of our coastal 

recreation waters by helping our citizens develop an environmental awareness that will last a 

lifetime. 

Christine Todd Whitman

 Administrator 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

August 2002

Oceans and Coastal Protection Division

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Contents 

Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................... ix

Section 1: Introduction ........................................................ 1-1

1.1 Importance of Coastal Watersheds .................................. 1-1

1.2 Impacts of Floatable Debris ........................................ 1-2

1.2.1 Impacts on Wildlife ........................................ 1-2

1.2.2 Impacts on Humans ........................................ 1-4

1.3 Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 ....... 1-6

1.4 Other Floatable Debris-Related Legislation ............................ 1-6

Section 2: Types and Origins of Floatable Debris ................................... 2-1

2.1 Storm Water Discharges .......................................... 2-2

2.2 Combined Sewer Overflows ....................................... 2-3

2.3 Beachgoers and Other Nonpoint Sources ............................. 2-3

2.4 Ships and Other Vessels ........................................... 2-3

2.5 Solid Waste Disposal and Landfills .................................. 2-4

2.6 Offshore Mineral and Oil and Gas Exploration/Production ............... 2-4

2.7 Industrial Activities .............................................. 2-4

2.8 Illegal Dumping or Littering ....................................... 2-5

Section 3: Current Floatable Debris Assessment and Monitoring Methodologies .......... 3-1

3.1 Floatables Action Plan for New York and New Jersey Waters ............. 3-1

3.1.1 Background .............................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Goals ................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-2

3.1.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-2

3.1.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-2

3.2 Combined Sewer Overflows Studies Program .......................... 3-2

3.2.1 Background .............................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Goals ................................................... 3-2

3.2.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-3

3.2.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-4

3.2.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-4

3.3 International Coastal Cleanup Campaign ............................. 3-4

3.3.1 Background .............................................. 3-4

3.3.2 Goals ................................................... 3-4

3.3.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-5

3.3.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-5

August 2002 iii 
Contents Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

3.3.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-5

3.4 National Marine Debris Monitoring Program .......................... 3-5

3.4.1 Background .............................................. 3-5

3.4.2 Goals ................................................... 3-6

3.4.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-6

3.4.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-7

3.4.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-7

3.5 Storm Drain Sentries Program ...................................... 3-7

3.5.1 Background .............................................. 3-7

3.5.2 Goals ................................................... 3-7

3.5.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-7

3.5.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-8

3.5.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-8

3.6 Clean Marinas Program ........................................... 3-8

3.6.1 Background .............................................. 3-8

3.6.2 Goals ................................................... 3-9

3.6.3 Methodology ............................................. 3-8

3.6.4 Unique Characteristics ...................................... 3-9

3.6.5 Contact Information ........................................ 3-9

Section 4: Developing a Floatables Assessment and Monitoring Program ................ 4-1

4.1 Marine Debris Survey Manual ...................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Design Protocols for Monitoring and Assessment of Marine Debris . . 4-1

4.1.2 Variables to Be Considered Overall ............................ 4-2

4.1.3 Shipboard Sighting Surveys for Large Debris Items ............... 4-2

4.1.4 Contact Information ........................................ 4-2

4.2 Marine Debris Monitoring and Cleanup .............................. 4-3

4.2.1 Sampling Considerations and Options .......................... 4-3

4.2.2 Conducting a Marine Debris Cleanup .......................... 4-3

4.2.3 Contact Information ........................................ 4-4

Section 5: Prevention and Mitigation Activities Associated with Floatable Debris ......... 5-1

5.1 Plastic Pellet Containment ......................................... 5-1

5.2 Combined Sewer Overflow Permit Conditions for Floatable Debris ........ 5-1

5.3 Navesink River Nonpoint Source Program ............................ 5-2

5.4 Debris-Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads ................ 5-2

5.5 National Estuary Programs ........................................ 5-3

5.5.1 New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program .................. 5-3

5.5.2 Long Island Sound Study .................................... 5-5

5.5.3 San Juan Bay Estuary ....................................... 5-6

5.5.4 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project ......................... 5-7

iv August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Contents 

References and Additional Resources .................................... References-1

Glossary ............................................................. Glossary-1

Acronyms ........................................................... Acronyms-1

Appendix A: International Coastal Cleanup Data Card .............................. A-1

Appendix B: National Marine Debris Monitoring Program Data Card ................... B-1

Appendix C: Storm Drain Stenciling Data Cards ................................... C-1

Appendix D: Surveys from the Marine Debris Survey Manual ....................... D-1

August 2002 v 
Executive Summary 

Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris is designed to assist states, tribes, and local 

governments in developing their own assessment and monitoring programs for floatable debris in 

coastal recreation waters. The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act of 2000 defines coastal recreation waters as the Great Lakes and marine coastal 

waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) of the Clean Water 

Act by states. Coastal watersheds, which include coastal recreation waters as well as upstream 

areas, beaches, nearshore waters, estuaries, oceans, and offshore habitats, are important 

resources. They are a source of aesthetic beauty, recreation, and food, and they have local and 

national economic value. These waters provide habitat for thousands of aquatic species and 

represent a scientific resource. Despite their value, coastal recreation waters sometimes appear to 

be a repository for trash and other types of wastes. The floatable materials in these wastes, 

referred to as floatable debris, can have an adverse impact on both wildlife and humans. Turtles, 

marine mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans, and other wildlife are affected primarily by 

entanglement and ingestion. Floatable debris can also endanger human health and safety. For 

example, some types of debris can pose a health risk through disease transmission, sharp objects 

can cause injury, and floatable debris can disable vessels when propellers become entangled. 

Floatable debris also is visually unappealing, which can cause economic losses from decreased 

tourism, and potentially damaging to boats, which can financially harm a region’s fishing 

industry. 

In response to growing concern regarding the impact of floatable debris, important legislation has 

been passed and programs implementing the legislation have been established. In 1987, 

Congress approved ratification of Annex V of the MARPOL treaty and enacted domestic 

legislation known as the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, which prohibits any 

ship in U.S. waters from dumping plastics. Other floatable debris-related legislation includes the 

Shore Protection Act of 1988; the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and the 

Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. In October 2000, Congress 

passed the BEACH Act. The BEACH Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to award program development and implementation grants to eligible states, territories, 

tribes, and local governments to support microbiological testing and monitoring of coastal 

recreation waters that are adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. It 

also tasks EPA to provide technical assistance to states and local governments in establishing 

assessment and monitoring programs for floatable materials. The BEACH Act defines floatable 

materials as any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended in the water column. The 

term includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood products, bottles, and paper products. 

This document provides examples of monitoring and assessment programs that have been 

established in the United States to address the impact of floatable debris, as well as examples of 

mitigation activities to address floatable debris, and contact information. Section 1 of the 

document discusses some of the impacts of floatable debris on the aquatic environment, and 

describes the current legislation available to address those impacts. 

vi August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Executive Summary 

Section 2 of the document discusses the types and origins of floatable debris. The many types of 

floatable debris and their origins include street litter, medical items, debris from industrial 

activities, sewage-related items, galley waste from ships, fishing equipment, and items from 

offshore mineral and oil and gas exploration activities. Floatable debris can be transported into 

coastal recreation waters from land by improper disposal of trash by beachgoers, by rain washing 

the debris into storm drains or directly into rivers and streams, or the debris being blown into the 

waters from landfills, garbage bins, or litterbugs. It also can be deposited into coastal recreation 

waters from ocean sources such as ships, recreational boaters, fishermen, and offshore oil and gas 

exploration and production facilities. Floatable debris can travel long distances over the ocean 

and be deposited far from its source. 

Section 3 discusses a variety of plans and programs that have been developed and implemented 

to assess and monitor floatable debris. Although each plan or program seeks to reduce floatable 

debris, the specific objectives or strategies vary: 

• The Floatables Action Plan, for example, was developed by an interagency work group to 

reduce the number of ocean beach closings in New York and New Jersey due to floatable 

debris. 

• EPA initiated the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSOs) Studies Program to supplement 

existing information on CSOs and storm water discharges (SWDs) as sources of floatable 

debris. The program was implemented through monitoring of CSOs and SWDs, and it 

provides a characterization of debris from those discharges. 

• The International Coastal Cleanup Campaign (ICCC) was established to conduct annual 

cleanups and to characterize debris found on shorelines, underwater sites, waterways, and 

beaches. The ICCC also is designed to increase public awareness about the impact of marine 

debris. 

• The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, established to characterize types of debris 

washing onto beaches and the sources of that debris, is a statistically valid, 5-year scientific 

study. 

• Finally, the Storm Drain Sentries Program was developed to address the impact of floatable 

debris on coastal watersheds from storm drain systems. 

Section 4 presents recommendations for developing assessment and monitoring programs that 

were presented in the Marine Debris Survey Manual, developed by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and Chapter 16 of EPA’s Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A 

Methods Manual (USEPA, 1993). The Marine Debris Survey Manual provides useful 

information for designing marine debris surveys and assessment and/or monitoring programs, 

considering important variables such as wind and the type of debris, and conducting shipboard 

sighting surveys for large debris items. Chapter 16 of the Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A 

Methods Manual, includes recommendations for organizing a floatable debris monitoring and 

cleanup program. 

August 2002 vii 
Executive Summary Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

Section 5 provides a number of examples of prevention and mitigation activities associated with 

floatable debris that are under way around the country. The following are examples: 

• The Society of the Plastics Industry partnered with EPA to characterize process operations in 

the plastics industry and to identify potential sources of plastic pellet losses to the 

environment. EPA reported its recommendations to the plastics industry. 

• A CSO and storm water permit system is being developed in New York and New Jersey. The 

system will address the control of solids and floatable debris. 

• The Navesink River Nonpoint Source Program was established to reduce nonpoint source 

bacterial pollution in the Navesink estuary. 

• Some states, such as California, New York, and Alaska, have listed debris as a pollutant that 

is causing impairment of their waters. A number of states, including California, have 

developed or are in the process of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to 

address the impact of debris. 

• Several National Estuary Programs have floatable debris management goals in their 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Some examples include: (1) the New 

York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program; (2) the Long Island Sound Study; (3) the San 

Juan Bay Estuary; and (4) the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. These programs 

address floatable debris by involving local communities in the assessment and monitoring 

process. 

viii August 2002 
Section 1

Introduction

Importance of Coastal Watersheds

Impacts of Floatable acts of Floatable acts of Floatable acts of Floatable Debris

Impacts on Wildlife

Impacts on H acts on H acts on Humans

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000

Other Floatable Floatable Floatable Floatable Debris-Related Legislation gislation gislation gislation
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 1 

Section 1: Introduction 

This document is designed to be a tool to help states, tribes, and local governments develop 

programs to assess and monitor their coastal recreation waters for floatable material. Coastal 

recreation waters are part of the coastal watershed. They are defined by the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), as amended by the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) 

Act of 2000, as “the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are 

designated under section 303(c) of CWA by states” and are used for swimming, bathing, surfing, 

or similar water contact activities. The programs developed would be used to help identify 

sources of floatable debris, protect human and animal health and safety in those waters, and 

restore and preserve the overall coastal watershed and aquatic environment. Assessing and 

Monitoring Floatable Debris also will help to preserve and strengthen local and state economies 

by maintaining or increasing tourism in coastal communities. 

Much of the information presented here comes from data collected by marine debris monitoring 

studies and assessment programs already being implemented in the United States. 

1.1 Importance of Coastal Watersheds 

Oceans cover more than two-thirds of our planet and are extraordinary resources that contribute 

to the health and well-being of people and other living things. Likewise, freshwater rivers, 

streams, lakes, and other water bodies provide significant value to our coastal watersheds. A 

watershed is a geographic area in which all sources of water, including lakes, rivers, estuaries, 

wetlands, and streams, as well as ground water, drain to a common surface water body. Coastal 

watersheds begin with the streams and rivers that ultimately flow to the coastal areas, and they 

include upstream areas, beaches, nearshore waters, estuaries, oceans, and offshore habitats such 

as coral reefs and shellfish beds that receive flow from the terrestrial watershed. These surface 

waters provide a home for thousands of species of aquatic plants and animals and are important 

to people because they yield an abundance of natural resources, such as nutritious foods and 

pharmaceutical and petroleum products. In addition, these waters are appreciated for their great 

beauty, recreational opportunities, and economic and scientific resources. 

At the same time, however, coastal recreation waters have been used as a repository for trash and 

other wastes. Although the aquatic environment can safely receive pollutants and wastes to some 

degree, this ability is limited. This limitation is particularly significant now that part of our solid 

waste stream is made up of synthetic materials, which can remain in the environment for many 

years without decomposing. Some of the wastes consist of materials that are extremely buoyant 

and thus can float many miles from the point where they originate. 

August 2002 1-1 
Section 1 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

More and more people are moving near the 

Nation’s coasts, and the production of trash and For the purpose of this document, the 

terms floatable materials, floatable debris, floatable debris continues to increase. Unless trash, and marine debris are used 

we better control the disposal of trash and other interchangeably. Floatable materials is 

defined by the BEACH Act to mean any 

foreign matter that may float or remain 

wastes, it is likely that the amount of such debris 

entering our waterways will increase. In the 

suspended in the water column and past, floatable debris on beaches and in includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood 

waterways was considered an eyesore. It has products, bottles, and paper products. 

now become evident, however, that such 

materials can also have serious impacts on 

human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment, 

and the economy, and therefore the problem of 

floatable debris should be addressed. 

1.2 Impacts of Floatable Debris 

Floatable debris causes problems in coastal watersheds because it can easily come into contact 

with aquatic animals, people, boats, fishing nets, and other objects. Thousands of aquatic 

animals are caught in and strangled by floatable debris each year. Coastal communities also lose 

money when littered beaches must be closed or cleaned up, and the fishing industry and 

recreational and commercial boaters must spend thousands of dollars every year to repair vessels 

damaged by floatable debris. 

1.2.1 Impacts on Wildlife 

The two primary problems that floatable debris poses to wildlife are entanglement and ingestion. 

Entanglement results when an animal becomes encircled or ensnared by debris. It can occur 

accidentally or when the animal is attracted to the debris as part of its normal behavior or out of 

curiosity. For example, an animal might try to use a piece of floatable debris for shelter, as a 

plaything, or as a source of food (if other plants and animals are already trapped in the debris or 

if the debris resembles prey that is part of the animal’s normal diet). Entanglement is harmful to 

wildlife for several reasons. Not only can it cause wounds that can lead to infections or loss of 

limbs, but it can also cause strangulation or suffocation. In addition, entanglement can impair an 

animal’s ability to swim, which can result in drowning or difficulty in moving about, finding 

food, and escaping from predators. 

Ingestion occurs when an animal swallows floatable debris. It sometimes occurs accidentally, 

but usually animals feed on debris because it looks like food. Ingestion of debris can lead to 

starvation or malnutrition if the ingested items block the intestinal tract, preventing digestion, or 

accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel “full” and lessening its desire to feed. 

Ingestion of sharp objects can damage the mouth, digestive tract, or stomach lining and cause 

1-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 1 

infection or pain. Ingested items also can block air passages and prevent breathing, thereby 

causing death. 

Marine mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and crustaceans all have been affected by entanglement in 

or ingestion of floatable debris. Many of the species most vulnerable to the problems of floatable 

debris are endangered or threatened. Endangered species are plants and animals that are in 

immediate danger of becoming extinct because their population levels are extremely low. 

Threatened species are plants and animals that might become endangered in the near future if 

nothing is done to protect them. 

It is estimated that some 100,000 marine mammals die every year from entanglement or ingestion 

of floatables. Of the different types of marine mammals, seals and sea lions are the most affected 

(particularly by entanglement) because of their natural curiosity and tendency to investigate 

unusual objects in the environment. Packing straps and net fragments are a major problem for 

these animals. Some studies have linked the decline of the northern fur seal of Alaska and the 

endangered Hawaiian monk seal to entanglement in debris. Whales, including the endangered 

humpback whale, right whale, and gray whale, have been found entangled in fishing nets and 

line. Manatees, another 

endangered species, have become Right whales are at risk from entanglement in fishing gear entangled in crab-pot lines, and and collisions with ships (ENN, 1999). They are especially 

dolphins and porpoises have been vulnerable because they move slowly and spend extended 

periods of time at or near the surface (Ferdinand, 2002). In 

the summer of 2001, the attempted rescue of a right whale 

caught in fishing nets. Ingestion of 

debris by marine mammals appears entangled in fishing gear off the coast of Massachusetts to occur less frequently, but it has became a top news story. The right whale, fondly referred 

been reported for elephant seals, to as Churchill, was suffering from a severe infection 

caused by a synthetic line embedded in his upper jaw. The 

rescue effort entailed tracking Churchill for 100 days by 

sea lions, certain types of whales, 

and manatees. These cases are beacon satellite, injecting him with drugs, and strapping a significant because they have harness to his tail to keep him from thrashing, while 

usually contributed to or resulted attempting to remove the entangled fishing gear. The 

in the death of the animals due to mission eventually failed and Churchill became the sixth 

right whale death in 2001 and the second that year as a suffocation or starvation (USEPA, 

result of entanglement (Dooley, 2001). 1992b). 

Sea turtles also have become 

entangled in floatable debris. All 

of the five sea turtle species found in the United States are endangered species, and all have been 

found entangled in different types of floatables debris, such as fishing line, rope, and fishing nets. 

Ingestion of floatable debris is an even greater problem for these species. Sea turtles have been 

found to swallow plastic bags because the bags look like jellyfish, one of their favorite foods. A 

plastic bag can block a turtle’s digestive tract, leading to starvation. Cases of turtles swallowing 

balloons, tar balls, and debris that has become covered with algae also have been reported 

(USEPA, 1992b). 

August 2002 1-3 
Section 1 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

Nearly a million seabirds are thought to die from entanglement or ingestion of floatable material 

each year. Because most seabirds feed on fish, they are often attracted to fish that have been 

caught or entangled in nets and fishing line. Entanglement in fishing line has been a particular 

problem for the brown pelican, which is an endangered species. Seabirds are some of the most 

frequent victims of abandoned nets. As many as 100 birds have been found in a single 

abandoned net. Many birds, including ducks, geese, cormorants, and gulls, have been found 

entangled in six-pack rings and other encircling debris. The ingestion of plastic resin pellets (the 

small, round pellets that are melted and used to form plastic products) is a major concern. Many 

types of birds have been found to feed on these pellets, most likely because they mistake them for 

fish eggs or other types of food (USEPA, 1992b). 

Fish and crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs are frequently caught in lost or discarded fishing 

gear in a phenomenon known as ghost fishing. For example, a 1⁄2-mile section of nylon net was 

found in Lake Superior. It had been abandoned for an estimated 15 years and contained 100 

pounds of fish, much of which was decomposing. Lost traps also continue to attract fish and 

crustaceans, which enter them in search of food or shelter. In New England alone, nearly 

500,000 lobster pots are lost every year (USEPA, 1992b). 

Wildlife are affected when floatable debris Bioaccumulation refers to the degree to disturbs their environment. Lost or discarded which an organism takes up and retains a 

fishing gear and nets can drag along the ocean contaminant from all applicable exposure 

routes. Bioaccumulation takes into account 

that organisms may accumulate 

floor or through coral reefs, disrupting the 

animals and plants that live there. In addition, 

contaminants through multiple exposure debris can bioaccumulate in the food chain. routes and that the total accumulation will 

Bioaccumulation occurs when organisms low depend upon the rate of intake versus the 

rate at which the organism is capable of 

eliminating (through urine or feces) or 

on the food chain consume a substance that 

builds up in their bodies. When animals 

breaking down the chemical through higher on the food chain eat those organisms, metabolic processes (Ecorisk, 2002). they also ingest that substance and it 

accumulates in their bodies. The higher an 

animal is on the food chain, the greater the 

quantity of the substance consumed and 

accumulated. For example, eagles and other predators high on the food chain have been found 

with large concentrations of plastic pellets in their stomachs after feeding on smaller birds, which 

had previously ingested fish that had eaten the material. Also, floatable debris can smother 

corals and other sessile benthic organisms. It can prevent the sunlight from reaching plants, 

inhibiting their ability to produce energy through photosynthesis. 

1.2.2 Impacts on Humans 

Floatable debris also can have serious consequences for people. First, floatables can endanger 

human health and safety. Sharp objects, such as broken glass and rusty metal, can cause injuries 

1-4 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 1 

when people step on them on the beach or ocean floor. Abandoned fishing nets and lines can 

entangle scuba divers, and some divers have barely escaped serious injury or death. Floatables 

that wrap around boat propellers or puncture holes in the bottom of boats can disable vessels, 

thereby endangering human lives. This problem is especially serious if power is lost in a storm 

and the boat cannot return to shore or steering is hampered and the boat cannot avoid a collision. 

Submarines can be obstructed by abandoned fishing nets, making navigation and surfacing 

difficult. Contaminated debris, including medical waste and sewage, can pose a public health 

hazard through disease transmission. There is a strong correlation between swimmers in 

contaminated waters and higher rates of gastrointestinal illness compared to nonswimmers. 

During the summers of 1987 and 1988, beaches in New York and New Jersey were closed when 

medical waste, including syringes and bandages from hospitals, washed up on their shores. 

These beach closings caused many vacationers to go elsewhere, adversely affecting the 

economies of the areas with closings. 

Second, floating debris is an eyesore, and debris stranded on beaches and shorelines degrades 

coastal aesthetics. Coastal communities lose millions of tourism dollars when large amounts of 

floatables make their beaches unattractive to visitors. Not only does floatable debris cost coastal 

communities lost revenues from tourism, but cleaning up beaches littered with floatables also can 

be very expensive, and it can be disruptive to the aquatic organisms that may live there. 

Finally, lost or discarded fishing gear can financially harm a region’s fishing industry. In 

addition to the costs associated with replacing the missing gear, floatable debris can cause costly 

or irreparable damage to boats. Fishing nets can wrap around propellers, plastic sheeting can 

clog cooling water intakes, and lost nets or lines can entangle vessels. In a 1987 survey in the 

Seattle area, almost two-thirds of the people who responded to the survey indicated that their 

boats had been damaged by floatables in the previous 2 years. When lobster or crab traps are 

lost, they trap thousands of animals that consequently are never caught and sold. Ghost fishing 

also kills thousands of fish that might otherwise have found their way to market. 

August 2002 1-5 
Section 1 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

1.3 Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 

Congress enacted the BEACH 

The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act and required EPA Act on October 10, 2000. It is to accomplish the following: designed to reduce the risk of 

disease to users of the Nation’s • Publish new or revised microbiological water quality criteria within 

5 years of enactment and review the criteria every 5 years. coastal recreation waters. The 

act authorizes the • Ensure state or tribal adoption of existing microbiological water 

quality criteria within 42 months of enactment and within 36 Environmental Protection months of revisions. Agency (EPA) to award 

program development and • Provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and local 

governments for assessment and monitoring of floatable material. implementation grants to 

eligible states, territories, • Maintain a public right-to-know database. 

tribes, and local governments • Implement a state and tribal grant program for beach monitoring to support microbiological and notification consistent with performance criteria. 

testing and monitoring of 

coastal recreation waters, 

including the Great Lakes, that 

are adjacent to beaches or 

similar points of access used 

by the public. BEACH Act grants also provide support for developing and implementing 

programs to notify the public of the potential for exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in 

coastal recreation waters. 

The act also authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance to states and local governments for 

the assessment and monitoring of floatable materials. In partially fulfilling that obligation, 

through this document, EPA has compiled and presented the most current information available 

addressing the assessment and monitoring of floatable debris. 

1.4 Other Floatable Debris-Related Legislation 

In response to growing concern over floatable debris, governments have taken actions nationally 

as well as internationally, to reduce discharges at their source. For example, intentional at-sea 

dumping of garbage generated on land became subject to international control in 1972 through 

the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 

(commonly called the London Convention (LC)). Similarly, at-sea disposal of garbage generated 

during the routine operation of ships (e.g., garbage not deliberately carried to sea for the purpose 

of disposal) was addressed through a 1978 Protocol to the 1973 International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution by Ships (commonly called the MARPOL Convention). Specifically, the 

1978 Protocol to the MARPOL Convention added five annexes, each dealing with a different 

form of pollution from ships. Of these, Annex V established regulations on discharging shipgenerated garbage, including a prohibition on discharging any plastics at sea. 

1-6 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 1 

In 1987, two important actions were taken in the United States to address this marine pollution 

problem. First, Congress approved the ratification of Annex V to the MARPOL Convention and 

enacted domestic legislation known as the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 

(MPPRCA), which prohibited any ship in U.S. waters from dumping plastics. Second, 

MPPRCA required EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 

the U.S. Coast Guard to work together to assess the feasibility of using volunteer groups in 

monitoring floatable debris on the Nation’s coastlines. 

The Shore Protection Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) (SPA) was enacted to minimize 

trash, medical debris and other unsightly and potentially harmful materials from being deposited 

into the coastal waters of the United States as a result of inadequate waste handling procedures 

by vessels transporting wastes on U.S. coastal waters and at associated loading and offloading 

facilities. EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are assigned the responsibility for 

implementing SPA. EPA is responsible for developing regulations implementing Sec. 4103 of 

the Act which requires owners and operators of waste sources, vessels transporting waste, and 

waste receiving facilities to take all reasonable steps to minimize the amount of municipal and 

commercial waste deposited into coastal waters during various vessel and facility operations. 

EPA proposed its implementing regulations on August 30, 1994 (Waste Handling Practices for 

Vessels and Waste Transfer Stations, 40 CFR Part 237). The Department of Transportation 

developed an interim permit and enforcement program such that all vessels transporting solid 

wastes require a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard and concurrence from EPA that the vessel 

owner or operator has not violated applicable environmental regulations. DOT's interim rule was 

finalized in the spring of 2002. 

Regulations under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et 

seq.) (MPRSA), promulgated in 1977, implement the London Convention nationally. The 

regulations prohibit the transport for the purpose of dumping into the ocean of any “persistent 

inert synthetic or natural materials which may float or remain in suspension in the ocean in such 

a manner that they may interfere materially with fishing, navigation, or other legitimate uses of 

the ocean.” Activities involving transport of material for the purpose of disposal at sea are 

regulated under this act, and permits granted by the Agency prohibit the transport of floatable 

plastics or debris out to sea for the purpose of dumping. 

As amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

requires EPA to establish regulations that treat storm water as point source discharges that must 

be regulated. Under Phase I and Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Storm Water Program, EPA has issued regulations for storm water that require more 

than 5,000 municipalities (including many in coastal areas), as well as many industrial facilities, 

to obtain NPDES permits to discharge storm water. Specifically, Phase I requires NPDES permit 

coverage for storm water discharges from storm water associated with industrial activity 

(including construction sites greater than 5 acres in size) and from municipal separate storm 

sewer systems (MS4s) located in incorporated places or counties that serve populations of 

August 2002 1-7 
Section 1 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

100,000 or more. The Phase II rule requires NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges 

from construction sites between 1 and 5 acres and from MS4s that serve areas with populations 

less than 100,000 down to a lower limit based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of an 

urbanized area. The permit prohibit non-storm water discharges to storm sewers and are leading 

to improved source control techniques and best management practices. The best way for 

municipalities and industries to meet the storm water regulation and protect the quality of our 

waters is to prevent floatables and other pollutants from washing into storm sewers. 

Pursuant to the same Water Quality Act, EPA issued the National CSO Control Strategy, 

which also treats CSO discharge points as individual point sources, subject to NPDES permit 

requirements. The strategy sets forth three objectives: 

1. Ensure that all CSO discharges occur only as a result of wet weather. 

2. Bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into compliance with the technology-based 

requirements of the Clean Water Act and applicable state water quality standards. 

3. Minimize water quality, aquatic biota, and human health impacts from wet weather overflows 

that do occur. 

EPA’s National CSO Control Strategy confirms that CSOs are point sources independent of the 

publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and reaffirms that both technology-based and water 

quality-based requirements apply to CSOs. The strategy also emphasizes that CSO point sources 

that discharge without a permit are unlawful and must be issued permits or be eliminated. 

1-8 August 2002 
Section 2

Types and Origins of

Floatable Debris

Storm Water Discharges

Combined Sewer Overflows

Beachgoers and Other Nonpoint Sour oint Sour oint Sour oint Sources

Ships and Other Vessels

Solid Waste Disposal and Landfills

Offshor Offshor Offshore Mineral and Oil and Oil and Oil and Oil and Gas Exp Gas Exp Gas Exp Gas Exploration/Production

Industrial Activities

Illegal Dumping or Littering
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 2 

Section 2: Types and Origins of Floatable Debris 

Floatable debris comes from many sources, including the ocean, land, and atmosphere. 

Floatables can be washed into the ocean by heavy rainfall, carried out to sea by rivers and 

streams, picked up off a beach by waves and tidal action, or deposited in streams or oceans from 

the atmosphere (i.e., balloons). Floating debris also can travel long distances over the ocean, and 

when these items get into the ocean they can cause problems over a large area. The most buoyant 

types of floatable debris are plastics and some types of rubber. Paper, wood, and cloth items 

initially float but tend to sink once they become saturated with water. Glass, metal, and some 

types of rubber sink unless air is trapped in pockets of the material. 

Activities on land can also generate floatable debris. Such debris can be blown directly into the 

ocean or can be transported to the ocean if blown into a river or stream that empties into the sea. 

Objects that can be easily blown around are a particular problem because they can become 

floatable debris even when originally disposed of in an appropriate manner. During storms and 

other periods of high winds or high waves, almost any kind of trash (including glass, metal, 

wood, and medical waste) can be deposited into the ocean. Careful collection, handling, and 

disposal of trash, as well as attempts to reduce the amount of trash that must be disposed of, can 

help to reduce the floatable debris problem. Sections 2.1 through 2.8 provide some examples of 

the most common types and sources of floatables. Specific examples of types of debris released 

from different sources are provided in Table 1. 

August 2002 2-1 
Section 2 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

Table 1. Types and Sources of Floatable Debris 

Source Examples of Debris Released 

Storm Water Discharges Street litter (e.g., cigarette butts, filters, and 

filter elements), medical items (i.e., syringes), 

resin pellets, food packaging, beverage 

containers, and other material from storm drains, 

ditches, or runoff 

Combined Sewer Overflows Street litter, sewage-related items (condoms, 

tampons, applicators), medical items (i.e., 

syringes), resin pellets, and other material from 

storm drains, ditches, or runoff 

Beachgoers and Other Nonpoint Sources Food packaging, beverage containers, cigarette 

butts, toys, sewage, pieces of wood and siding 

from construction projects, and trash (e.g., 

beverage containers, food packaging) left behind 

by workers in forestry, agriculture, construction, 

and mining 

Ships and Other Vessels Fishing equipment (e.g., nets, lures, lines, bait 

boxes, ropes, and rods), strapping bands, light 

sticks (used by fishermen to light up fishing 

lines and recreational divers), plastic salt bags, 

galley wastes, household trash, plastic bags and 

sheeting, and beverage yokes (six pack rings for 

beverage containers) 

Solid Waste Disposal and Landfills Materials such as garbage and medical waste 

Offshore Mineral and Oil and Gas Exploration Data-recording tape, plastic drill pipe thread 

protectors, hard hats, gloves, and 55-gallon 

drums 

Industrial Activities Plastic pellets and other materials 

Illegal Dumping or Littering Food packaging, beverage containers, cigarette 

butts, appliances, electronics, and ocean and 

street litter 

2.1 Storm Water Discharges 

Storm water runoff (the water that flows along streets or along the ground as a result of a stormderived runoff) can carry street litter into storm drains, which convey this water and debris to a 

nearby river or stream or even directly to the ocean. Typical floatables from storm water include 

2-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 2 

street litter (e.g., cigarette butts, filters, and filter elements), medical items (i.e., syringes), resin 

pellets, food packaging, beverage containers, and other material that might have washed down a 

storm drain or ditch or run off from land (e.g., styrofoam coffee and drink cups). 

2.2 Combined Sewer Overflows 

Pipes that carry a combination of sewage and storm water are known as combined sewers. In 

many areas of the country with older sewer systems, sewage is carried in the same pipe system as 

storm water runoff. Unlike separate storm drains, combined sewer pipes run to a sewage 

treatment plant rather than directly into a nearby body of water. At the sewage treatment plant, 

sewage is separated into sludge (solid waste materials) and wastewater. The sludge is dried and 

either disposed of in a landfill or treated and sold as a fertilizer. The treated wastewater is 

discharged into a river or other nearby waterway, free of solid waste. During heavy rains, 

combined sewer overflows (CSOs) can occur, which is a result of too much volume. The 

combined raw sewage and storm water are diverted directly into the nearest receiving waters. 

The typical floatable debris from CSOs include street litter, sewage-related items (e.g., condoms, 

tampons, applicators), medical items (i.e., syringes), resin pellets, and other material that might 

have washed into the storm drains or run off land, as well as industrial wastes from nonresidential users of the sewer system. 

2.3 Beachgoers and Other Nonpoint Sources 

Every year thousands of people visit U.S. beaches. Many of these beachgoers leave behind 

materials that become floatable debris—food packaging and beverage containers, cigarette butts, 

and toys like plastic shovels, pails, and frisbees. This trash can be blown into the ocean, picked 

up by waves, or washed into the water when it rains. Trash or materials that have blown directly 

into the tributaries, streams, and rivers from yards, recreational areas, and other nonpoint sources 

are also sources of floatable debris. 

Nonpoint sources of marine pollution include agriculture, forestry, construction, urban runoff, 

atmospheric fallout, ground water seepage, oil and other chemical spills and disposal, solid waste 

disposal and its leachates, subsurface disposal of sewage and other wastes, and mining operations 

(Caribbean Islands Directorate, 1989). 

2.4 Ships and Other Vessels 

Boats of all types are also sources of floatable debris. Fishing vessels are sources of fishing nets, 

lines, lures, rope, bait boxes, strapping bands, light sticks, salt bags, galley wastes, household 

trash, plastic bags and sheeting, beverage yokes, and other types of materials accidentally lost at 

sea. Other types of vessels that are sources of floatable debris include recreational boats; military 

and other government vessels; merchant marine vessels (e.g., ocean-going and domestic cargo 

vessels, ocean and domestic tugs and barges, ocean liners, ferries, and small charter boats); and 

August 2002 2-3 
Section 2 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

educational, private research, and industrial vessels (USEPA, 1990). Trash can accidentally fall, 

blow, or wash off vessels into the water. In some cases, trash is deliberately thrown overboard. 

One major reason for the overboard disposal of trash is that there is limited storage space aboard 

these vessels. Most of the time, however, trash is disposed of in the ocean by people who are 

unaware of the problems this practice can cause. 

2.5 Solid Waste Disposal and Landfills 

Waste disposal activities can cause problems when trash is lost during collection or 

transportation or when trash blows or is washed away from disposal facilities. This floatable 

material can be of any type, but it is most commonly garbage. Medical waste is of particular 

concern; but it seems to be adequately controlled in recent years, compared to the late 1980s. 

EPA defines medical waste as cultures and stocks of infectious agents; human blood and blood 

products; human pathological wastes, including those from surgery and autopsy; contaminated 

animal carcasses from medical research; wastes from patients isolated with highly communicable 

diseases; and all used sharps (e.g., needles, scalpels, etc.) and certain unused sharps. Solid waste 

that is generated from hospitals includes administrative papers and records, wrappers from 

bandages and catheters, intravenous (IV) bags and used vials, syringes and needles, and 

disposable items such as tongue depressors and thermometer covers (USEPA, 1989). 

2.6 Offshore Mineral and Oil and Gas Exploration/Production 

Offshore oil and gas platforms are structures that are constructed in the ocean and form a base 

from which oil and gas drilling is conducted. Because offshore oil and gas platforms are 

surrounded by water, any items lost from these structures become floatable debris. As with 

ocean vessels, trash has sometimes been intentionally discarded directly into the ocean from 

these structures. Typical floatable debris generated from these platforms includes data-recording 

tape, items like plastic drill pipe thread protectors, hard hats, gloves, and 55-gallon storage 

drums. Oil and gas companies, however, are making an effort to prevent the disposal of trash 

into the ocean from their platforms. 

2.7 Industrial Activities 

Industrial facilities contribute to the floatable debris problem when waste items generated by 

industrial processes (production scraps, flawed products, and packaging material) are improperly 

disposed of on land. Finished products also can become floatable debris if they are lost during 

loading and unloading at port facilities or they are lost when they are transported through 

waterways or over land. An example is plastic resin pellets, the small spheres produced as the 

raw form of plastic. Manufacturing facilities use the pellets to make plastic products. During 

plastic resin pellet production, transportation, and processing, some resin pellets can be released 

into the environment. As with other types of trash, wind and storm water can carry these pellets 

to nearby water bodies. 

2-4 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 2 

2.8 Illegal Dumping or Littering 

Littering and illegal dumping of waste are both sources of floatable debris. The land-based 

debris can blow or wash into water bodies. People who litter are a significant source of floatable 

debris. Litter sometimes directly becomes floatables when it is discarded in the ocean or on the 

beach. In addition to the obvious problem of debris in coastal recreation waters, litter discarded 

hundreds of miles inland also can become floatable debris when it gets into streams, rivers, 

estuaries, and the ocean. Littering and illegal dumping can also occur from vessels and oil and 

gas exploration and production platforms. 

August 2002 2-5 
Section 3

Current Floatable Debris

Assessment and Monitoring

Methodologies

Floatable Floatables Action P Action P Action Plan

Combine Combine Combined Sewer Overflows Stud flows Stud flows Stud flows Studies Program

International Coastal Cleanup Campaign

National Mar tional Mar tional Mar tional Marine Debris Monitor is Monitor is Monitor is Monitoring Program

Storm Drain Sentries Program

Clean Marinas Program
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 3 

Section 3: Current Floatable Debris Assessment and Monitoring 

Methodologies 

This section provides examples of current plans and programs for assessing and monitoring 

floatable debris. Although each plan or program seeks to reduce floatable debris in the long 

term, the specific objectives or strategies of the plans vary. Examples of different objectives 

include beach cleanup, education, direct floatable debris reduction in specific waterways, 

classification and tallying of floatable debris for further analysis, and source determination. Most 

assessment and monitoring programs use volunteers to help with conducting cleanups and 

collecting and characterizing floatable debris. Determining the type, amount, and sources of 

floatable debris is an important first step in reducing the amount of floatables reaching aquatic 

environments. 

3.1 Floatables Action Plan for New York and New Jersey Waters 

3.1.1 Background 

The Floatables Action Plan was developed in 1989 by an interagency work group addressing 

ocean beach closings in New York and New Jersey waters due to debris washing onto the 

beaches. This plan is designed to reduce the number of such ocean beach closings. 

Implementation of the plan was facilitated by the use of helicopter and vessel surveillance, 

cleanup vessels, volunteers, and prison inmates. 

3.1.2 Goals 

The Floatables Action Plan is designed to accomplish the following objectives: 

• Minimize the amount of floatable debris escaping the Harbor Complex. 

• Maintain an effective communication network to coordinate floatable debris removal 

activities and to respond to the spotting of slicks. 

• Ensure timely notification of beach operators of potential wash-ups of floatable debris. 

• Minimize beach closings due to floatable debris. 

The plan defines floatable debris as waterborne waste material that is buoyant. Examples include 

wood, beach litter, aquatic vegetation, street litter, sewage-related wastes, fishing gear, and 

medical wastes. A number of agencies are implementing the plan. 

August 2002 3-1 
Section 3 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

3.1.3 Methodology 

The plan calls for the use of skimmer vessels to contain and remove floatable debris before it 

escapes from the harbor; helicopter flyovers, which provide aerial surveillance to potentially 

reduce the impact of debris slicks spotted off the coasts; and the use of prison inmates to remove 

shoreline debris. 

3.1.4 Unique Characteristics 

The success of the Floatables Action Plan is the result of a partnership involving New York, New 

Jersey, and local municipalities. The plan uses multimedia approaches, such as aerial 

surveillance, coastal cleanup of the beaches by volunteers, and containing and removing debris 

from areas around storm water and CSO dischargers, to reduce the impact of debris on the coasts. 

3.1.5 Contact Information 

For more information regarding the Floatables Action Plan, contact Larry Gaugler 

(gaugler.larry@epa.gov), EPA Region 2, Floatables Coordinator, Division of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assistance, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007. 

3.2 Combined Sewer Overflows Studies Program 

3.2.1 Background 

In November 1988, to supplement existing information on CSOs and storm water discharges 

(SWDs) as sources of floatable debris to the aquatic environment, EPA initiated the CSO Studies 

Program. 

3.2.2 Goals 

The following are the goals of the CSO Studies Program: 

• Characterize CSOs and SWDs as land-based sources of plastic debris in the aquatic 

environment. 

• Determine the types and relative amounts of floating debris contributed by these two sources. 

• Characterize the types and composition of debris in Philadelphia and Boston sewage 

treatment plants (referred to as water pollution control plants [WPCPs] and publicly owned 

treatment works [POTWs]) to determine the potential waste releases from these facilities 

during system failures. 

3-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 3 

3.2.3 Methodology 

To implement the CSO Studies Program, a two-component study design was developed. The 

first component, monitoring of CSOs and SWDs, consisted of the following activities (Battelle 

Ocean Sciences, 1993): 

• Outfall reconnaissance. Before making final selections, several CSOs and SWDs were 

visited to determine the suitability and representativeness of each outfall as a candidate for 

study. 

• Outfall selection. Representative CSOs and SWDs were selected based on information 

acquired through site visits and examination of land use maps and plans. 

• Outfall sampling. Custom-made nets for containment of debris discharged from selected 

CSOs and SWDs were designed, manufactured, and installed.. 

• Discharge event response. Floatable debris samples were collected from the containment net 

at each outfall during or after at least three major storm or discharge events. 

• Sample analysis. Samples were analyzed to characterize and quantify the types of debris 

collected. 

The second component, which focused on characterizing debris from POTWs and WPCPs, 

included the following activities: 

• POTW and WPCP selection. Identification and selection of sewage treatment facilities for 

sampling man-made debris. 

• POTW and WPCP sampling. Sampling of measured volume of debris (relative to the daily 

volume of debris) collected by the screening units for the settling and clarifying tanks. Also, 

sample a measured volume (relative to the daily volume) of scum from the skimmer tanks. 

• Preprocessing. Separation of all natural materials (including large pieces of cut lumber) and 

polystyrene foam from man-made debris. Count numbers of dead animals, food items 

(oranges, apples, etc.), and large pieces of man-made debris, and estimate the amount of fecal 

matter. Record types and numbers of items removed from the man-made material. 

• Sample processing and analysis. Sorting of man-made debris from scum and screening 

samples and enumerate items. 

Candidate CSO and SWD outfalls were selected according to the following criteria: 

• Accessibility. Outfalls had to be accessible by land or small boat. 

• Outfall water depth. Water depth at the site had to be shallow (less than 20 feet at high tide). 

• Representativeness. Drainage areas had to be residential or commercial. 

• Outfall dimensions. The dimensions of each outfall had to be such that the deployed nets 

would capture all material discharged during a sampling event. 

August 2002 3-3 
Section 3 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

In addition to the four criteria discussed previously, sewage treatment facilities were selected on 

the basis of the accessibility of screens and the sedimentation tank clarifiers. 

3.2.4 Unique Characteristics 

The CSO Studies Program provided EPA with preliminary information on the types and amounts 

of floating debris discharged from commercial and residential wastewater and storm water 

outfalls in Philadelphia and Boston. The program also provided information on the types and 

amounts of floatable debris removed by sewage treatment facilities in each city. 

3.2.5 Contact Information 

For more information, contact Doug Pabst (pabst.doug@epa.gov), USEPA Region 2, 24th Floor, 

290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866 or U.S. EPA’s Oceans and Coastal Protection 

Division at (202)-566-1200. 

3.3 International Coastal Cleanup Campaign 

3.3.1 Background 

The Ocean Conservancy, formerly known as the Center for Marine Conservation, established and 

maintains the annual International Coastal Cleanup Campaign (ICCC) with support from EPA 

and other stakeholders. The first cleanup was in 1986 in Texas, and the campaign currently 

involves all of the states and territories of the United States and more than 100 countries around 

the world. The ICCC is the largest volunteer environmental data-gathering effort and associated 

cleanup of coastal and underwater areas in the world. It takes place every year on the third 

Saturday in September. 

3.3.2 Goals 

The mission of the ICCC is as follows: 

• Remove debris from the shorelines, waterways, and beaches of the world’s lakes, rivers, and 

bordering oceans. 

• Collect and catalog information on the amounts and types of debris. 

• Educate people on the issue of floatable debris. 

• Use the information collected from the cleanup to effect positive change—on all levels, from 

the individual to the international—to reduce floatable debris and enhance marine 

conservation. 

3-4 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 3 

The ICCC provides inspiration to hundreds of thousands of people who mobilize along 

waterways and beaches worldwide for the annual cleanup. 

3.3.3 Methodology 

The ICCC is a nonscientific survey designed to provide an annual “snapshot” of floatable debris 

pollution affecting the shorelines of the U. S. and around the world. Each U.S. state/territory and 

foreign country participating in the ICCC has a designated Cleanup Coordinator who, by the 

early spring of each year, begins preparations for the September event. Within each 

state/territory and country, a local network of site captains are organized and supplied with the 

materials and information necessary to conduct the local events. Supplies, provided by The 

Ocean Conservancy, include data cards, trash bags, gloves, posters, and associated educational 

materials. During the 3-hour ICCC event, volunteers collect, catalogue, and weigh the debris 

found on their beaches and shorelines. Information is recorded and catalogued on the ICCC data 

cards by the volunteers, and the information is returned to The Ocean Conservancy to be 

processed and tabulated. The Ocean Conservancy compiles the data and produces annual debris 

summary reports. Refer to Appendix A to review the data forms used by local coordinators and 

2001 U.S. data summaries. 

3.3.4 Unique Characteristics 

The success of this event is the result of volunteerism and sponsorship. In 2001, over 140,000, 

people across the U.S. participated in the cleanup. They removed about 3.6 million pounds of 

debris from more than 7,700 miles of coasts, shorelines, and underwater sites. The 3.6 million 

pounds of debris constitutes more than 3.7 million debris items. Most of the states and local 

organizations involved have multiple sponsors to support their efforts. 

3.3.5 Contact Information 

For more information, visit The Ocean Conservancy web site at www.oceanconservancy.org or 

contact The Ocean Conservancy headquarters, 1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, 

DC 20036. Additional information about the cleanup is available from 

www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/debris or by contacting EPA’s Oceans and Coastal Protection 

Division at (202)-566-1200. 

3.4 National Marine Debris Monitoring Program 

3.4.1 Background 

EPA along with other federal agencies helped to design the National Marine Debris Monitoring 

Program (NMDMP), and EPA is supporting The Ocean Conservancy’s implementation of the 

study. NMDMP is designed to gather scientifically valid marine debris data following a rigorous 

August 2002 3-5 
Section 3 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

statistical protocol. The NMDMP is designed to identify trends in the amounts of marine debris 

affecting the U.S. coastline and to determine the main sources of the debris. This scientific study 

is conducted every 28 days by teams of volunteers at randomly selected study sites along the U.S. 

coastline. The program began in 1996 with the establishment of 40 monitoring sites ranging 

from the Texas/Mexico border to Port Everglades, Florida, and includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The NMDMP calls for the establishment of 180 monitoring sites located along 

the coast of the contiguous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. To 

date 163 study sites have been designated and 128 sites are collecting data. The program will run 

for a 5-year period once all of the study sites have been established. 

3.4.2 Goals 

The NMDMP is designed to answer two specific questions: 

• Is the amount of debris on our coastlines increasing or decreasing? 

• What are the major sources of this debris? 

3.4.3 Methodology 

As a result of power analysis, fiscal constraints, and logistics, the NMDMP has developed the 

following guidelines: 

• Approximately 88,000 miles of U.S. 

Statistical power analysis is the evaluation of coastline (including Puerto Rico and the 

the ability to detect significant statistical U.S. Virgin Islands) have been divided into results when real differences exist in a 

nine regions based on available information particular monitoring variable. Application of 

on the types of marine debris found, the this tool enables the investigation of the 

preva statistical implications of alternative sampling iling currents, and logistics. 

strategies (e.g., numbers of sample • Twenty 500-meter sites per region will be 

replicates or sampling stations). This 

surveyed monthly. The potential sites are application is especially useful in designing 

selected based on specific criteria (e.g., new monitoring programs or in evaluating 

substratum, slope) advocated by the effectiveness (or cost efficiency) of other 

existing programs (USEPA, 1987). marine debris monitoring studies and then

finally selected by a geographically

stratified random selection process.

• Approximately 30 indicator items will be 

surveyed every 28 to 30 days, on the same day at all 20 sites within a region. This approach 

will facilitate regional as well as national comparisons. 

• The monitoring will be conducted by trained and certified volunteer surveyors, who will be 

guided and checked by a survey director, who in turn is supervised by the program team. 

• The program will adhere to all scientific protocol, and quality assurance procedures will be 

conducted to ensure quality at all levels of the program. 

3-6 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 3 

• The study will detect a 30 percent change in the frequency of indicator items over 5 years (if 

it occurs), with a power of 0.84 and a Type I error of 0.10. 

Refer to Appendix B for examples of the data forms used in the NMDMP. 

3.4.4 Unique Characteristics 

The program considers the physical characteristics of the beach (e.g., slope, substratum, 

composition, uniformity), prevailing weather patterns (e.g., onshore winds, frequency of storms), 

beach accessibility (e.g., private or public roads and parking nearby), and beach debris 

composition (e.g., land-based and ocean-based categories). Any of these variables has the ability 

to influence the number of potential beaches that can be used for sampling. 

3.4.5 Contact Information 

For more information, visit www.oceanconservancy.org or contact The Ocean Conservancy 

headquarters, 1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. Additional 

information about NMDMP is available from www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/debris or by 

contacting U.S. EPA’s Oceans and Coastal Protection Division at (202)-566-1200. 

3.5 Storm Drain Sentries Program 

3.5.1 Background 

The Ocean Conservancy (formerly the Center for Marine Conservation) in partnership with EPA, 

has established a program to raise awareness and prevent floatable debris (among other 

pollutants) from being washed down storm drains and ultimately reaching coastal recreation 

waters. The Storm Drain Sentries program aims to increase public awareness regarding the 

impact of trash and other pollutants being dumped or poured into storm drains by painting 

warning messages on one million storm water drains across the United States. Volunteers stencil 

storm drains with clean water messages such as “Don’t Dump! Protect Your Water.” 

3.5.2 Goals 

The goals of the program include: (1) educating people about the connection between people, 

land, and waterways and the detrimental effects of nonpoint source pollution; and 

(2) dramatically demonstrating the problem’s pervasiveness by identifying the locations of the 

stenciled drains as potential portals for the introduction of floatable debris into coastal recreation 

waters. 

3.5.3 Methodology 

August 2002 3-7 
Section 3 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

The Ocean Conservancy sends interested groups a storm drain stenciling kit that contains a fact 

sheet about nonpoint source pollution, its impacts, and what citizens can do to prevent it. The kit 

also contains instructions for managing a stenciling project and a data card for recording the 

number of storm drains stenciled and the types of pollutants found around each (CMC, 2000). 

Refer to Appendix C for examples of storm drain stenciling data cards. 

3.5.4 Unique Characteristics 

This program, which continues to grow rapidly, involves more than 90 organizations in 34 states 

and Canada. Volunteers have painted more than 330,000 storm drains. State and local 

governments, as well as private groups and citizens, have also joined the program (CMC, 1998). 

3.5.5 Contact Information 

For more information, visit www.oceanconservancy.org or contact The Ocean Conservancy 

headquarters, 1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. Additional 

information about the Storm Drain Sentries Program can be obtained from 

www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/debris or by contacting U.S. EPA’s Ocean and Coastal Protection 

Division at (202) 566-1200. Stencils on loan and project guidelines can be obtained from Ron 

Ohrel of The Ocean Conservancy at (757)-496-0920. 

3.6 Clean Marinas Program 

3.6.1 Background 

The EPA document, National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source 

Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating (USEPA, 2001b), promotes clean marinas 

through management measures and practices to achieve clean water. Each management measure 

addresses approaches to prevent nonpoint source pollution, including trash that could become 

floatable debris, from adversely affecting receiving waters. The measures identified relate to the 

siting and design of new and expanding marinas and to the good housekeeping activities 

practiced at marinas. 

3.6.2 Goals 

The program’s goals are to increase awareness of clean water at and within marinas, to protect 

coastal and inland waterways, and to prevent the degradation of coastal habitats from nonpoint 

source pollution. 

3.6.3 Methodology 

3-8 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 3 

Good marina water quality depends on water circulation within the boat basin. In a poorly 

flushed boat basin, floatables and other pollutants tend to concentrate and collect in corners, 

poorly flushed coves, and secluded or protected areas to cause offensive odors, stagnant water, 

and reduced dissolved oxygen. Good flushing of marina basins in tidal waters is primarily driven 

by the ebb and flow of the tide. Inland basin flushing in lakes and rivers depends on wind-driven 

circulation and current speed. Marina flushing is enhanced by design considerations such as 

limiting the number of enclosed areas in the marina, and vice versa, providing an open design 

with more than one entrance, ensuring that the entrance channel is not deeper than adjacent 

channels and the depth of the basin, and using mechanical aerators. 

3.6.4 Unique Characteristics 

Clean Marinas is a voluntary program that encourages marina managers to adopt best 

management practices to address the impacts of nonpoint source pollution. It also includes 

management practices that promote the proper and safe handling of solid and liquid waste, fish 

waste, petroleum control, boat cleaning, sanitation, and pumpout systems for boat holding tanks. 

3.6.5 Contact Information 

For more information, visit EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/owow/nps or call EPA’s Assessment 

and Watershed Protection Division at (202) 566-1146. 

August 2002 3-9 
Section 4

Developing a Floatables

Assessment and Monitoring

Program

Marine Debris Survey Manual

Marine Debris Monitor is Monitor is Monitor is Monitoring and Cleanup
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 4 

Section 4: Developing a Floatables Assessment and Monitoring 

Program 

This section provides recommendations for developing programs to assess and monitor floatable 

debris, including specific information about designing floatable debris surveys. The section also 

provides information from volunteer organizations regarding floatable debris monitoring and 

cleanup strategies. 

4.1 Marine Debris Survey Manual 

The Marine Debris Survey Manual (Ribic et al., 1992) provides information useful to managers, 

researchers, government officials, and others interested in designing marine debris surveys. The 

manual could be used to develop a floatable debris assessment and/or monitoring program at the 

state or local government level. Listed in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are some of the variables the 

manual discusses as important, which should be considered when developing such a program 

(Ribic et al., 1992). 

4.1.1 Design Protocols for Monitoring and Assessment of Marine Debris 

These protocols should be followed when designing a monitoring and assessment program for 

marine debris: 

• State the objectives clearly. 

• Define the population of interest. 

• Collect information (e.g., physical features, weather patterns, historical information) on the 

geographic areas of interest to develop a sampling plan. 

• Define the field measurements to be made. 

• Examine data from previous studies or conduct pilot studies to approximate the likely 

variability in the field measurements. 

• Develop a quality assurance program plan to ensure that the data collected will be of high 

quality, verifiable, and defensible. 

• Develop field sampling designs and measurement procedures that will yield representative 

data from the defined population, along with a specified variance or confidence limit. If 

necessary, make decisions on identifying the source of debris (vessel-source versus landbased). 

• Determine the statistical analyses to be used. 

• Conduct the study according to the written protocol. 

• Analyze the data. 

• Evaluate the study. (Were the objectives met? Were the collected data adequate to meet the 

stated objectives? Should the design be modified?) 

August 2002 4-1 
Section 4 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

4.1.2 Variables to Be Considered Overall 

When designing an assessment and monitoring program, the following variables should be 

considered: 

• Wind direction and speed. 

• Current direction and speed. 

• Location of outfalls in the path of the wind and current. 

• Size and type of debris. 

• Discharge-specific debris. 

• Tidal range. 

4.1.3 Shipboard Sighting Surveys for Large Debris Items 

Open-water sighting surveys are used to identify and count floating debris from an elevated 

platform on a moving ship. The transect width may vary from 100 meters to the visual horizon, 

depending on the type of debris being studied. Surveys are typically conducted from the glarefree side of the ship, and objects are sighted visually, unaided or with binoculars. The following 

are typical objectives for open-water sighting surveys (Ribic et al., 1992): 

• Identify types of floatable debris. 

• Estimate densities of floatable debris. 

• Identify areas of low or high concentrations of floatable debris relative to other 

oceanographic features (e.g., currents, convergence zones) or man-made structures (e.g., 

offshore oil platforms). 

• Relate floating debris to entanglement or other effects on animals. 

• Detect temporal and spatial changes in the occurrence of floatable debris. 

In planned studies, debris in specific oceanic areas is considered to be the population of interest, 

which must be defined by the researcher. 

Copies of marine debris survey forms included in the Marine Debris Survey Manual are provided 

in Appendix D. 

4.1.4 Contact Information 

The information provided in this section was taken from the Marine Debris Survey Manual, 

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108, April 1992, by Christine A. Ribic, Trevor R. Dixon, and 

Ivan Vining. Copies of the report can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. 

4-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 4 

4.2 Marine Debris Monitoring and Cleanup 

Marine debris monitoring information from volunteer organizations can be used to assess debris 

sources, identify areas where public education and outreach are necessary, and evaluate the 

success of legislation enacted against littering and ocean dumping. The information that follows 

was taken from Chapter 16 of Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. This 

information can be used to organize a volunteer floatable debris monitoring and cleanup 

program, with specific emphasis on data collection and data uses (USEPA, 1993a). 

4.2.1 Sampling Considerations and Options 

Marine debris cleanup programs generally fall into two categories: (1) programs that collect and 

remove debris and (2) programs that collect and remove debris and also record information on 

the amounts and types of debris found. Marine debris cleanup and monitoring programs should 

address the following questions before proceeding with any activity: 

• Why do you want to conduct a cleanup? 

• What do you want to accomplish? 

• Do you want to conduct a cleanup to just remove debris, or do you want to collect some kind 

of data? If so, what kind of data should be collected (the type of data should be determined 

by the goal(s) of the program)? 

• What will the data be used for (e.g., monitoring debris type or accumulation trends, 

identifying the debris sources, or influencing legislation)? 

• Will this be a 1-day event, or will it need to be repeated periodically? 

• What are the limits of the data? 

4.2.2 Conducting a Marine Debris Cleanup 

Depending on the scope and data needs of the program, organizing such an event can take either 

a few days or a few months. The following actions are required for a successful cleanup 

program: 

• Identifying debris collection sites that are safe and accessible to volunteers. 

• Identifying site coordinators who can manage cleanup activities at each site. 

• Locating a waste hauler who will donate services to the project. 

• Planning recycling options. 

• Arranging for weight scales and other necessary equipment to be at the site. 

• Soliciting volunteers to participate in the activity and providing training prior to the event. 

• Working with the media (as appropriate) to obtain coverage of the event or have it 

photographed or videotaped. 

August 2002 4-3 
Section 4 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

• Maintaining a list of people who might participate to get some indication of the number of 

participants expected at the cleanup site. 

• Preparing for health emergencies. 

• Ensuring that volunteers know what to do with dead, entangled, or injured animals. 

• Contacting potential sponsors to obtain donations of supplies, food, drinks, prizes, and 

whatever else might be needed. 

• Inspecting equipment. 

• Establishing and setting up check-in points. 

• Coordinating volunteers at cleanup sites. 

• Collecting data cards. 

• Distributing prizes and other items to the volunteers. 

• Disposing of the debris. 

• Compiling cleanup information. 

• Following up with site coordinators and key volunteers with results and future action. 

• Providing data to state, local, or federal government agencies as appropriate. 

4.2.3 Contact Information 

The information provided in this section was taken from Chapter 16 of Volunteer Estuary 

Monitoring: A Methods Manual. For more information, visit the EPA web page at 

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/monitor/chptr16.html or contact U.S. EPA’s Ocean and Coastal 

Protection Division at (202) 566-1200. 

4-4 August 2002 
Section 5

Prevention and Mitigation

Activities Associated with

Floatable Debris

Plastic Pellet Containment

Combine Combine Combined Sewer Overflow Permit Cond it Cond it Cond it Conditions for itions for itions for itions for Floatable Floatable Floatable Floatable Debris

Navesink River Nonpoint Sour oint Sour oint Sour oint Source Program

Debris-Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads

National Estuar tional Estuar tional Estuar tional Estuary Programs
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 5 

Section 5: Prevention and Mitigation Activities Associated with 

Floatable Debris 

This section provides examples of prevention and mitigation activities associated with floatable 

debris, including recommendations to industry regarding plastic pellets, permit conditions, 

TMDLs, and selected National Estuary Program (NEP) mitigation activities. 

5.1 Plastic Pellet Containment 

The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) worked with EPA to characterize process 

operations in the plastics industry and to identify potential sources of pellet losses to the 

environment. SPI is the major national trade association representing the plastics industry. The 

release of pellets from pellet producers, transporters/contract packagers, and processors can be 

controlled through actions identified in an EPA study on plastic pellets in the aquatic 

environment (USEPA, 1992a). Recommendations to the plastics industry included the following 

(USEPA, 1993b): 

• Adopt the SPI 1991 Pellet Retention Environmental Code and the 1992 Processor’s Pledge. 

The code is a commitment to total containment of plastic pellets. It encourages source 

reduction activities to prevent releases and suggests ways to recapture spilled pellets. 

• Educate employees and train them to minimize pellet spillage and loss. 

• Install pellet containment systems or use portable containment apparatuses. 

• Institute pellet containment activities during routine plant operations. 

• Recycle spilled pellets. 

• Improve the quality and frequency of pellet spill cleanup procedures. 

• Use puncture-resistant packaging and minimize the use of valved bags. 

• Inspect shipping vehicles (e.g., rail hopper cars, bulk trucks, freight trucks) before and after 

loading and offloading of pellets. 

• Inspect shipping containers before and after loading and offloading of pellets. 

To obtain a copy of the complete report, Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic Environment: Sources and 

Recommendations (EPA 842-B-92-010), contact the National Service Center for Environmental 

Publications at, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419, (800) 490-9198, 

ncepimal@one.net, www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. 

5.2 Combined Sewer Overflow Permit Conditions for Floatable Debris 

New York and New Jersey are coordinating a CSO and storm water permit system. It will 

address the permit programs applying to CSO discharges, efforts to reduce CSOs, control of 

solids and floatable debris, and issues relevant to interstate water planning coordination (USEPA, 

1998b). Additional information about the permit system is available from the New Jersey 

August 2002 5-1 
Section 5 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) at www.state.nj.us/dep/index.html or from the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) at www.dec.state.ny.us. 

5.3 Navesink River Nonpoint Source Program 

The Navesink Watershed Management Project, established in New Jersey, began in 1981 as a 

major interagency initiative involving environmental groups, civic organizations, and federal, 

state, county, and municipal agencies. The purpose of the project is to reduce nonpoint source 

bacterial pollution in the Navesink estuary, specifically from boats, agricultural runoff, and urban 

and suburban runoff (Scro and Eisele, 1993). To control pollution from boats and marinas, 

several organizations have taken the lead in determining the extent of recreational boating, the 

infrastructure needed to reduce related sewage, and the need for education to change the behavior 

of boaters and marina operators. Other organizations have successfully advocated statutory 

changes, planning, and other measures to deal with boating-related pollution (Chess and Gibson, 

2000). 

The Navesink Project has shown that nonpoint source programs need to be flexible and 

innovative, and developed on a site-specific basis. Programs must be created by the parties that 

will play an integral role in resource management in order to gain support (USEPA, 1995). The 

Harbor Estuary Program has funded a study to examine the effectiveness of certain identified 

best management practices (e.g., regular catch basin maintenance, street vacuuming, and storm 

water filtration screens). Water quality is monitored before and after implementation (USEPA, 

1998b). 

More information about the Navesink Project is available in the Navesink Watershed 

Management Effort (Chess and Gibson, 2000), Navesink River Water Monitoring Project (Scro 

and Eisele, 1993), or EPA’s Nonpoint Source News Notes (USEPA, 1995). 

5.4 Debris-Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads 

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant 

that a waterbody can receive and meet water quality standards, along with an allocation of that 

amount to the pollutant's sources. Section 303 of the CWA establishes the TMDL program. 

Water quality standards are set by states, territories, and tribes. They identify the uses for each 

water body, for example, drinking water supply, contact recreation (i.e., swimming), and aquatic 

life support (i.e., fishing), and the scientific criteria to support each use. Calculation of a TMDL 

includes summing the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and 

nonpoint sources. TMDLs apply the standard by setting the maximum amount of pollutants and 

then allocating that load between point and nonpoint sources. In addition, a TMDL must include 

a margin of safety based on the uncertainty in the calculations and must consider the seasonality 

of the particular pollutant. 

5-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 5 

On their 1998 303(d) lists, California, New York, Alaska, Washington, and Connecticut 

identified a total of 62 waterbodies as water quality impaired because of debris, trash, floatables 

and/or large woody debris. California has developed 3 TMDLs for trash. For more information 

about the TMDL program, visit the website at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl. 

5.5 National Estuary Programs 

The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 by amendments to the Clean 

Water Act. The purpose of the NEP is to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant 

estuaries of the United States. Unlike traditional regulatory approaches to environmental 

protection, the NEP targets a broad range of issues and involves local communities in the 

process. It focuses on improving water quality in estuaries and on maintaining the integrity of 

the whole system—its chemical, physical, and biological properties and its economic, 

recreational, and aesthetic values (USEPA, 2001a). 

The NEP is designed to encourage local communities to be responsible for managing their 

estuaries. Each program consists of representatives from Federal, state, and local government 

agencies responsible for managing the estuary’s resources, as well as community members such 

as citizens, educators, researchers, and business leaders. Stakeholders work together to identify 

the estuary’s problems, develop specific actions to address those problems, and create and 

implement a formal management plan to restore and protect the estuary. There are currently 28 

NEP programs. More information about the NEP is available at www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries. 

5.5.1 New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program 

EPA authorized the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) in 1987. The 

program is a multiyear effort to develop and implement a plan to protect, conserve, and restore 

the estuary. Program participants include scientists, citizens, business interests, 

environmentalists, representatives from local, state, and Federal environmental agencies, and 

others (HEP, 1996). 

One component of HEP’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is the 

management of floatable debris. The goals of the floatable debris management plan are: 

• To eliminate floatables-related beach closures. 

• To prevent adverse impacts on commercial and recreational boating from floatable debris. 

• To prevent adverse impacts on coastal species resulting from floatable debris. 

To achieve these goals, HEP decided to address the floatable debris problem with two tracks. 

The fast track, which was developed and implemented in 1989, included the following specific 

actions to clean up existing debris after it had entered the system: 

August 2002 5-3 
Section 5 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

• Surveillance. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), EPA, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) conduct helicopter and aircraft patrols of the harbor to look for 

slicks of floating debris. There are also daily vessel patrols of the harbor by EPA and USCG, 

weekly patrols of the New York Bight by USCG, and daily overflights of the Bight by 

NJDEP. 

• Regular Cleanups. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has an ongoing program to 

capture loose timbers and other navigation hazards in the harbor. USACE cleans up floatable 

slicks, using specially designed nets to collect small debris. Cleanups are regularly scheduled 

at the Verrazano Narrows and Arthur Kill (locations where garbage slicks tend to form) 

during and following new moon and full moon high tides and after storms that cause CSOs. 

During the summer bathing season (mid-May to mid-September), cleanups occur daily. 

• Nonroutine Cleanups. USACE attempts to capture additional slicks in the harbor when 

conditions are brought to its attention. State coordinators notify local authorities and beach 

operators of potential wash-ups. 

• Communications Network. EPA coordinates a reporting network and cleanup activities. 

EPA, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, NJDEP, New York City 

Department of Sanitation, USACE, and USCG are all on-call 24 hours a day. Hotline 

numbers are available for citizens’ telephone calls. 

The longer-term strategy, which supplements the short-term action plan and reduces the amount 

of debris entering the system, consists of the following: 

• Continue and improve the successful short-term floatables action plan. 

• Develop and implement a long-term, source-oriented strategy to reduce the amount of 

floatables entering the ecosystem. 

• Take action as soon as there are commitments and mechanisms in place for implementation. 

• Take additional actions, over time, as mechanisms and commitments are developed. 

• Expand public education and outreach efforts to foster lifestyle changes that will reduce the 

public’s contribution to the floatable debris problem. 

The following are the objectives and recommendations of the HEP Floatables Plan: 

• Continue and enhance implementation of the short-term floatables action plan. 

• Expand the USACE Harbor Drift Removal Program without compromising key habitat. 

• Implement beach and shoreline cleanups. 

• Assess and control landfill and solid waste practices to minimize aerial sources of floatables. 

• Communicate impacts of marine debris and appropriate disposal practices. 

• Reduce floatable loadings from CSOs, storm water discharges, and other nonpoint sources. 

Also, pilot projects have been established at marinas in New York and New Jersey to encourage 

proper handling and recycling of marine debris. This campaign, a model to be replicated at 

marinas throughout the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, discourages tossing trash 

5-4 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 5 

overboard, encourages recycling and waste minimization, educates boaters about the problems of 

marine pollution, fosters appreciation of local marine areas, and creates an awareness of the 

Harbor and Long Island Sound Estuary Programs (USEPA, 1998b). 

For more information about the New York-New Jersey HEP, refer to www.harborestuary.org. 

The CCMP is available at www.harborestuary.org/mgmt.htm. Information about the successes 

and future challenges of the program is available from Successes and Challenges: Highlights of 

Program Accomplishments and Challenges for the Future, which is available at 

www.hudsonriver.org/hep/pdf/sc.pdf. A list of HEP contacts is available from 

www.harborestuary.org/contacts.htm. 

5.5.2 Long Island Sound Study 

The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is a cooperative effort involving researchers, regulators, 

user groups, and other concerned organizations and individuals. This partnership is designed to 

protect and improve the health of the sound by implementing the 1994 CCMP for the sound 

(LISS, 2001). The floatable debris part of the plan seeks to reduce the flow of litter from its 

major sources, and to collect and pick up litter once it is in the sound. Source control is the most 

effective strategy to combat littering and improper disposal. To reduce the flow of floatable 

debris into the sound, management actions center on the following (LISS, 1994): 

• Combined sewer overflow abatement and storm water management. New York City has 

begun to implement a CSO abatement program for controlling the discharge of pathogens. 

Connecticut will implement its long-term CSO abatement program to manage sewer areas 

affecting Long Island Sound. New York and Connecticut are implementing statewide storm 

water permit programs to manage storm water from industrial and construction activities. 

Both states are also using their nonpoint source programs to control pathogen discharges to 

the sound. Each of these programs will also substantially reduce the amount of floatable 

debris entering the sound. 

• Education. The New York Sea Grant Extension Program, Connecticut Sea Grant Marine 

Advisory Program, and LISS have organized volunteers from civic associations, schools, and 

environmental and youth groups to paint messages on storm drains, such as “Don’t Dump– 

Drains to Long Island Sound.” Another program, “Clean Streets/Clean Beaches” is an antilitter program launched in April 1992 by a coalition of public and private groups in New 

Jersey and New York. The goal of this program is to make people aware that street debris 

can ultimately be found on beaches and that they should not litter. 

August 2002 5-5 
Section 5 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

According to the 1998 CCMP Tracking Survey, 2,685 New York volunteers collected more than 

35,846 pounds of trash from the shoreline along the sound during 1998. In Connecticut, 

approximately 750 volunteers removed more than 7,000 pounds of trash from 20 miles of shore. 

Additionally, between 1991 and 1998 more than 18,650 storm drains have been stenciled with 

the “Don’t Dump—Drains to Long Island Sound” message and more than 3,330 drains in New 

York have been stenciled with a bilingual (Spanish/English) “Clean Streets = Clean Beaches” 

slogan (LISS, 1998). 

More information about LISS is available at www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis. The CCMP is 

available at www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/plan.html. For more general information, contact the 

U.S. EPA Long Island Sound Office, Stamford, Government Center, 888 Washington Avenue, 

Stamford, CT 06904-2152, (203) 977-1541 or the Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY 

Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000, (516) 632-7666. A more detailed list of contacts is 

available at www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/contacts.html. 

5.5.3 San Juan Bay Estuary 

The San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE) system was nominated for the National Estuary Program on 

April 16, 1992. It is the only NEP located in a tropical geographic region and outside the 

mainland United States. The goals of the SJBE Program are to (SJBE Program, 2000): 

• Establish a comprehensive water quality policy. This policy will ensure the integrity of 

marine resources and terrestrial ecosystems while supporting human activities in the system. 

• Develop an effective administrative and regulatory framework for the SJBE system that will 

serve as a model for other estuary systems, especially for tropical systems. 

• Optimize the social, economic, and recreational benefits associated with the SJBE system. 

• Prevent further degradation and improve the system’s water quality to help ensure healthy 

terrestrial and aquatic communities and social well-being. 

• Minimize the health risks associated with direct human contact with the surface waters and 

the consumption of fish and shellfish. 

The objectives of the SJBE Program are to: 

• Identify the major stressors impacting the system and establish their relative importance. 

• Develop action plans to remediate problems identified in the system. 

• Conserve and enhance the integrity of the known, highly valuable natural resources in the 

system, and restore, to the extent possible, areas that have been adversely affected. 

• Address the major concerns of citizens and user groups regarding the quality of the system. 

• Promote the public’s awareness regarding estuarine resources and involvement in the 

development of an effective management plan for the system. 

5-6 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Section 5 

• Develop a hydrological model of the system to determine effective alternatives to improve 

circulation and predict the hydrological impacts of future development. 

To prioritize issues of concern and to develop proposed solutions to improve the health of the 

estuary, the SJBE Program developed four Action Plans. The goal of the Aquatic Debris Action 

Plan is to improve habitat quality and enhance the aesthetic, recreational, and economic values of 

the SJBE by ensuring that the watershed is free of aquatic debris. The first objective of the plan 

is to significantly reduce the amount of aquatic debris that reaches all estuarine waters. This is to 

be accomplished by the following actions: 

• Develop and implement community-based solid waste management and recycling programs 

in coordination with municipalities. 

• Continue to implement the Action Plan Demonstration Project developed in Piñones, Loíza. 

• Continue the annual aquatic debris cleanup event held in Islote de la Guachinanga. 

• Conduct periodic aquatic debris cleanup activities at suggested SJBE locations. 

The second objective of the plan is to develop, promote, and implement voluntary compliance 

and pollution prevention initiatives. This can be accomplished by establishing Solid Waste 

Pollution Prevention Pilot Programs at different SJBE locations. The third objective of the plan 

is to strengthen the enforcement of littering laws and regulations by: 

• Implementing measures to detect, correct, and control illegal dumping activities and 

enforcing Puerto Rico’s Anti-Littering Law (Law No. 11 of 1995). 

• Enforcing the Law for the Management of Used Tires (Law No. 171) and other regulatory 

measures related to the illegal dumping of used tires within the estuary system and its 

drainage basin. 

More information is available from the San Juan Bay Estuary Program Office, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Building, 400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue, Second Floor, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 

00901-3299, (787) 725-8162. Edna Villanueva, the Technical Director, may be contacted at 

edna.villanueva@usace.army.mil. 

5.5.4 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project 

The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) is a group of environmentalists, scientists, 

government representatives, business people, and members of the public. It was formed in 1988 

to develop a restoration plan for the bay. The mission of SMBRP, one of the first NEPs, is to 

create a comprehensive plan to ensure the long-term health of Santa Monica Bay, which is 

adjacent to the heavily urbanized, second-most-populous region in the United States. Among a 

variety of projects and programs addressing various issues related to the bay, SMBRP has 

educated beachgoers about marine debris and provided stations for depositing and recycling 

trash. SMBRP also has acted as the Los Angeles County coordinator for Coastal Cleanup Day, 

August 2002 5-7 
Section 5 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

tripling the number of cleanup volunteers. The Project encourages using management practices 

such as handling, storing, and disposing of materials and wastes properly to prevent them from 

entering storm drains (SMBRP, no date). More information is available at www.smbay.org or 

from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 320 West Fourth Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, 

CA 90013, (213) 576-6615. 

5-8 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris References 

References and Additional Resources 

References 

Battelle Ocean Sciences. 1993. Pilot Study to Characterize Floatable Debris Discharged from 

Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges September 1989 Through May 

1990. Final data report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Battelle 

Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. 

Caribbean Islands Directorate. 1989. Land-Based Sources of Marine Pollution in the Wider 

Caribbean Region. U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, Puerto Rico Workshop, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico, August 7-9, 1989. 

Chess, C., and G. Gibson. 2000. The Navesink Watershed Management Effort. Center for 

Environmental Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 

Accessed July 2001. 

CMC. 1998. Million Points of Blight. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, DC. 

<http://cmc-ocean.org/cleanupbro/millionpoints.php3>. Accessed July 2001. 

CMC. 2000. 1999 International Coastal Cleanup. Center for Marine Conservation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dooley, E.C. 2001, December 11. Whale’s tale a costly lesson. Cape Cod Times. 

<www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/2001/dec/11/whalezxstale11.htm>. 

Accessed June 2002. 

Ecorisk. 2002. Ecorisk Fundamentals: 2.2. Bioconcentration, Bioaccumulation and 

Biomagnification. <http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/fundamentals/html/ch2/2.2.htm>. 

Accessed June 2002. 

ENN. 1999. Northern Right Whale on Path to Extinction. Environmental News Network. 

<www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/03/031899/rightwhale_2200.asp>. Accessed 

June 2002. 

Ferdinand, P. 2002, June 17. Near Cape Cod, Whales Get Right of Way. The Washington Post. 

Gaugler, L. 1999. Floatables Action Plan Assessment Report. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2. 

August 2002 References-1 
References Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

HEP. 1996. Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. New York-New Jersey 

Harbor Estuary Program, including the Bight Restoration Plan. <www.harborestuary.org/ 

mgmt.htm>. Accessed July 2001. 

LISS. 1994. Long Island Sound Study Management Plan. Long Island Sound Study. 

<www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/plan.html>. Accessed July 2001. 

LISS. 1998. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: 1998 Tracking Report. 

Long Island Sound Study. <www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/98track/98tracking.pdf>. 

Accessed July 2001. 

LISS. 2001. Long Island Sound Study Online. Long Island Sound Study. <www.epa.gov/ 

region01/eco/lis>. Accessed July 2001. 

NAS. 1975. Marine litter. In Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. A report of the study panel 

on assessing potential ocean pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission on 

Natural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 

Washington, DC. 

Ribic, C.A., T.R. Dixon, and I. Vining. 1992. Marine Debris Survey Manual. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS 108. U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA. 

Scro, R., and W.J. Eisele. 1993. Navesink River Water Monitoring Project. Accessed July 

2001. 

SJBE Program. 2000. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the San Juan 

Bay Estuary. San Juan Bay Estuary Program, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

SMBRP. No date. Santa Monica Bay Home Page. About the Santa Monica Bay Restoration 

Project. <www.smbay.org/10.htm>. Accessed July 2001. 

USEPA. 1987. Technical Support Document for ODES Statistical Power Analysis. 

EPA 430/09-87-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine 

and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1989. Environmental Backgrounder: Medical Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1990. Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Wastes. EPA 530-SW-89-051. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

References-2 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris References 

USEPA. 1992a. Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic Environment: Sources and Recommendations, 

Final Report. EPA-842-B-92-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1992b. Turning the Tide on Trash: A Learning Guide on Marine Debris. EPA 842-B92-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/OCPD/Marine/contents.html>. Accessed April 2002. 

USEPA. 1993a. Chapter 16 of Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 842-B93-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

<www.epa.gov/nep/monitor/chptr16.html>. Accessed July 2001. 

USEPA. 1993b. Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic Environment: Sources and Recommendations, A 

Summary. EPA 842-S-93-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1995. Notes from the States, Tribes, and Localities, Where the Action Is. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Nonpoint Source News Notes. No. 40, March/April 

1995. <www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/issue40/nps40sta.html>. Accessed July 

2001. 

USEPA. 1998a. Coastal Watersheds. EPA 842-F-98-006. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/factsheets/fact1.html>. Accessed April 2002. 

USEPA. 1998b. National Estuary Program: 1995 Project Summaries. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. <www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/projects/hep.htm>. 

Accessed July 2001. 

USEPA. 2001a. National Estuary Program: Bringing Our Estuaries New Life. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2001b. National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source 

Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating. EPA 841-B-01-005. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

August 2002 References-3 
References Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 

Additional Resources 

Clean Ocean Action. 1999. 1999 Clean Ocean Action’s Beach Sweeps Results. Clean Ocean 

Action, Highlands, New Jersey. Information about the organization is available at 

www.CleanOceanAction.ORG. 

Citizens Advisory Committee and the Science and Technical Advisory Committee. 2001. 

Successes and Challenges: Highlights of Program Accomplishments and Challenges for 

the Future. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 

<www.hudsonriver.org/hep/pdf/sc.pdf>. Accessed July 2001. 

CMC. No date. The International Coastal Cleanup: How a Good Idea Grew. Center for 

Marine Conservation, Washington, DC. 

CMC. 1993. All About Beach Cleanups: A Helpful Planning Guide. Center for Marine 

Conservation, Washington, DC. 

Collier County. 2001. Amendment Cycle 1, 2001 Draft: June 8, 2001. Collier County, Florida. 

Accessed July 2001. 

Faris, J., and K. Hart. No date. Sea of Debris: A Summary of the Third International Conference 

on Marine Debris. North Carolina Sea Grant College Program. Copies are available 

from Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, 

WA 98115-0070. 

FWS. 2000. Recovery Plan: Recovery Tasks. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

<http://pipingplover.fws.gov/recplan/tasks.html>. Accessed July 2001. 

Gulf of Mexico Program. 1995. Phase I: Gulf of Mexico Program Action Projects Summary, 

1988-1995. Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, 

Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. 

NJDEP. 1999. Performance Report. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

<www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/99fedb~1.pdf>. Accessed July 2001. 

NOAA. 2001. Endangered Species: Leatherback Sea Turtle. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/leatherback.html>. Accessed July 2001. 

O’Hara, K.J., S. Iudicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A Citizens Guide to Plastics in the Ocean: More 

Than a Litter Problem. Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC. 

References-4 August 2002 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris References 

Olin, S. 2001. Geologist issues advisory paper on Pemaquid beach. The Lincoln County News 

26(20). Accessed July 23, 2001. 

Palm Beach County. 2000. Guidelines for Proper Beach and Dune Management. Palm Beach 

County, Department of Environmental Resources Management. <www.co.palm-beach. 

fl.us/erm/divisions/enhancement/shoreline/pdf/guidelin.pdf>. Accessed July 2001. 

Project Pacific. 2001. California Grunion. <www.projectpacific.org/grunion.html>. Accessed 

July 2001. 

Redford, D., M. Billy, and A. Tom. 1992. The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Role in Controlling Aquatic Debris. Chemistry and Ecology 6:189-197. 

USEPA. 1989. Managing and Tracking Medical Wastes: A Guide to the Federal Program for 

Treatment, Destruction, and Disposal Facilities. EPA 530-SW-89-023. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1994. Status of Efforts to Control Aquatic Debris. EPA 842-K-94-002. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

August 2002 References-5 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Glossary 

Glossary 

Coastal recreation waters [As defined in the Clean Water Act, as amended by the BEACH 

Act], the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal 

estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) of the Clean 

Water Act by a state for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or 

similar water contact activities. Coastal recreation waters do not 

include either inland waters or waters upstream of the mouth of a 

river or stream having an unimpaired natural connection with the 

open sea. 

Coastal watershed A geographic area that starts at the headwaters of the streams and 

rivers that ultimately drain to the coastal areas. Headwaters often 

include wetlands, which are typically adjacent to rivers or streams. 

Upon reaching coastal areas, rivers empty into estuaries. 

Nearshore waters (the areas directly offshore from the beach), 

offshore coral reefs (in tropical areas), and other offshore areas are 

also part of the coastal watershed (USEPA, 1998a). 

Floatable debris Waterborne waste material that is buoyant. Examples include 

wood, beach litter, street litter, sewage-related wastes, fishing gear, 

and medical wastes (Gaugler, 1999). 

Marine debris (litter) Solid materials of human origin that are discarded at sea or reach 

the sea through waterways or domestic and industrial outfalls 

(NAS, 1975). 

August 2002 Glossary-1 
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris Acronyms 

Acronyms 

BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act 

CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

CMC Center for Marine Conservation 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CSO combined sewer overflow 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

HEP Harbor Estuary Program 

ICCC International Coastal Cleanup Campaign 

LISS Long Island Sound Study 

MARPOL Convention International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 

MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

NEP National Estuary Program 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NMDMP National Marine Debris Monitoring Program 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

POTW publicly owned treatment works 

SJBE San Juan Bay Estuary 

SMBRP Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project 

SPA Shore Protection Act 

SPI Society of the Plastics Industries, Inc. 

SWD storm water discharge 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USACE United. States. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

WPCP water pollution control plant 

August 2002 Acronyms-1 
Office of Water

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Oceans and Coastal Protection (4504T)

EPA-842-B-02-002

http://www.epa.gov/ow/owow/

August 2002