INT RFP Attachment H - DEQ Literature Review.pdf

OregonBuys Bid # S-34000-00015010 Att H

ATTACHMENT H – DEQ LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review: Litter and Marine Debris Cleanup and Prevention Needs Assessment

Prepared for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Morgan Fenn Portland State University

June 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Section 26a of the Recycling Modernization Act mandates that The Department of Environmental Quality conduct a statewide needs assessment to identify the contribution of covered products to litter and marine debris, general locations of litter and marine debris, and the extent to which litter and marine debris prevention and cleanup is needed.

• Litter and marine debris are ubiquitous in the environment in marine, aquatic, and terrestrial compartments. More research is needed to identify the location of litter and marine debris with respect to covered products in Oregon.

• NOAA’s MDMAP database of marine debris found on shorelines in Oregon attributes 91% to plastic, 2.3% to paper/cardboard, and less than 1% each for other materials.

More research is needed to ascertain the composition of litter and marine debris with respect to covered products in Oregon.

• Litter and marine debris pose significant economic, social, and environmental costs, although the proportion of these costs which may be attributed to covered products in the state of Oregon are unknown. More research is needed to provide an estimate of the costs of litter and marine debris of covered products.

• Recommendation: DEQ should conduct a statewide study, funded by producer responsibility organizations, in order to identify the location and composition of litter and marine debris, and the extent to which prevention and cleanup is needed.

• Recommendation: DEQ should utilize established methodology and best practices for data collection of macro debris location and composition. Relationships with partner organizations should be leveraged in order to conduct sampling.

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed Senate Bill 582, the Plastic Pollution and

Recycling Modernization Act (hereafter referred to as the “Recycling Modernization Act” or “the

Act”). Section 1 of the Act describes its goals to increase statewide recovery rates, update

Oregon’s recycling programs to meet modern consumption patterns, introducing an extended producer responsibility model, and reduce the negative environmental, social, economic, and health impacts of products and packaging.

Section 26a of the Recycling Modernization Act regards litter and marine debris cleanup and prevention needs assessment. The law mandates that “The Department of Environmental

Quality shall conduct a statewide needs assessment to identify the contribution of different types of covered products to litter and marine debris in Oregon, the general locations where litter and marine debris prevention and cleanup of covered products is needed, and the extent to which litter and marine debris prevention and cleanup is needed.” This report is intended to provide a preliminary summary of academic literature and government publications as an internal reference for the statewide needs assessment for litter and marine debris cleanup and prevention by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Issue Definitions

“Litter” is defined by the Recycling Modernization Act as “waste that is improperly placed so as to be a nuisance or aesthetic, health or environmental concern.”

“Marine debris” is not defined in the Recycling Modernization Act in relation to the statewide needs assessment. For the purpose of this report, marine debris will be defined in accordance with the “Definition of Marine Debris for Purposes of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act” created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the Coast Guard.1 Marine debris is defined as “any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes.”

While many materials may fall into the categories of litter and marine debris, this report will focus on litter and marine debris of covered products under the Recycling Modernization

Act.

• “Covered products” are defined as packaging, printing and writing paper, and food serviceware.

• “Packaging” as defined by the law is “Materials used for the containment or protection of products, including but not limited to paper, plastic, glass or metal or a mixture thereof, single-use bags, including but not limited to shopping bags; and nondurable materials used in storage, shipping or moving, including but not limited to packing materials, moving boxes, file boxes and folders.”

• “Printing and writing paper” includes “but is not limited to, newspaper, magazines, flyers, brochures, booklets, catalogs, telephone directories and paper used for copying, writing or other general use.”

• “Food serviceware” is defined by the law as “paper or plastic plates, wraps, cups, bowls, pizza boxes, cutlery, straws, lids, bags, aluminum foil or clamshells or similar

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard, Rule, “Definition of Marine Debris for

Purposes of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act,” Federal Register 74 (October 5, 2009):

45555, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/09/03/E9-21261/definition-of-marine-debris-for-purposes-of-the-marine-debris-research-prevention-and-reduction-act.

containers” intended for single use that are sold to a retailer or a dine-in food establishment or a take-out food establishment.

RESEARCH METHODS

The Portland State University Library’s online database was used to perform a search of academic articles published within the past ten years (2014-2024) using key words such as

“Oregon,” “California,” “Washington,” “plastic pollution,” “Pacific Ocean,” and “marine debris.” Irrelevant articles that did not fit the scope of research on litter and marine debris of covered products were disregarded. From there, a snowball sampling method was used to find additional research and studies related to the topic. Additional reports and sources were included as recommended by DEQ staff. The final number of articles and documents was 16, which were categorized into themes based on the research questions provided by DEQ through systematic review.

LITERATURE REVIEW: LITTER AND MARINE DEBRIS IN OREGON

Physical Inquiry

This section addresses findings in the literature regarding the physical attributes of litter and marine debris. The goal of this physical inquiry is to evaluate present knowledge of where litter is present in the environment and the material composition of litter. Then gaps in the literature and recommendations for future steps to find more information will be discussed.

Location of Litter and Debris

Anthropogenic litter and debris have become ubiquitous throughout the environment;

however, the majority of academic literature on the topic focuses on plastic pollution in marine environments. Marine debris enters the marine environment through a large variety of mechanisms either directly from sea-based activity or indirectly through land-based activity.

These mechanisms include littering, river and storm runoff, lost or abandoned fishing equipment, offshore garbage dumping, inadequate and uncontained waste disposal sites, and insufficient waste infrastructure and collection services.2 3 4 Litter in the terrestrial environment is most common in areas lacking adequate solid waste management, which then has the potential of entering waterways and becoming marine debris.5 The majority of marine debris is sourced from land-based human activity that enters the ocean through heavy rainfall events, with estimates of land-based sources accounting from over 60%6 up to 80% of total marine debris.7

Marine environmental compartments where debris deposits are noted to occur include shorelines, the water surface, the seafloor, and in biota.8 Efforts have been made to quantify and categorize these deposits in each of these compartments. Shorelines are a practical and efficient indicator of marine debris, as several studies suggest that the majority of buoyant plastic debris

(up to 77%) ends up beached or floating close to shorelines.9 A ten-year study (1998-2007) on the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California found an average of 28.2 debris items per 500 meter length of shoreline, while a 2013-2019 study in the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary in Washington state found 32.7 plastic items (greater than 2.5 cm) per 100 meters.10

The North Pacific Ocean, which borders the state of Oregon, is documented to have an unusually

2 Evan Morrison, Alexandra Shipman, Shradha Shrestha, Evan Squier and Kaitlin Stack Whitney, “Evaluating The

Ocean Cleanup, a Marine Debris Removal Project in the North Pacific Gyre, Using SWOT Analysis,” Case Studies in the Environment (2019): 1.

3 Avalon Diggle, and Tony R. Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation,” Environments 9, 15 (2022): 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015.

4 Amy V. Uhrin, Sunwook Hong, Hillary K. Burgess, Sehan Lim, and Kyle Dettloff, “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Shorelines,” Environmental Pollution 310 (2022): 119862, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119862.

5 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation,” 8.

6 Morrison et al., “Evaluating the Ocean Cleanup,” 4.

7 Leila Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways: Unveiling the Hidden Costs to Californians of Litter Clean-Up,” NRDC

Issue Brief, 2013.

8 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 1.

9 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 2.

10 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 5.

https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119862 high abundance and diversity of marine debris both on the surface and on shorelines.11 Wind and ocean currents tend to drive marine debris towards the center of oceanic gyres, such as the North

Pacific Gyre, which creates large patches of marine debris that may stretch for thousands of miles and contain around 334,271 pieces of plastic per square kilometer.12

A wide body of research has been conducted on the presence of microplastics within marine biota. One such study, which investigated microplastic concentration in Pacific oysters, collected samples from the Northern and Southern Oregon coast in 2017.13 100% of the oyster samples contained plastic microfibers, with an average of 16.5 microfibers per individual and with no significant difference found across geographic locations or temporal differences.14

Seabirds are another species affected by accidental ingestion of plastic debris, either through mistaking plastic as food or consuming prey that is contaminated with plastic.15 Studies estimate that most seabird species will be impacted by the accidental ingestion of marine plastic debris by

2050.16

Marine debris is found even in deep-sea environments. A multi-year study conducted by the

NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, which explored deepwater areas in the Pacific

Ocean in and around United States marine protected areas found deep-sea debris on 17.5% of

11 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 2.

12 Morrison et al., “Evaluating the Ocean Cleanup,” 2.

13 Mia K. Jauregui, “Microplastic Concentration in Crassotrea gigas: Establishing a Baseline of Microplastic

Contamination in Oregon’s Oyster Aquacultures,” (2017), University Honors Theses. Paper 494, 3, https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.497.

14 Jauregui, “Microplastic Concentration in Crassotrea gigas,” 3-18.

15 Valeria Hidalgo-Ruz, Guillermo Luna-Jorquera, Marcus Eriksen, Hanna Frick, Diego Miranda-Urbina, Matias

Portflitt-Toro, Marcelo M. Rivadeneira1, Christopher J.R. Robertson, R. Paul Scofield, Juan Serratosa, Cristián G.

Suazo, and Martin Thiel, “Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds from the South Pacific Ocean: Is there a pattern?” Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 31 (2021):390, DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3453.

16 Hidalgo-Ruz et al., “Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds,” 391.

https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.497 dives.17 The majority of debris was found very near to human settlements (within 60 km);

however, debris continued to be found over 500 km from settlements and no significant difference was found in the presence of debris in marine protected areas compared to non-protected areas.18 Such findings indicate that no area of the marine environment, no matter how remote, is unaffected by the issue of anthropogenic pollution.

Plastic pollution in freshwater systems has been less extensively studied than in oceans, but litter is also pervasive in Oregon rivers.19 The quantity of plastic found in a given location may be affected by proximity to point sources (pipes) and nonpoint sources (septic systems or urban runoff); however, a study of eight sites across the Columbia, Willamette, Rogue, and Deschutes rivers found microplastic contamination at all sites, regardless of if the location was rural or urban.20 The authors of this study note that these high concentrations of microplastics are in

Oregon rivers with culturally and ecologically important fisheries, and that are common recreational sites.21 Data and photographs submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality by Willamette Riverkeeper also illustrate the presence of litter in the Willamette river.22

The data provided by Willamette Riverkeeper covers stretches of the Willamette river and its tributaries from Portland to Eugene, with nearly 1,000 yards of trash removed from 2018-2022.

The reviewed literature indicates that anthropogenic litter and marine debris are present in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine environments, illustrating the magnitude of environmental

17 Diva J. Amon, Brian R. C. Kennedy, Kasey Cantwell, Kelley Suhre, Deborah Glickson, Timothy M. Shank Randi

D. Rotjan, “Deep-Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 369 (2020):

2-5, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00369.

18 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris,” 11-12.

19 Amy E. Valine, Ashley E. Peterson, Dorothy A. Horn, Kaegan M. Scully-Engelmeyer, and Elise F. Granek, “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers Along a Rural to Urban Gradient Applying a Cost-Effective Validation Technique,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38, 8 (2020): 1590.

20 Valine et al., “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers,” 1591-1595.

21 Valine et al., “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers,” 1595.

22 Oregon DEQ, “2024 Integrated Report: Aquatic Trash,” (2024), 1.

https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Documents/ir24aquaTrashFS24.pdf.

contamination. The pervasiveness of pollution even in remote locations presents a challenge for cleanup efforts, highlighting the importance of preventative strategies. Although studies suggest that there is a higher concentration of debris near areas of human settlement, debris enters the environment through a wide variety of direct and indirect mechanisms and points of origin,23 which introduces additional challenges for preventing leakage.

There are several relevant gaps in the literature for assessing cleanup and prevention needs in the state of Oregon. Much of the research is focused on plastic marine debris, rather than marine debris of all material categories. Due to the large-scale and boundary-crossing nature of marine debris, the studies conducted on marine debris tend to address the issue regarding the

Pacific Ocean in aggregate rather than the state of Oregon individually. Marine microplastic pollution, which has been thoroughly researched, is also diffuse by nature and does not assist with identifying key locations for cleanup and prevention efforts.

Composition of Litter and Marine Debris

Research on litter and marine debris often makes the attempt to classify the composition of materials found, but identification of the original use of items is challenging due to degradation of items in the environment. A literature review on shoreline plastic debris notes that most studies of shoreline marine debris along the North Pacific Ocean focused on macro debris prior to 2000, but around the year 2008 there was a significant shift in focus towards identification of microplastics.24 This shift in focus has led to gaps in research, as nearly half of macrodebris studies reported all materials of marine debris found, microdebris studies report findings for plastic only.25 In regard to the statewide needs assessment, this presents a challenge because not

23 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 10.

24 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 5.

25 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 6.

all types of covered products are included as materials categories for microdebris, and identification of the original use of microplastics is generally not possible. Additionally, fibers are one of the most prevalent types of microplastics, which are sourced from synthetic clothing, cigarette butts, and fishing equipment.26 Therefore, while there is a wide variety of research on concentrations of microplastics in marine environmental compartments, much of it is inapplicable for the purposes of identifying the presence of covered products as litter and marine debris.

There is also difficulty in the ability to identify litter collected in land-based projects. A

Litter Management Pilot Study conducted by the California Department of Transportation in

1998-2000 analyzed the composition of freeway storm water litter, which was conducted by securing mesh bags on outfalls in the Los Angeles area27. Moldable plastics were found to constitute the highest percentage of litter by both weight (21%) and volume (16%), and about half of the total litter consisted of paper, plastic, or Styrofoam.28 The study noted that due to the small size of litter collected, identification of original usage of the materials was not possible to identify for 55-79% of items.29 Many of the photographs provided by Willamette Riverkeeper from cleanups conducted on Upper Willamette River depict full garbage bags, scattered debris, and larger items such as furniture and bicycles, making it difficult to assess what percent of this contamination may be covered products.

The clearest picture of the composition of litter and debris is from studies that classify macrodebris based on item material type and original use. Classification of deep-sea debris in the

26 Valine et al., “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers,” 1591.

27 Gary Lippner, John Johnston, Suzanne Combs, Kimberly Walter, and David Marx, “Results of the Caltrans Litter

Management Pilot Study,” Transportation Research Record 1743, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, 2-8.

28 Lippner et al., “Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study,” 2-7.

29 Lippner et al., “Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study,” 7.

northwestern Pacific Ocean found that 33% of debris at a depth below 2,000 meters was plastic, 89% of which was single-use plastic items; the percentage of plastic items found increased to

52%, 92% of which were single-use, at a depth below 6,000 meters.30 In NOAA’s deep-sea study, material composition of debris in the Pacific Ocean was found to be metal (46.96%), fishing gear (18.26%), plastic debris (18.26%), and cloth, glass, rubber, or other debris

(16.52%).31 42.86% of the plastic debris found was single-use bags or cups.32

Perhaps the most comprehensive documentation of marine debris is collected by citizen scientists and volunteers through beach cleanup programs. NOAA’s Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project (MDMAP) surveys marine debris on shorelines through NOAA partnerships and volunteers.33 The MDMAP categorizes debris into many materials categories and maps where debris was collected. There are 31 listed Oregon cleanup sites in the MDMAP database, with samples dating back to 2012. Debris in Oregon is found to mainly consist of plastic (91% of total debris), with 45% of total debris consisting of hard plastic fragments and

30% of total debris consisting of foamed plastic fragments. 2.3% of total debris is characterized as paper and cardboard. All other material categories (cloth/fabric, metal, rubber, glass, other) account for less than 1% each of total debris. When compared to the average debris composition of all 521 sites across the United States, which consists of 85% plastic and 1.8% paper and cardboard, Oregon has a higher percentage of plastic and paper debris and lower percentages of metal and glass debris according to the MDMAP data. In comparison, California’s debris consists of 69% plastic and 5.7% paper and cardboard, while Washington has 84% plastic and

30 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris,” 2.

31 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris,” 6.

32 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris,” 6.

33 NOAA, “Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project,” last updated June 4, 2024, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/monitoring/marine-debris-monitoring-and-assessment-project.

1.3% paper and cardboard debris composition. Other organizations, such as the Ocean

Conservancy, also publish volunteer-collected data from coastal cleanups. In the Ocean

Conservancy’s 2023 report, which reports findings from clean ups conducted in 2022, the top ten item categories are published for the United States as a whole and individually for each state.

The item categories are, from greatest to least quantity collected: cigarette butts, plastic bottle caps, food wrappers, plastic beverage bottles, plastic straws/stirrers, “other waste” (metal, paper, etc.), metal bottle caps, beverage cans, other plastic waste, and other plastic bags.34 In Oregon, 908 volunteers collected 872 items during clean ups, although 641 of these items were cigarette butts.35 This data may be used to compare the quantity of the top ten most commonly found items in relation to other states. Additionally, because the items are characterized by item type, the presence of certain covered products can be ascertained. In 2022, volunteers collected and identified 11 plastic bottle caps, 15 food wrappers, 1 plastic beverage bottle, 10 plastic straws/stirrers, 10 “other waste” items (metal, paper, etc.), 8 metal bottle caps, 2 beverage cans, 9

“other” plastic waste, and 5 “other” plastic bags.36 Other organizations that collect data on marine debris through volunteer participation that may have relevant information are Ocean Wise and the World Wildlife Fund’s Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup (GCSC), the Great American

Shoreline Cleanup (GASC), and Break Free from Plastic (BFFP).37 BFFP has conducted brand audits of debris found beginning in 2017, which attempts to assign accountability for litter to producers of commonly-found plastic packaging items.38

34 Ocean Conservancy, “#SeatheChange: 2023 Report,” (2023), 22, https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Annual-Report_FINAL_Digital.pdf.

35 Ocean Conservancy, “#SeatheChange,” 23.

36 Ocean Conservancy, “#SeatheChange,” 23.

37 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for

Mitigation,” 9.

38 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation, 10.

In summary, the literature on litter and marine debris is primarily concerned with the presence of marine plastics. This aligns with findings of marine debris studies and coastal cleanups, in which the majority of the composition of debris is consistently found to be plastic materials. However, once released into the environment, litter and marine debris items are exposed to the elements and degraded into smaller pieces. This makes identification of the original purpose of these items difficult, which poses a challenge for understanding the impact of covered products under the Recycling Modernization Act. Research which categorizes all macrodebris is most beneficial for illuminating the percentage of plastic debris that falls under covered product designation, but within recent years research has emphasized the study of microplastics.

Economic Inquiry

This section addresses findings in the literature regarding the economic costs of litter and marine debris. The goal of this economic inquiry is to investigate the direct and indirect costs of litter and marine debris, the cost of current prevention and cleanup efforts, and methods for calculating the cost of litter and marine debris prevention and cleanup. Then gaps in the literature and recommendations for future steps will be discussed.

Litter and marine debris pose both direct and indirect costs to industry and human society, some of which are readily quantifiable, and others which are more difficult to assess. Direct costs that have been associated with the presence of litter and marine debris are impacts on fishing and aquaculture, marine transportation and shipping, loss of tourism revenue, and litter cleanup efforts.39 40 Indirect costs of litter and marine debris include impacts on human public health, wildlife health, and habitat.41

The global cost of marine debris for industry is estimated at $13 billion.42 In the United

States, the cost of debris to the marine economy is estimated at $2,705 million, which is likely to continue to increase in response to predicted annual increases in plastic production.43 Damages for the fishing industry caused by debris include accidents, entanglement of propeller blades, and clogging of water intakes for engine cooling systems.44 Similarly to marine debris, terrestrial litter can also impact agricultural industries and the health of livestock animals.45

The presence of litter and debris on beaches and in shallow coastal areas can cause significant economic losses due to decreases in tourism.46 Surveys of beachgoers indicate that respondents are particularly concerned about manmade debris on beaches, which drives preferences for travel choice.47 A survey of California residents found that 85% of respondents indicated that they would change travel destinations based on the amount of plastic waste.48 One estimate from 2012 suggests that costal communities in Washington, Oregon, and California spend approximately $520 million ($13 per resident) each year to address marine debris.49

39 Avalon Diggle and Tony R. Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and

Measures for Mitigation,” Environments 9, 15 (2022): 8, https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015.

40 Alistair McIlgorm, Karen Raubenheimer , Daniel E. McIlgorm, and Rachel Nichols, “The Cost of Marine Litter

Damage to the Global Marine Economy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific into Prevention and the Cost of Inaction,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 174 (2022) 113167, 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113167.

41 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation,” 8.

42 Morrison et al., “Evaluating The Ocean Cleanup,” 4.

43 “McIlgorm et al., “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage,” 4-5.

44 “McIlgorm et al., “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage,” 2.

45 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for

Mitigation,” 8.

46 “McIlgorm et al., “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage,” 2.

47 Christopher G. Leggett, Nora Scherer, Timothy C. Haab, Ryan Bailey, Jason P. Landrum, and Adam Domanski.

“Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris at Southern California Beaches: A Random Utility Travel Cost Model.” Marine Resource Economics 33, no. 2 (2018): 139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697152.

48 Morrison et al., “Evaluating The Ocean Cleanup,” 4.

49 Leggett et al., “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris,” 134.

https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697152

Reduction in concentrations of marine debris by 25% is estimated to have benefits of $12.91 per capita and a 75% reduction is estimated to have $42.30 in benefits per capita for coastal residents.50

A significant amount is also spent to prevent and clean up terrestrial litter. A 2013 report estimated that litter abatement activities such as street sweeping, storm drain maintenance, stormwater capture devices, public education, and beach cleanups cost California cities, towns, and residents $428 million per year.51 For individual cities, this resulted in costs from $9.50 up to

$69 per capita on litter abatement; coastal communities bear more significant costs, as they must address marine debris that is sourced from inland communities.52 This report did not include county or state level expenditures, waste management costs, or recycling costs, which would increase the total cost of litter and debris mitigation measures.53

Non-monetary negative impacts of litter and marine debris include risks to public health and the environment. Marine debris that washes up on beaches poses a risk to beachgoers, who are often barefoot and may face lacerations, bacterial infections, splinters, or entanglement.54

Terrestrial litter can pose a health risk by attracting pests and vermin.55

Damage to the marine environment by debris harms commercial species and other marine life, resulting in a loss of beneficial ecosystem services and natural capital values, which is estimated to cost $13 billion per year by the UN Environmental Programme.56 Marine plastics are documented to cause harm to wildlife through collision, and entanglement, direct and indirect

50 Leggett et al., “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris,” 149.

51 Leila Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways: Unveiling the Hidden Costs to Californians of Litter Clean-Up,”

NRDC Issue Brief, 2013, 1-2.

52 Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways,” 2.

53 Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways,” 2.

54 Leggett et al., “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris,” 134.

55 Lippner et al., “Results of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study, 3.

56 McIlgorm et al., “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage,” 2.

ingestion, and bioaccumulation of harmful substances.57 58 Over 1,400 species of marine fauna have been documented to experience negative impacts from marine plastic debris, including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and plants.59 Entanglement in marine litter can increase incidents of striking of wildlife by ships60 and by-catch of unintended species while fishing, including at-risk aquatic species.61 Coral colonies may also become entangled in debris such as fishing gear, plastic bags, and rope; 15.56% of deep-sea debris documented by NOAA was entangled in corals.62 Deep-sea corals are slow growing, making them slow to recover from damage from entanglement with marine debris.63 Some cold-water corals are particularly vulnerable to microplastics, which create physical barriers to capturing prey.64

Organisms may ingest micro and macro plastics either directly through confusing plastic with prey items, or indirectly by consuming contaminated prey.65 Ingestion of marine debris by wildlife may lead to intestinal blockages, internal damage to digestive systems, prevention of adequate nutrition, absorption of persistent chemicals, and death from starvation.66 67

Wildlife may be exposed to harmful chemicals due to plastic marine debris directly through ingestion or attachment, or indirectly through chemical leakage into the water. 68Plastic debris contains chemical additives from the production process and is also known to act as a sink for chemical contaminants in the marine environment, exposing marine life to heavy metals, 57 Morrison et al., “Evaluating the Ocean Cleanup,” 3.

58 Avalon and Diggle, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

59 Avalon and Diggle, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

60 Avalon and Diggle, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

61 Avalon and Diggle, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 6.

62 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 7.

63 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 12.

64 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 12.

65 Hidalgo-Ruz et al., “Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds,” 390.

66 Avalon and Diggle, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

67 Valine et al., “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers,” 1590.

68 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 12-13.

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, antibiotics, and endocrine-disrupting chemical compounds.69 Exposure to these chemicals known to leach from plastics may cause reproductive failure, disruption in organism physiology, and death in marine organisms.70 Bioaccumulation of these pollutants is a concern for human health as well, as some species that ingest marine debris are consumed by humans.71 Marine plastic debris has been documented to act as a mechanism for the transportation of biota, microbes, and chemicals between ecosystems, which accelerates the migration of invasive species.72 Some marine debris cleanup methods, such as the floating collection systems proposed by the nonprofit organization The Ocean Cleanup to collect floating marine debris in the North Pacific Gyre, have created concern among marine biologists who are unsure of the impacts the project will have on marine wildlife.73

Not all wildlife interactions with marine debris are negative, as some impacts can be low-risk or even beneficial for marine organisms. Some marine species, such as seabirds, have been documented to use plastic debris as nesting materials or shelter.74 75 In NOAA’s deep-sea debris study, 17.78% of debris provided shelter to animals.76

There are several proposed methods for calculating the costs of marine debris and cleanup efforts. McIlgorm et al. (2022) calculated the estimated cost of damage to marine economies by gathering data for key marine industries from the National Ocean Economics Program and

69 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

70 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 12-13.

71 Morrison et al., “Evaluating the Ocean Cleanup,” 4.

72 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 7.

73 Morrison et al., “Evaluating The Ocean Cleanup,” 3.

74 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 8.

75 Hidalgo-Ruz et al., “Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds,” 401.

76 Amon et al., “Deep Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean,” 7.

assuming marine litter damage is equivalent to a small fraction (1-1.5%) of industry GDP, based on findings from other studies.77 Monroe (2013) calculated total costs for litter abatement in

California using cost estimates provided directly by city departments, watershed management programs, and city personnel.78

Murphy et al. (2022) propose an equation for calculating the net cost of mitigating marine plastic pollution, which subtracts recovered costs, monetary benefits, and nonmonetary benefits produced by a mitigation strategy from the total direct costs, indirect costs, and non-monetary costs.79 The authors intent is to produce a framework that allows for the comparison of alternative mitigation strategies to business-as-usual, and creates a standardized, equitable assessment of the costs and benefits of proposed interventions.80 This framework includes a spatial-temporal dimension to consider the costs of interventions over time, as well as addressing the social costs of conservation efforts and the disproportionate impact of plastic pollution on marginalized and low-income communities.81 The authors note that the costs of cleanup and disposal are predicted to increase over time due to anticipated increases in hourly wages, plastic production, and pollution.82 Asbjørn et al. (2021) present a spatial cost-benefit optimization framework for identification of which marine debris cleanup efforts to pursue given limited resources.83 This equation is intended to select the best sites for cleanup efforts using

77 McIlgorm et al., “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage,” 3-4.

78 Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways,” 2.

79 Erin L. Murphy, Miranda Bernard, Gwenllian Iacona, Stephanie B. Borrelle, Megan Barnes, Alexis McGivern, Jorge Emmanuel, and Leah R. Gerber, “A Decision Framework for Estimating the Cost of Marine Plastic Pollution Interventions,” Conservation Biology 36 (2022): 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13827.

80 Murphy et al., “A Decision Framework for Estimating the Cost of Marine Plastic Pollution Interventions,” 8.

81 Murphy et al., “A Decision Framework for Estimating the Cost of Marine Plastic Pollution Interventions,” 9.

82 Murphy et al., “A Decision Framework for Estimating the Cost of Marine Plastic Pollution Interventions,” 6.

83 Asbjørn Christensen, Kostas Tsiaras, Jens Murawski, Yannis Hatzonikolakis, Jun She, Michael St. John, Urmas

Lips and Roy Brouwer, “A Cross Disciplinary Framework for Cost-Benefit Optimization of Marine Litter Cleanup at Regional Scale,” Frontiers in Marine Science 8, Article 744208 (November 2021): 1, doi:

10.3389/fmars.2021.744208.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13827 transportation modelling, ecosystem function, cost-efficiency of cleanup technologies, cost minimization, and benefit maximization.84

In conclusion, marine debris and litter poses a wide variety of direct and indirect costs to the economy, public health, and the environment. Some of these costs are easily quantifiable, such as government expenditure on storm drains or street sweeping. However, many of the costs are more diffuse and require more complex processes in order to estimate, like ecosystem services provided by coral colonies. Additionally, many of the reported estimates for the costs of marine debris and litter are aggregated estimates for the U.S. or west coast as a whole. More research should be done into if there are studies that have investigated costs for the state of

Oregon individually. Even with these estimates, it is difficult to ascertain what percentage of the cost can be attributed to covered products.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This review of research on litter and marine debris illuminates several relevant gaps in the literature for DEQ’s statewide needs assessment. Academic research of anthropogenic debris has largely focused on plastic marine debris, specifically microplastics. While microplastics are an important subject due to the threat they pose to wildlife and habitat, data from microplastic studies are limited in their applicability because it is extremely difficult or impossible to identify the original source of microplastics. In addition, because of dispersal by wind and ocean currents, it is also difficult or impossible to identify if marine debris found in Pacific Ocean-focused studies originated in the state of Oregon. For the statewide needs assessment, more research will need to be done in order to investigate the location and composition of litter and

84 Christensen et al. “A Cross Disciplinary Framework for Cost-Benefit Optimization,” 1-4.

marine debris with respect to covered products. This research should include marine debris and litter of all relevant material categories in Oregon, not just plastic debris.

The gaps discussed above are also relevant for studies on the costs of litter and marine debris. None of the reviewed literature calculated estimates for the state of Oregon individually and assessed the costs of either marine debris in general or plastic pollution specifically. The cost of litter or marine debris cleanup and prevention efforts are also difficult to measure with regard to covered products rather than mitigation of pollution as a whole. More research will need to be conducted in order to estimate the cost of litter and marine debris of covered products. However, methodology from previous studies may be used to inform next steps.

The literature provides recommendations for best practices and methodology for future research. First, Uhrin et al. (2022) outline a clear set of recommendations for studying marine debris on shorelines. They stress the importance of collecting data which identifies the source of marine debris, as this is critical for guiding interventions and prevention strategies.85 The authors recommend a two-part definition strategy which includes both the “source” (economic sector or human activity from which the item originates), and “means of release” (mechanism by which the item leaves the intended cycle and/or enters the environment).86 Uhrin et al. also recommend certain strategies based on best practices for sampling, such as using a spatially balanced survey design, sampling with high frequency, conducting multi-year sampling for a minimum of 5 years, focusing on macro debris of all material classifications ≥ 2.5 cm, and reporting debris as counts per 100 meter length of shoreline.87 These recommendations are intended to permit extrapolation from sampled areas, allow for assessment of trends, allow for comparability with other studies, 85 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 10.

86 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 11.

87 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 11.

and follow established monitoring methodologies.88 Similar sampling strategies could be developed for collecting data on aquatic and terrestrial litter, using the same materials categorization methods.

Second, the literature emphasized the importance of citizen science in prevention and cleanup of marine debris. Coastal cleanups prevent the entry and re-entry of pollutants into the ocean, assist with recording presence of litter and debris in the environment, and have contributed significant findings to the scientific study of how litter and debris interact with the environment.89 As volunteers and nonprofit organizations are already engaged and active in cleanup and documentation of litter and marine debris, partnerships with these organizations should be leveraged in order to efficiently collect data.

Lastly, as seen in the report from Monroe (2013), some estimations of the current cost of litter and marine debris clean up and prevention can be done with currently available data. The author in this study solicited city departments, watershed management programs, and city personnel to gather the average costs of waterway and beach cleanups, street sweeping, stormwater capture devices, storm drain cleaning and maintenance, manual cleanup, and public education.90 DEQ should coordinate with local governments, state and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other departments in order to gather data on current expenditures for litter and marine debris clean up and prevention efforts in the state of Oregon.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while it is clear that the presence of litter and marine debris throughout the environment is imposing serious costs, more research will need to be done in order to identify

88 Uhrin et al., “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution,” 11.

89 Diggle and Walker, “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics,” 9.

90 Monroe, “Waste in Our Waterways,” 4.

how much is attributed to covered products in the state of Oregon. Moving forward, DEQ should enforce the ethic of producer responsibility in the Recycling Modernization act to fund efforts to collect more data on the location, composition, and costs of litter and marine debris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amon, Diva J., Brian R. C. Kennedy, Kasey Cantwell, Kelley Suhre, Deborah Glickson, Timothy M. Shank Randi D. Rotjan. “Deep-Sea Debris in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean.”

Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 369 (2020): 1-15. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00369.

Christensen, Asbjørn, Kostas Tsiaras, Jens Murawski, Yannis Hatzonikolakis, Jun She, Michael St. John, Urmas Lips and Roy Brouwer. “A Cross Disciplinary Framework for Cost-Benefit Optimization of Marine Litter Cleanup at Regional Scale.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8, Article 744208 (November 2021): 1-18. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.744208.

Diggle, Avalon and Tony R. Walker. “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation.” Environments 9, 15 (2022): 1-27.

https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015.

Hidalgo-Ruz, Valeria, Guillermo Luna-Jorquera, Marcus Eriksen, Hanna Frick, Diego Miranda- Urbina, Matias Portflitt-Toro, Marcelo M. Rivadeneira1, Christopher J.R. Robertson, R.

Paul Scofield, Juan Serratosa, Cristián G. Suazo, Martin Thiel. “Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds from the South Pacific Ocean: Is there a pattern?” Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 31 (2021):389–407. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3453.

Jauregui, Mia K. “Microplastic Concentration in Crassotrea gigas: Establishing a Baseline of Microplastic Contamination in Oregon’s Oyster Aquacultures.” (2017). University Honors Theses. Paper 494. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.497.

Leggett, Christopher G., Nora Scherer, Timothy C. Haab, Ryan Bailey, Jason P. Landrum, and Adam Domanski. “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris at Southern California Beaches: A Random Utility Travel Cost Model.” Marine Resource Economics 33, no. 2 (2018): 133-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697152.

Lippner, Gary, John Johnston, Suzanne Combs, Kimberly Walter, and David Marx. “Results Of the Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study.” Transportation Research Record 1743, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

McIlgorm, Alistair, Karen Raubenheimer , Daniel E. McIlgorm, and Rachel Nichols. “The Cost of Marine Litter Damage to the Global Marine Economy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific into Prevention and the Cost of Inaction.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 174 (2022) 113167.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113167.

Monroe, Leila. “Waste in Our Waterways: Unveiling the Hidden Costs to Californians of Litter Clean-Up.” NRDC Issue Brief. 2013.

https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9020015 https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113167

Morrison, Evan, Alexandra Shipman, Shradha Shrestha, Evan Squier and Kaitlin Stack Whitney.

“Evaluating The Ocean Cleanup, a Marine Debris Removal Project in the North Pacific Gyre, Using SWOT Analysis.” Case Studies in the Environment (2019): 1–6.

Murphy, Erin L., Miranda Bernard, Gwenllian Iacona, Stephanie B. Borrelle, Megan Barnes, Alexis McGivern, Jorge Emmanuel, and Leah R. Gerber. “A Decision Framework for Estimating the Cost of Marine Plastic Pollution Interventions.” Conservation Biology 36 (2022): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13827.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard. Rule. “Definition of Marine Debris for Purposes of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act.” Federal Register 74 (October 5, 2009): 45555.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/09/03/E9-21261/definition-of-marine-debris-for-purposes-of-the-marine-debris-research-prevention-and-reduction-act.

NOAA. “Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project.” Last updated June 4, 2024.

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/monitoring/marine-debris-monitoring-and-assessment-project.

Ocean Conservancy. “#SeatheChange: 2023 Report.” (2023). https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Annual-Report_FINAL_Digital.pdf.

Uhrin, Amy V., Sunwook Hong, Hillary K. Burgess, Sehan Lim, and Kyle Dettloff. “Towards a North Pacific Long-Term Monitoring Program for Ocean Plastic Pollution: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Shorelines.” Environmental Pollution 310 (2022):

119862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119862.

Valine, Amy E., Ashley E. Peterson, Dorothy A. Horn, Kaegan M. Scully-Engelmeyer, and Elise F. Granek. “Microplastic Prevalence in 4 Oregon Rivers Along a Rural to Urban Gradient Applying a Cost-Effective Validation Technique.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38, 8 (2020): 1590-1598.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13827 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/09/03/E9-21261/definition-of-marine-debris-for-purposes-of-the-marine-debris-research-prevention-and-reduction-act https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/09/03/E9-21261/definition-of-marine-debris-for-purposes-of-the-marine-debris-research-prevention-and-reduction-act https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119862