United States
     Environmental Protection
     Agency
Office Of Water
Gulf Of Mexico Program
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
EPA 800-B-94-004
July 1994
      Nutrient Enrichment
      Action Agenda
               -*s£
      For The Gulf Of Mexico


      First Generation—Management
      Committee Report
 Nutrient
Enrichment

-------
Nutrient Enrichment
Action Agenda
for the
Gulf of Mexico
           Recycled/Recyclable  ,
         *~V C\ Printed on paper tfiat.GfirtaJns	',	I	',	
         '  at leas* SO^ reoyolod fiber  !

-------
                                                                Preface
   PREFACE
   One of the initial goals for the first five years of the Gulf of Mexico
   Program was to establish a. "framework-for-action" for implementing
   management options for pollution controls, determining research
   direction and environmental monitoring protocols, and implementing
   remedial and restoration measures for environmental losses.  As a means
   of developing this framework-for-action, the Gulf Program established
   eight committees, composed of experts, to deal with the following
   environmental issue areas:

      a  Habitat Degradation
      Q  Marine Debris
      Q  Freshwater Inflow
      Q  Nutrient Enrichment
      a  Toxic Substances & Pesticides
      Q  Public Health
      Q  Coastal & Shoreline Erosion
      Q  Living Aquatic Resources

   Each committee was charged with: 1) characterizing the status of the issue,
   2) developing goals and objectives for remedial and restoration  activities,
   and 3) developing descriptions of the projects and tasks to be implemented
   in order to achieve the stated objectives.  This information was
   incorporated into an "Action Agenda" for each environmental issue area.

   This document is the first generation of one of these Action Agendas.
   Representing the consensus of a large number of subject specialists, this
   document is considered to be a draft working paper for the Gulf of Mexico
   Program Management Committee. Since this first generation Action
   Agenda has not been reviewed and approved by all agencies, it is being
   made available for informational purposes only.
Gulf of Mexico Program Action Agenda

-------

-------
                                                        Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Gulf of Mexico contains ecological and commercial resources matched by few
other bodies of water. Yet its blue-green waters disguise the increasing
environmental threats that endanger these resources.  In recognition of the growing
threats, Regions 4 and 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
which share jurisdiction over the five Gulf Coast States (Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), initiated the Gulf of Mexico Program in August
1988. The goal of the Gulf of Mexico Program is to protect, restore, and enhance the
coastal and marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its coastal natural habitats, to
sustain living resources, to protect human health and the food supply, and to
ensure the recreational use of Gulf shores, beaches, and waters—in ways consistent
with the economic well being of the region.

The Gulf of Mexico Program is a cooperative partnership among federal, state, and
local government agencies, as well as with people and groups who use the Gulf.
During the early stages of Program development, eight priority environmental
problems were identified and the following Issue Committees have been established
to address each of these problems:  Marine Debris, Public Health, Habitat
Degradation, Coastal & Shoreline Erosion, Nutrient Enrichment, Toxic Substances
& Pesticides, Freshwater Inflow, and Living Aquatic Resources.  There are important
linkages among these various Issue Committees and the Gulf of Mexico Program
works to coordinate and integrate activities among them.

The Nutrient Enrichment Committee was charged with characterizing nutrient
enrichment problems and identifying ways to reduce eutrophication in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Issue Committee has been meeting for more than three years—to
review information and data collected by citizens and  scientists, identify problem
areas, discuss actions that can resolve the problems, and evaluate methods for
achieving and monitoring results.  The culmination of Issue Committee efforts is
this Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda which specifies the initial set  of activities
needed to control and substantially reduce the deleterious effects of nutrient
enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico.  This Action Agenda is the first generation of an
evolving series of Action Agendas that will be developed to  meet the future needs
of the Gulf of Mexico.

Chapter 1 of the Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda provides an overview of Gulf
of Mexico resources and the  threats now facing those resources.  In addition, Chapter
1 describes the structure of the Gulf of Mexico Program, including the Action
Agenda development process.

Chapter 2 is a summary of the scientific characterization information compiled by
the Nutrient Enrichment Committee.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
                                                        Executive Summary
Chapter 3 describes the federal and state framework currently in place in the Gulf of
Mexico to address nutrient enrichment issues and support appropriate management
and regulatory actions.

Chapter 4, The Unfinished Agenda, contains the goal, objectives and specific
activities established by the Gulf of Mexico Program to address nutrient enrichment.
The goal is to:

   Q  Protect the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from the deleterious effects of
      nutrient enrichment, from all contributing sources, and thereby enhance
      biodiversity, and aesthetic, recreational and economic benefits.

This Action Agenda focuses on protecting the tidal, estuarine, and nearshore waters
of the Gulf of Mexico.  Freshwater transport from landward sources is addressed as a
contributing source.

Nine objectives and fifty-one action items have been developed to support the goal
and these are grouped under three types of activity:  1) Characterization &
Demonstration, 2) Source Reduction, and 3) Public Education & Outreach (See  Index
of Nutrient Enrichment Objectives). The action items included have been screened
by the Gulf of Mexico Program and represent those activities that  are currently
considered the most significant and most achievable.  This is a fairly
comprehensive, but not exhaustive, list.  This document begins an evolving process
of Action Agendas in which action items are designated, implemented, and then
reassessed as progress in the Gulf is made. In the future, new nutrient enrichment
action items will be developed to meet the  changing needs in the  Gulf of Mexico.

Action items contained in Chapter 4 are not listed in priority order.  Some of the
actions are already underway but not yet completed.  Others are included because
they will guide federal, state, and local government agencies and private sector
organizations in allocating resources where they are most needed and in justifying
future management strategies.  This Action Agenda should prompt specific agencies
and groups to become involved.

The Gulf of Mexico Program recently developed ten  short-term environmental
challenges  to restore and maintain the environmental and economic health of the
Gulf.  Within the next five years (1993-1997), through an integrated effort that
complements existing local, state, and federal programs, the Program has pledged
efforts to obtain the knowledge and resources to:

   Q  Significantly reduce the rate of loss of coastal wetlands.
   Q  Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass beds.
   Q  Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreational fisheries.
   Q  Protect the human health and food supply by reducing input of nutrients, toxic substances, and
      pathogens to the Gulf.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
                                                           Executive Summary
   a  Increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe harvesting by ten percent.
   Q  Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for swimming and recreational uses.
   Q  Reduce by at least ten percent the amount of trash on beaches.
   Q  Improve and expand coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living
      resources.
   Q  Expand public education/outreach tailored  for each Gulf Coast county or parish.
   Q  Reduce critical coastal and shoreline erosion.

This Nutrient  Enrichment Action Agenda supports these  five-year environmental
challenges.

For the public, this Gulf of Mexico Action  Agenda should serve three purposes.
First, it should reflect the public will with regard to addressing nutrient enrichment
concerns.  Second, it should communicate what actions are needed for eliminating
the adverse effects of nutrient enrichment and provide the momentum for
initiating these actions.  Third, it should provide baseline information from which
success can be  measured.

This Action Agenda is a living document; therefore, the Gulf of Mexico Nutrient
Enrichment Committee  intends  to periodically revise and  update the document.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
iii

-------
                                                                     Executive Summary
               Index of Nutrient Enrichment  Objectives
                         Characterization & Demonstration

Objective: Identify programs engaged in managing or regulating nutrient inputs and the ongoing and planned
research related to nutrient enrichment for the watersheds draining into the Gulf of Mexico to support effective
integration with Gulf initiatives.

Objective: Identify the location and quantities of nutrient loadings to Gulf of Mexico watersheds and evaluate
the relative contribution of nutrients to the Gulf among these sources to support future targeting of control
strategies and the measurement of success.

Objective: Identify the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichment on the bays, estuaries, and resources of the
Gulf of Mexico to support the future geographic targeting of control strategies.

Objective: Identify and determine the relationships of sources of nutrients to resource impacts within the Gulf
of Mexico to support optimum Gulfwide control strategies.

Objective: Develop demonstration projects on potential Gulfwide priority nonpoint and point sources that
have a high probability of success within a reasonable time and have the potential for transferability Gulfwide.

                             Source Reduction Strategies

Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient control technologies for the most significant industrial and
municipal point source categories in the Gulf of. Mexico.

Objective: Implement appropriate Gulfwide or targeted control strategies to reduce significant nutrient
loadings from point and nonpoint sources.

Objective: Develop alliances with other organizations and associations to address appropriate control
strategies for Mississippi River contributions to the Gulf of Mexico nutrient problem.

                             Public  Education & Outreach

Objective: Develop a comprehensive Gulfwide public information and education program to promote
involvement in nutrient reduction actions, through appropriate use of products and environmentally sound
lifestyles.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
iv

-------
                                                                  Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables	vii

List of Figures....	viii



1     OVERVIEW OF THE GULF OF MEXICO	1

       The Gulf of Mexico • A Vast & Valuable Resource	 1
       The Gulf of Mexico - A Resource at Risk.........	  3
       The Gulf of Mexico Program - Goals & Structure	  5
       The Nutrient Enrichment Committee .......................................  1O


2     NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT  IN THE GULF OF MEXICO	  12

       Definitions	  13
       Role of Nutrients & Other Constituents............	  14
       Effects of Nutrient Enrichment	 '15
              Altered Trophic Structure.......	  17
              Oxygen Depletion[[[  19
              Habitat Alteration & Impacts on Living Resources.......................  22
       How Much (of What) is Too Much?	  25
              Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Silicate & Dissolved Oxygen......................  25
              P/tyfop/anJtfon[[[  26
       Sources of Nutrient Enrichment	  27
              Point Sources[[[  28
              Nonpoint Sources[[[  29
              Other Sources of Nutrients[[[  33
       Mississippi River as a Conduit[[[  34
       Selected  Characteristics of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries............  36
       Reversal of Eutrophication[[[  41

-------
                                                                Table of Contents
3     FEDERAL & STATE FRAMEWORK
       FOR ADDRESSING NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT	  57


4     THE UNFINISHED AGENDA.....	„	  58

       Goal.	  58
       Action Agenda Framework.	  58
              Characterization & Demonstration............................................  65
              Source Reduction Strategies.............	  85
              Public Outreach & Education	  95


In Closing	 10O


Bibliography...	 1O1


APPENDIX A  Federal & State Framework	 113

APPENDIX B Acronym  Guide...............	 144

APPENDIX C  Glossary,	 147

APPENDIX D Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process....... 157
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
vi

-------
                                                        List of Table*
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3


Table 2.4


Table 2.5


Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Table 2.8


Table 2.9


Table 2.10


Table A.1
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment.	 16

N, P, Si & DO Units & Concentrations..	 25

Major Sources of Nutrient Enrichment
Problems in the Gulf of Mexico...........	 27

Selected Characteristics of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries...	37
Nutrient Discharge Indicators by Entire
Watershed	
38
Nitrogen Discharges in Tons, Circa 1987......................  39

Phosphorus Discharges in Tons, Circa 1987................. 4O

Compilation of Status Matrix Indicators of
Nutrient Enrichment	 45

Pollutant Variables in Mississippi Sound
Surface Sediments	 62

Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus Loading
Budgets for Texas Estuaries	 54

Source Category Codes Used by States to
Identify Nonpoint Source Impairments	 115
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                        vii

-------
                                                    List of
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1   Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per
            Shoreline Mile	..	• 3

Figure 1.2   Gulf Program Structured Partnership	  1

Figure 1.3   Framework for Analysis of Integrated
            Environmental Management..............	.	 9

Figure 2.1   Relationship of Mean Dissolved Inorganic
            Nitrogen (DIN) Loading to Different Estuaries
            & Mean Annual Chlorophyll in Water.	.	15

Figure 2.2   Distribution of Hypoxic Bottom Waters on the
            Louisiana Continental Shelf.	 2O

Figure 2.3   Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer Use This
            Century in the U.S....	3O

Figure 2.4   Generalized Diagram of the Drainage Basin
            of the Mississippi River & the Changes in
            Nitrate & Silicate in the Lower Mississippi River.	34

Figure 2.S   Urban & Agricultural Land Use in Gulf of
            Mexico Estuaries	 36

Figure 2.6   Gulf of Mexico Estuaries & Coastal Areas
            With Symbols Indicating Status of Nutrient
            Enrichment	 46

Figure 2.7   Major Coastal Types of the West  Coast of Florida	 48
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                 viii

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
         OVERVIEW  OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
The Gulf of Mexico • A Vast & Valuable Resource

Bounded by a shoreline that reaches northwest from Florida along the shores of
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and then southwest along Texas and Mexico,
the Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world.  The Gulf's U.S.
coastline measures approximately 2,609 km (1,631 miles)-longer than the Pacific
coastline of California, Oregon, and Washington. The Gulf region covers more than
1.6 million km2 (617,600 mi2) and contains one of the nation's most extensive
barrier-island systems, outlets from 33 major river systems, and 207 estuaries (Buff
and Turner, 1987). In addition, the Gulf receives the drainage of the Mississippi
River, the largest river in North America and one of the major rivers of the world.
A cornerstone of  the nation's economy, the Gulf's diverse and productive
ecosystem provides a variety of valuable resources and services,  including
transportation, recreation, fish and shellfish, and petroleum and minerals.

Encompassing over two million hectares (five million acres) (about half of the
national total), Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands serve as essential habitat for a large
percentage of the U.S.'s migrating waterfowl (USEPA, 1991). Mudflats, salt marshes,
mangrove swamps, and barrier island beaches of the Gulf also provide year-round
nesting  and feeding grounds for abundant numbers of gulls, terns, and other
shorebirds.  Five species of endangered whales, including four baleen whales and
one toothed whale, are found in Gulf waters. These waters also harbor the
endangered American crocodile and five species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles (loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley). The
endangered West Indian (or Florida) manatee inhabits waterways and bays along the
Florida  peninsula.

In addition, a complex network of channels and wetlands within the Gulf shoreline
provides habitat for estuarine-dependent commercial and recreational fisheries.
The rich waters yielded approximately 771 million kg (1.7 billion pounds) of fish and
shellfish in 1991.  Worth more than $641 million at dockside, this harvest
represented 19 percent of the total annual domestic harvest of commercial fish
(USDOC, 1992). The Gulf boasts the largest and most valuable shrimp fishery in  the
U.S. and also contributed 41 percent of the U.S. total oyster  production in 1991
(USDOC, 1992).  Other Gulf fisheries include diverse shellfisheries for crabs and
spiny lobsters  and finfisheries for menhaden, herring, mackerel, tuna, grouper,
snapper, drum, and flounder.  The entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico fishery yields more
finfish,  shrimp, and shellfish annually than the South and Mid-Atlantic,
Chesapeake, and the Great Lakes regions combined.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Gulf's bountiful waters draw millions of sport fishermen and beach users each
year.  It is estimated that the Gulf supports more than one-third of the nation's
marine recreational fishing,  hosting four million fishermen in 1985 who caught an
estimated 42 million fish (USDOC, 1992). Popular nearshore catches include sea
trout (weak fish), cobia, redfish, flounder, grouper, red snapper, mackeral, and
tarpon; offshore catches include blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, swordfish,
dolphin, and wahoo.  Tourism-related dollars in the Gulf Coast States contribute an
estimated $20 billion to the economy each year (USEPA, 1991).

Gulf oil and gas production  are equally valuable to the region's economy and are a
critical part of the nation's total energy supply. In 1990, more than 1,600 Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) leases were in production, yielding approximately 90
percent of U.S. offshore production. These OCS royalties annually contribute about
$3 billion to the Federal Treasury. Thirty-eight percent of all petroleum and 48
percent of all natural gas reserves in the U.S. are estimated to be in the Gulf of
Mexico.  The industry employs some 30,000 people in the Gulf of Mexico.

Approximately 45 percent of U.S. shipping tonnage passes through Gulf ports,
including four of the nation's busiest: Corpus Christi, Houston/Galveston, Tampa,
and New Orleans.  The second largest marine transport industry in the world is
located in the Gulf of Mexico.  According to USEPA, vessel trips in and out of
American Gulf ports and harbors exceeded an estimated 600,000 trips in 1986.  The
U.S. Navy  is also implementing its Gulf Coast Homeporting Plan, designed to dock
at least 25 vessels in Ingelside, TX, Pascagoula, MS, and Mobile, AL.

Millions of people depend on the Gulf of Mexico to earn a living and flock to its
shores and waters for entertainment and relaxation.  The temperate climate and
abundant resources are attracting more and more people.  The region currently
ranks fourth in total population among the five U.S. coastal regions, accounting for
13 percent of the nation's total coastal population. Although the Gulf region is not
as densely settled as others, it is experiencing the second fastest rate of growth;
between 1970 and 1980, the population grew by more than 30 percent (USDOC,
1990a).  According  to the U.S.  Department of Commerce,  the Gulf's total coastal
population is projected to increase by 144 percent between 1960 and 2010, to almost
18 million people.  Figure 1.1  shows the Gulf of Mexico coastal population density
or population per shoreline mile  projected to the  year 2010. Florida's population
alone is expected to have skyrocketed by more than 300 percent by the year 2010. The
increasing coastal population is of concern with regard to nutrient enrichment
because as the population increases, so does the potential for environmental
degradation.  According to the Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Program (1990),
rapid urbanization leads to  intensified nonpoint source pollution.  Urban and
suburban land users contribute much higher nutrient loads, on a per acre basis, than
other land users (Chesapeake Bay NPS Program, 1990).
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Guff of Mexico
Chapter
Figure 1.1    Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per Shoreline Mile
                                           55*3S<&.
(Source: U.S. DOC, 1990a)
The Gulf of Mexico - A Resource At Risk

Many of the environmental quality problems affecting Gulf Coast estuaries result
from natural processes and human-induced pollution, both within and upstream of
the estuarine drainage area. Sources of nutrient enrichment include industrial
facilities, wastewater treatment plants, power plants, septic tanks, agriculture,
silviculture, atmospheric deposition, animal agriculture, and other waste runoff.
The northern Gulf of Mexico is the recipient of the flow of a major river system, the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, which drains 40 percent of the U.S. and parts of
Canada. The inflow from these two rivers dwarfs the input from any other Gulf
Coast system, providing 79 percent of Gulf of Mexico freshwater inflow.  Long-term
water quality changes in the Mississippi River have been documented (Walsh et al.f
1981; Turner and Rabalais, 1991a).  Mississippi River loadings (Turner and Rabalais,
1991a),  and  loadings for the entire Gulf Coast (Kircher et al., 1984; Smith and
Alexander, 1984; Smith et al., 1987) have risen dramatically over the last three
decades.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Recent trends indicate serious long-term environmental damage unless action is
initiated today. Signs of increasing degradation throughout the Gulf system include
the following (USEPA, 1991):
      Q    Fish kills and toxic "red tides," and "brown tides" were an increasing
            phenomenon in Gulf waters during the 1980s.

      Q    Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are among those states that
            discharge the greatest amount of toxic chemicals into coastal waters.

      Q    Diversions and consumptive use for human activities have resulted in
            significant changes in the quantity and timing of freshwater inflows to
            the Gulf of Mexico.

      Q    More than half of the shellfish-producing areas along the Gulf Coast
            are permanently or conditionally closed.  These closure areas are
            growing as a result of increasing human and  domestic animal
            populations along the Gulf Coast (USDOC, 1991b).

      Q    Louisiana is losing valuable coastal wetlands at the rate of
            approximately 14-66 km2/year (5-25 mi2/year) (Dunbar, et al., 1992).

      Q    Almost 1,800 kg/mi (2 tons/mi) of marine trash covered  Texas beaches
            in 1988.

      Q    Up to 9,500 km2 (4,000 mi2) of oxygen deficient (hypoxia) bottom waters,
            known as the "dead zone,"  have been documented off the Louisiana
            and Texas coasts (Rabalais, et al., 1991).

      Q    Gulf shorelines are eroding up to 30 m/year (100 ft/year). Few coastal
            reaches in the Gulf can be characterized as "stable" or "accreting."
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Guff of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Gulf of Mexico Program - Goals & Structure
Problems plaguing the Gulf cannot be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. These
problems and the resources needed to address them are too great. The Gulf of
Mexico Program (GMP) was formed to pioneer a broad, geographic focus in order to
address major environmental issues in the Gulf before the damage is irreversible or
too costly to correct.

The program is part of a cooperative effort with other agencies and organizations in
the five Gulf States, as well as with people and groups who use the Gulf. In addition
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), other participating federal
government agencies include:  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), U.S. Department of Defense
(USDOD), U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDOI), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (USFDA).

The Gulf of  Mexico Program also works in coordination and cooperation with the
five National Estuary Programs (NEPs) within the Gulf:  Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,
Galveston Bay, Corpus Christi  Bay, and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex.  The Gulf of Mexico Program supports and builds on certain activities of
these programs, bringing a Gulfwide focus and providing a forum for addressing
issues of Gulfwide concern.

By building  on and enhancing programs already underway, as well as by
coordinating new activities, the Gulf of Mexico Program will serve as a catalyst for
change. The program's overall goals are to provide:

      Q    A mechanism for addressing complex problems that cross federal, state,
            and international  jurisdictional  lines;                    .

      Q    Better coordination among federal, state,  and local programs, thus
            increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the long-term effort to
            manage and protect Gulf resources;

      Q    A regional perspective to address research needs, which will result in
            improved transfer of information and methods for supporting
            effective management decisions; arid

      Q    A forum for affected groups using the Gulf, for public and private
            educational institutions, and for  the general public to participate in the
            solution process.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Gulf of Mexico Program is supported by four committees: Policy Review Board
(PRB), Management Committee (MC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (see Figure 1.2). Composed of 20 senior level
representatives of state and federal agencies and representatives of the technical and
citizens committees, the Policy Review Board guides and reviews overall program
activities. The Management Committee guides and manages Gulf of Mexico
Program operations and directs the Action Agenda activities of the Issue
Committees.  The Citizens Advisory Committee is composed of five governor-
appointed citizens who represent environmental, fisheries, agricultural,
business/industrial, and development/tour ism interests  in each of the five Gulf
Coast States.  This committee provides public input and assistance in publicizing the
Gulf of Mexico Program's goals and results. Representatives of state and federal
agencies, the academic community, and the private and public sectors are members
of the Technical Advisory Committee and provide technical support to the
Management Committee.

The Gulf of Mexico Program has established the following eight Issue Committees,
each co-chaired by one federal and one state representative, to address priority
environmental problems:

      Q     Habitat Degradation of such areas as coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,
             and sand dunes;

      Q     Freshwater Inflow changes resulting from  reservoir construction,
             diversions for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and
             modifications  to watersheds with concomitant alteration of runoff
             patterns;

      Q     Nutrient Enrichment resulting from such sources as municipal waste
             water treatment plants, storm water, industries, and agriculture;

      Q     Toxic Substances & Pesticides contamination originating from
             industrial and agriculturally based sources;

      Q     Coastal & Shoreline Erosion caused by natural and human-related
             activities;

      Q     Public Health threats from swimming in and eating seafood products
             coming from contaminated water;

      Q     Marine Debris from land-based and marine recreational and
             commercial sources; and

      Q     Living Aquatic Resources.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
                                                   Chapter
Figure 1.2
                                 Gulf Program Structured Partnership
                                      Policy Review Board
                   f   CltlxoM Advisory   |
                   I      Commltts*      I

                                       Managomwnt Commlttvo
                                                  | Technical Advisory 1
                                                  I    Cornmltt**    M
                   I Co-Clutlr Rovlow 1
                   1     Council    I
  lssu« Cornmlttoos

  Habitat Degradation

     Public Health

   Freshwater Inflow

     Marine Debris

Coastal & Shoreline Erosion

  Nutrient Enrichment

  Toxic Substances &
      Pesticides

 Living Aquatic Resources
                                                                          Program Operations Support
                                                                               Gulf of Mexico
                                                                               Program Office

                                                                               Public Education &
                                                                              Outreach Operations

                                                                               Data & Information
                                                                               Transfer Operations
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Ovorviow of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Two cross-cutting technical operating committees support the public education and
information and resource management functions of the eight environmental Issue
Committees.  These are:

      Q    Public Education & Outreach Operations

      Q    Data & Information Transfer Operations

The action planning process used by each Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committee
includes the following key.activities:

     O     Definition of environmental  issues;
     Q     Characterization of identified problems, including sources, resources,
            and impacts;
     Q     Establishment of goals and objectives;
     Q     Evaluation/assessment of corrective actions and control measures,
            including cost/benefit analysis;
     Q     Selection of priority action items;
     Q     Establishment of measures of success;
     Q     Implementation of actions; and
     Q     Evaluation of success and revision of the Action Agenda.

As the Issue Committees progress  through each of these activities, ample
opportunities are provided for public review  and Policy Review Board endorsement
is requested at appropriate points.  The Gulf of Mexico Program will continuously
work to integrate related activities of the eight Issue Committees.  Through the
consensus of Program participants, a coordinated response will be directed to the
successful maintenance and enhancement  of resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

The overall analytical framework for the Gulf of Mexico action planning process
incorporates the steps provided in  Figure 1.3. Each technical Issue Committee is
generally following this model, although some Issue Committees may be further
along than others.  Action items provided in Chapter 4 are a combination of
characterization/assessment actions where source work is needed  and corrective
actions where enough is known to recommend such actions.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             8

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
                                            Chapter 1
Figure 1.3
Framework for Analysis of Integrated Environmental
Management
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                     9

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
                                       Chapter i
The Nutrient Enrichment Committee
The Co-Chairs and membership of the Nutrient Enrichment Committee are as
follows:
Co-Chairs:

Mr. Pete Heard
Mr. Dugan Sabins
Soil Conservation Service
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Members!

Ms. Jan Boydstun
Dr. Fred Bryan
Mr. Charles Demas
Dr. Mark Dortch
Mr. Mike Dowgiallo
Mr. Daniel Farrow
Dr. Robert Fisher
Dr. David Flemer
Mr. James Fogarty
Mr. Tim Forester
Mr. Johnny French
Mr. Douglas Fruge'
Dr. Eddie Funderburg
Mr. Brian Grantham
Dr. Churchill Grimes
Mr. Vince Guillory
Mr. Doug Jacobson
Dr. Peter Kuch
Mr. Ira Linville
Dr. Stephen Lovejoy
Mr. Gale Martin
Mr. David Moffitt
Mr. James  Moore
Mr. James Patek
Dr. Nancy Rabalais
Mr. Dale Rapin
Dr. Alan Shiller
Dr. Bob Thompson, Jr.
Mr. Lloyd Woosley P.E.
Dr. Terry Whitledge
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana State University
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Citizens Advisory Committee
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Louisiana State University
Citizens Advisory Committee
National Marine Fisheries Service
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 4
Purdue University
Mississippi Soil &  Water Conservation Commission
Soil Conservation Service
Texas Soil & Water Conservation Board
Lower Colorado  River Authority
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
U.S. Forest Service
University of Southern Mississippi
Potash & Phosphate Institute—Midsouth
U.S. Geological Survey
The University of Texas at Austin
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                          10

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Nutrient Enrichment Committee developed the following long-term goal for
addressing nutrient enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico:
      Q     Protect the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from the deleterious effects of
            nutrient enrichment, from all contributing sources, and thereby
            enhance biodiversity, and aesthetic, recreational and economic benefits.

This Action Agenda focuses on protecting the tidal, estuarine, and nearshore waters
of the Gulf of Mexico. Freshwater transport from landward sources is addressed as a
contributing source.

The Gulf of Mexico Policy Review Board endorsed this goal on November 8, 1990.
In developing this Action Agenda, the Nutrient Enrichment Committee has sought
input and advice from other technical Issue Committees, as well as from
organizations, interest groups, and private concerns outside of the Gulf of Mexico
Program.  An "Action Agenda Workshop" sponsored by the Committee in
Covington, LA, on September 2-4, 1992, to review an early version of the  Action
Agenda, was attended by approximately 60 persons comprising a mix of Program
and non-Program participants. In addition to Gulf of Mexico Program participants,
representatives from the following agencies,  organizations, and industries attended
the workshop:  Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Soil Conservation Service, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium,
Louisiana State University, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chesapeake Bay  Program,
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources, Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Delta Council, YMD Water District, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Izaak Walton League, Calves ton Bay National
Estuary Program, Matagorda County Water Council, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. This meeting generated a significant number of comments that have been
addressed in the present document.  (See Appendix D:  Participants in Action
Agenda Development Process.)
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         11

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
      NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT  IN THE GULF OIF MEXICO*
"Much of the Information In Chapter 2 Is directly quoted from Rabalals (1992) with
permission from the author.


NOTE: The Nutrient Enrichment Committee recognizes that the material contained In
Chapter 2 Is not necessarily geared to the general public, and the Committee's Intent Is
to Include a more user-friendly section In the next Iteration of this Action Agenda.
Although the Gulf of Mexico is viewed as one of the most healthy and productive
coastal environments nationwide, during recent decades it has begun to show signs
of stress and deteriorating environmental quality.  In the U.S., coastal and marine
pollution controls have historically focused on conventional and toxic pollutants,
specific point source dischargers (power plants, industrial plants, and municipal
wastewater treatment plants), and the ocean dumping of sewage sludge, dredged
material, and industrial waste.  Other, less identifiable, sources of pollutants enter
rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas from urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and runoff
from rural communities.  Many of these nonpoint sources contribute organic
material, nutrients, and chemicals to receiving water bodies and ultimately the Gulf
of Mexico.

There is increasing concern in the U.S. and other nations that nutrient enrichment
of coastal waters from multiple sources may be having pervasive effects on living
resources. Nutrient enrichment is an important environmental  concern because of
the effects of oxygen depletion on fisheries and their supporting food web, noxious
algal blooms that may have toxic effects  on marine life or humans consuming
tainted seafood, indirect effects such as periphytic and phytoplanktonic shading of
submerged aquatic vegetation,  changes in the nutritional value of primary
producers, and changes in energy flow pathways.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          12

-------
Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Definitions

The words nutrient enrichment, nutrient over-enrichment, and eutrophication, are
often used interchangeably but often without similarly intended meanings.  For the
purposes of this Action Agenda, the "over-" prefix will be dropped from the word
enrichment, since enrich already means "to increase the proportion of a valuable or
desirable ingredient."

There has been considerable discussion and general lack of agreement on the
definition of "eutrophication." In many instances it is used interchangeably with
"nutrient enrichment."  The definition of eutrophication that will be used in this
Action Agenda is "a natural or artificial addition of nutrients to bodies of water and
the effects of added nutrients" (NAS, 1969).

The word increase often connotes change in a positive direction.  However,
nutrient increases are often detrimental. An adequate supply of essential nutrients
is required to support food webs, and intentional nutrient additions have been
shown to increase fish stocks in some experimental systems. However, aquatic
systems are limited in their assimilative capacities and the effects of eutrophication
are known to be deleterious.

The term hypoxie describes conditions or responses produced by stressful levels of
oxygen deficiency. Based on laboratory and/or field observations on oxygen stress
responses in invertebrate and fish faunas, the general consensus on the definition  of
hypoxie corresponds to dissolved oxygen levels lower than 2 mg/L [=1.4 ml/L (at
standard temperature and pressure)] (Tyson and Pearson, 1991).
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          13

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Role of Nutrients & Other Constituents Wit hi IK
Ecosystems

All living organisms have specific requirements for growth and reproduction.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are two nutrients required in relatively high
concentrations by all living organisms. When nitrogen and phosphorus become
depleted, growth may be limited; however, when they are in excess, growth
increases until some other resource becomes limiting (Dudley, 1992).  Marine and
coastal waters are considered to be nitrogen-limited and freshwater systems are
phosphorus-limited. Both nitrogen  and phosphorus are important in estuaries,
depending on the season, total nutrient loadings, and various physical and chemical
conditions.

Accelerated eutrophication occurs when excessive loads of nitrogen and phosphorus
are supplied. The ecological effects of accelerated eutrophication include algal
blooms, decreased light availability,  changes in community structure, and decreased
biological diversity (Dudley, 1992).  Silicate availability, an indirect consequence of
phosphorus loading, may strongly influence the occurrence of the deleterious effects
of eutrophication.

Other chemical constituents such as  carbon, trace metals, dissolved organic
compounds (e.g., amino acids) and chelators may also affect specific systems under
certain conditions.  In addition, physical features (e.g., light, temperature, physical
mixing, and vertical stratification) control primary production with the associated
negative consequences of hypoxia/anoxia, algal blooms, and shifts in  the food web
to less desirable species.  In some situations, predators may exert some influence on
nutrient supplies.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         14

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment In the Gulf of Mexico
                                                Chapter 2
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment

The potential and observed consequences of nutrient enrichment in coastal habitats
are often documented in bold newsprint that announces a major fish kill, dead
zone, red tide, catastrophic decline of seagrass beds, or reduced fishery landings. Few
such reports, however, have specifically linked increases in nutrient supplies to
these problems.  Many anthropogenic factors, such as overfishing and dredging and
filling, as well as climatic factors and long-term global changes, can contribute to a
reduction in coastal water quality and changes in natural resources.

Experimentally or empirically derived relationships between changes in nutrients
and biological and/or chemical effects (see Figure 2.1) provide the basis for
determining how nutrient enrichment affects estuarine and coastal systems (see
Table 2.1). Figure 2.1 illustrates the resultant increase in chlorophyll a when
dissolved inorganic nitrogen is present  in increased quantities.  Other relationships
are not as straightforward, and complex interactions obscure direct lines of evidence.
Nutrient enrichment may be further categorized into the following major
groupings: altered trophic structure, oxygen depletion, and habitat alteration.
Figure 2.1
Relationship of Mean Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
(DIN) Loading to Different Estuaries & Mean Annual
Chlorophyll in  Water
                                     100         1000

                                   DIN Input (m mo! m~3 y-I
                                          10000
Black Circles:

White Circles:
                                    Data from many different estuaries
                                    (compiledby S. Nixon and M. Pilson)
                                    Data from Waquoit Bay LMER
                  (Source: LMIER Coordinating Committee, 1992)
Gulf of Mexico/Program Nutrient (Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                         15

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                      Chapter 2
Table 2.1
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment
Direct Effects
      Increases in nutrient concentrations (particularly N and P)
      Changes in loads & seasonal delivery
      Changes in nutrient ratios (e.g., stoichiometric ratios of 20 Si:16 N:l P)
Biological
Responses
      Increased phytoplankton production
      Increased biomass & abundance
      Changes in species composition
Indirect Effects
      Noxious algal blooms
      Turbidity increases and shading effects
      Changes in submerged aquatic vegetation
      Changes in secondary production
      Altered energy flow pathways
      Altered habitats
      Fish kills
      Increases in extent, duration & severity of oxygen-depletion events
(Source: Rabalals, 1992)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                                     16

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Altered Trophic Structure

Many factors interact to influence changes in primary producer and consumer
populations, including the supply, relative availability and timing of nutrient
inputs, and various physical characteristics of the estuary or coastal water body such
as temperature, turbidity, currents, and water ^column stratification.

Increased phytoplankton production and biomass are the likely result in an
otherwise nitrogen-limited coastal food web (Harris, 1986; Valiela, 1984). Although
there are no phytoplankton indicator species of incipient or advanced states of
coastal eutrophication presently identifiable, a significant shift in phytoplankton
community structure at the phylogenetic level is occurring globally in response to
coastal nutrient enrichment (Smayda, 1989, 1990, 1991; Richardson, 1989; Cherfas,
1990; Cadee, 1990a,b,c).  Smayda (1991) further notes that this phylogenetic shift has
been towards increased abundance and seasonal dominance of species that may be
noxious, harmful, or toxic in increased concentrations; and that their sinking and
decomposition in the water column or seabed may contribute to increased
hypoxic/anoxic episodes.

Diatoms, tiny planktonic algae, are thought to provide the primary energy source for
traditional food webs that support top predators. The abundance of coastal diatoms
is influenced by silicon supplies, whose Si:N atomic ratio is about 1:1 (Redfield
Ratio).  Diatoms out-compete other algae in a stable and illuminated water column
of favorable silicate concentration. Anthropogenic enrichment of N and P, leading
to long-term increases in these nutrient loadings, has also led to long-term declines
in the Si:N (Turner and Rabalais, 1991a) and Si:P ratios.  When nitrogen increases
and silicate decreases, flagellates may increase in abundance (Officer and Ryther,
1980).  The decline in the  Si:P and Si:N ratios has particularly favored non-diatom
blooms and is a key factor associated with the global epidemic of novel toxic and
harmful phytoplankton blooms and phylogenetic shifts in  phytoplankton biomass
predominance in coastal seas (Smayda 1989,1990, 1991); similar shifts may be
occurring in the waters adjacent to the Mississippi River (Dortch and Whitledge,-,
1992). In particular, noxious  blooms of flagellates are becoming increasingly
common in coastal systems.  There is evidence for an ongoing global increase in the
frequency, number of occurrences, and dynamics of toxic and harmful
phytoplankton blooms (Dundas et al., 1989; Richardson, 1989; Cherfas, 1990; Cadee,
1990a,b,c).

In the northern  Gulf of Mexico, riverine input of Si:N from the Mississippi River
has decreased from 4:1 to  approximately 1:1 over the last three decades (Turner and
Rabalais, 1991b). These changes may have a major impact on Si availability,
phytoplankton species availability, carbon flux and hypoxia (Turner and Rabalais,
1991b; Dortch and Whitledge, 1992).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         17

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Phylogenetic shifts within phytoplankton communities may alter the food supply
available to herbivorous organisms.  Evidence suggests that smaller, "less desirable"
flagellate-and cyanobacterial-dominated communities are less acceptable as food for
grazers.  Zooplankton, the main consumers of whole diatoms and a staple of
juvenile fish, are thus affected by these nutrient changes in a cascading series of
interactions. Alternatively, changes in type and distribution of higher trophic-level
herbivores and predators may have a cascading effect down the food web to primary
producers.

A change in the timing of the spring bloom that supports fish entering estuaries to
feed during critical recruitment periods may also be an important consequence of
eutrophication.  Altered trophic structure associated with nutrient enrichment
could potentially influence predation and feeding success.  Changes in the nutrient
loading and timing could affect recruitment success through a mis-match of larval
recruitment and food supply, as well as an altered food chain. Starvation, not
predation, may be the major source of larval mortality and a potential determinant
of recruitment levels.  Also, starvation and malnourishment can mediate
predation, z'.e., weakened larvae are more susceptible to predators (Hunter, 1981).

Early blooms with a greater sedimentation  to the benthos could positively affect
demersal fishes, but late blooms positively  affect pelagic fisheries through the
zooplankton food chain. Zooplankton graze on diatoms extensively, so that
changes in nutrient loading and the ratio of nutrients could affect the balance and
timing of the demersal and pelagic food webs.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             18

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter
Oxygen Depletion

Oxygen-depleted waters are often caused by nutrient enrichment.  Where
eutrophication occurs, oxygen depletion often follows presumably as a consequence
of the increase in organic loading that is stimulated by increased nutrients.
Excessive organic material in surface waters may sink to the bottom, either directly,
as grazed material, or  through advection. Decomposition of these materials may
lead to oxygen depletion, especially in stratified water columns where the rate of
depletion of oxygen is greater than the reaeration of the water column from surface
oxygen production or  diffusion.

Low dissolved oxygen concentrations, however, are not caused exclusively by
nutrient enrichment.  Many physical features of the estuary and water column
contribute to the formation  of hypoxic water masses. Where increased nutrients
contribute to organic loading and subsequent decomposition of material  and
depletion of oxygen, these features are usually coupled with the physical
phenomenon of a stratified  water column. This density stratification, controlled by
temperature or salinity differences, prevents the reaeration of the bottom waters at a
rate sufficient to offset the depletion of oxygen during respiration.  Salinity affects
the density of water, which  affects oxygen depletion.  Strength of stratification is
sensitive to  freshwater inflows and climatic conditions forcing tidal waters into
estuaries. In many deep channels, this density stratification may occur and oxygen
may be depleted without increased organic inputs. However, the oxygen demand in
the bottom waters of deeper channels, especially near industrialized and  urbanized
areas, may be related to chemical oxygen demand or organic loading from sewage
outfalls.  Other deep channels or topographically lower features  may be consistently
hypoxic in the bottom  waters just because of the physical structure  and lack of
mixing of the water column.

In areas with submerged aquatic vegetation, low oxygen levels will be present in the
early morning hours following extensive  respiration of the vegetation during the
dark cycle.  In other instances, the movement of naturally stagnant swamp waters
into other bodies of water following a flushing event may contribute temporarily to
a low oxygen  condition.

Widespread and catastrophic depletion of dissolved oxygen has been observed in
coastal areas worldwide  (Swanson and Sindermann,.1979; Falkowski et al, 1983;
Swanson and Parker, 1988; Renaud, 1986a; Pokryfki and Randall, 1987; Rabalais et al.,
1991; Stachowitsch, 1984; Faganeli et al, 1985; Justic' et al., 1987; Tolmazin, 1985;
Rosenberg, 1986, 1990;  Westernhagan et al, 1986).  Oxygen-depleted waters have also
been identified in numerous estuaries of the U.S.  (Whitledge, 1985). The largest,
most severe and most persistent zone of hypoxia in U.S. coastal waters [9,500 km2
(4,000 mi2)]  is found in the northern Gulf of Mexico on  the continental shelf off
Louisiana.  This  hypoxic zone occurs at the terminus of the Mississippi River and
amidst the nation's  richest and most extensive fishing grounds (see Figure 2.2).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         ^9

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                    Chapter 2
Figure 2.2
Distribution of Hypoxic Bottom Waters on the
Louisiana Continental Shelf in Midi-Summer for the
Years Indicated
(hypoxic areas are <2 mg/L dissolved oxygen)
                   •29"
                                                       1985
                     94'
                             93'
                                     92*
                                             91'
                                                    90'
                   •29'
                                                       1986
                             S3'
                                     92*
                                             •1*
                                                    90'
                         1989
                                -29'
                                                                    1990
                                                                 90'
 Noto: Figures differ In station coverage and scale, longitude provides relative distance.


 (Source: Rabalals, 1992)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             20

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
For a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Nationwide Review Project
(Rabalais et al, 1985; Whitledge, 1985; Windsor, 1985), a dissolved oxygen
concentration of greater than 4 mg/L was determined the minimum level
acceptable for coastal waters. In that review, estuaries or coastal areas were
categorized as having marginal and/or deteriorating water quality with respect to
this level of dissolved oxygen concentration. Within the 36 estuaries categorized by
Rabalais et al. (1985) for Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, 12 were
categorized with severe or regularly occurring hypoxia in part or all of  the estuary.
Windsor (1985) listed seven of 19 estuaries as having potential problems or
deteriorating water quality.  For both studies, a little over half (56 percent) of the
estuaries were categorized as having adequate data for evaluation.

Contrary to the earlier findings (Rabalais et al, 1985; Windsor, 1985), levels of 2-3
mg/L may be a more biologically realistic level in the warmer waters of the Gulf of
Mexico.  Values below 2 mg/L affect populations of demersal fishes and
macroinvertebrates as noted in field studies.  Dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2
mg/L equate to an oxygen saturation level of 25-27 percent in northern Gulf of
Mexico waters.  Values below this  are associated with reduced benthic
macroinfauna, and values below 0.5 mg/L (or seven percent oxygen saturation) are
associated  with severely reduced numbers of benthic1 infauna.

Oxygen concentrations of  surface waters may also be a key to the eutrophication
status of a water body.  Nutrient enrichment, which stimulates phyfoplankton
growth, may result in the  supersaturation of oxygen in surface waters.  Values of
oxygen saturation greater than 100 percent are commonly found in Louisiana coastal
waters when high chlorophyll a  biomass is coincident.  The presence of an oxygen
minimum zone with depth, particularly  above  a pycnocline (zone of maximum
density resulting from temperature and salinity), may also indicate high  respiration
rates in the water  column. These  conditions are prevalent on the Louisiana shelf.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         21

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Habitat Alteration & Impacts on Living Resources

Excessive nutrient loading can cause accelerated eutrophication; the resultant
increase in planktonic biomass decreases the distance that light can penetrate
through the water column. Reduced light penetration has been shown to inhibit
photosynthesis in deeper waters of some eutrophic estuaries (Pennock, 1985;
Pennock and Sharp, 1987) and to affect photosynthetic microorganisms, as well as
submerged aquatic vegetation (Short, 1987,1991; Johansson and Lewis, 1992).

Excessive nutrient loading in an estuary can have detrimental effects on a seagrass
system in three ways: 1) change to a plankton-dominated ecosystem, 2) change to a
macroalgal-dominated ecosystem, and 3) change to a system with excessive amounts
of epiphytic algal growth (Short, 1991). All three possible changes have been
observed in the field and have been directly associated with documented seagrass
declines (Short, 1987,1991). The loss of seagrass beds following decreased water
clarity is often observed (Cambridge and McComb, 1984; Cambridge et d., 1986;
Johansson and Lewis, 1992). Certain coastal fisheries species seem to require a
physical structure to escape from predators while young. Where the area of
estuarine macrophytes declines or improves, fisheries harvest is observed to
respond proportionally (Turner and Boesch, 1987).

Long-term changes in the turbidity of the water column are also related to nutrient
enrichment, with coincident long-term declines in  the oxygen  concentration of the
water column and negative impacts on habitat and living resources. Other long-
term changes in the turbidity of the water column in coastal systems may be related
to the reduction of the suspended sediment load of a major freshwater source. This
appears to be the case in the waters adjacent to the  Mississippi River, where a long-
term change in the turbidity of the water column is perhaps related to increased
water clarity as a result of the reduction of the suspended sediment load and/or
changes in phytoplankton community composition (Meade and Parker, 1985;
Turner and Boesch, 1987).  Increased water clarity adjacent to the Mississippi River
Delta may have implications for increased  phytoplankton production  and biomass
in a system where turbidity is a factor limiting phytoplankton growth at various
levels of light intensity.  Turbidity may result from dredging operations.
             P
Light attenuation may also occur by absorption, which takes place naturally in
certain streams by humic substances (i.e., substances leached from decaying plants
and trees).  Although this process is natural, and although the light attenuation
process is a natural phenomenon, primary productivity in these colored waters may
be less than would be the case if the waters were not colored.  Similar but not
identical chemicals are leached from wood chips and pulp in conventional pulping
and bleaching processes, and paper mill effluents may  attenuate light in receiving
waters due to light absorption. The effect of paper mill effluents on primary
production due  to light attenuation is site-  and process-specific.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            22

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
There are numerous examples of the impacts of low oxygen conditions on reduced
benthic fauna, in terms of fewer species, lower abundance, or both (Rosenberg, 1977;
Gaston, 1985; Gaston et al, 1985; Rosenberg and Loo, 1988; Stachowitsch, 1984,1986;
Westernhagen et al., 1986; Harper et al., 1991; Boesch and Rabalais, 1991). The degree
of effect depends on the level of organic enrichment and/or concentration of
dissolved .oxygen in the overlying waters and whether hydrogen sulfide is generated
from the sediments during anoxic events (Boesch and Rabalais, 1991; Harper et al.,
1991; Rabalais et al., unpublished data).  Reduction in the benthic fauna is a habitat
alteration that may have an indirect impact on other parts of the food web (e.g.,
reduction in adequate food supplies for other species, such as demersal fish and
shrimp).

The potentially enormous consequences of oxygen depletion to living resources in
the northern Gulf of Mexico are  a regional and national concern. The area impacted
by the duration of hypoxia on the Louisiana shelf is important because, in 1991, the
entire Gulf's commercial fisheries landings accounted for 19 percent of the U.S. total
commercial landing (USDOC, 1992), and approximately $641 million.  Certain life
stages of penaeid shrimp may be affected by hypoxic bottom waters, and critical
periods in the life history of both brown and white shrimp occur during May
through September when hypoxia is present. The decline in the shrimp catch of
Louisiana may be related to hypoxic events, particularly those recorded from May
1983 to May 1984 and in 1982 (Renaud, 1986b). Trawl samples indicate that the
demersal catch is reduced to virtually zero when the bottom water dissolved oxygen
levels fall below 2 mg/L.  The processes involved—direct mortalities, avoidance by
bottom-dwelling shrimp and finfish, altered migration, susceptibility to predation--
are not known. Although dead or decaying fish have been pulled up in trawls
where hypoxia occurs, the trawls are usually empty in areas with reduced bottom
water oxygen.

As a result of oxygen depletion, the  area of suitable habitat may be reduced and the
individuals become more susceptible to predation.  Also, hypoxic bottom water may
act as a physical barrier to juvenile  shrimp emigration offshore  and  to postlarval
migration into estuaries. Experimental work of Renaud (1986a) indicates that white
shrimp (Penaeus setiferus)  detected and significantly avoided water  containing <1.5
ppm dissolved oxygen, and brown  shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) were more sensitive
and avoided water of dissolved oxygen concentrations <2.0 ppm. In addition, the
stress incurred by fish, such as experiencing low  oxygen tensions or  starvation
following oxygen depletion, is believed to be a contributing factor to the
development of disease in fish (Nielsen  and Mellargaard, 1989).

Less motile invertebrates are stressed by low oxygen conditions and either adapt
behaviorally or are killed. Dead and decaying invertebrates have been observed on
seabeds where oxygen levels  are severely reduced (Stachowitsch, 1984; Faganeli et al.,
1985).  Behavior modifications include movement to the sediment surface,
extending body parts above the sediment surface, or finding topographically higher
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Aetlon Agenda (3.2)
         23

-------
 NutrJont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
locations, all of which expose the typically infaunal organisms to increased
predation pressure.

Habitat suitability is the result of several interacting conditions, including oxygen.
Low oxygen levels in the water column, typically below 2 mg/L, are generally not
satisfactory for fish habitat.  Because nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
frequently lead to low oxygen levels, an indirect effect of eutrophication may be the
contraction of suitable habitat necessary for reproduction and growth of fish.

An uncommon, but potentially very important, impact of nutrient enrichment on
living resources is the influence of altered trophic structure on larval fish
recruitment processes.  Recruitment is the process through which new individuals
are spawned and survive to enter the population or fishery.  Recruitment, along
with growth and natural fishing mortality, determine fishery yields.  Recent studies
conducted in the vicinity of the Mississippi River discharge plume indicate that
physical and biological  interactions (e.g., altered trophic structure resulting from
nutrient enrichment) have the potential to influence recruitment success (Govoni
et al, 1989).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         24

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                   Chapter
Hew Much (of What) lit Too Much?
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Silicate & Dissolved Oxygen. Using the classification of
concentrations in Table 2.2 (U.S. DOC, 1990b), an estuary with low concentrations of
nutrients is characterized by maximum diversity of aquatic life whereas an estuary
with high nutrient concentrations is characterized by high chlorophyll levels, low
species diversity, and occasional algal blooms.
Table 2.2
N, P, Si & DO Units & Concentrations*

Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Silicate
Dissolved
Oxygen

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
jtmg/L, (JM/L, or M-g^t/L)
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
(DIN)
(mg/L, uM/L, or ug-at/L)
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L, uM/L, or ug-at/L)
Total Phosphorus
(TP),
(mg/L or ug-at/L)
. Si.
units similar to DIN or TP
(mg/L, uM/L or ug-afi/L)
DO
(mg/L)
Definition
Total NHs -N + organic N
(dissolved or particulate)
nitrate + nitrite (may also
include ammonia)
TKN + nitrate + nitrite
dissolved or particulate
fraction or both

Bottom water
dissolved
concentrations(standard
measurement technique to
determine general health
of a water body)
Concentration
<0.1 mg/L = low
0.1 - 1.0 mg/L = medium
> 1.0 mg/L = high
: i •

< 0.01 mg/L = low
0.01 - 0.1 mg/L = medium
> 0.1 mg/L =. high
Indirectly related to
P loadings—may
strongly influence
eutrophication
<2 mg/L = hypoxle
<0.1 mg/L = anoxle
"Note: 1) Dissolved Inorganic solids, which are a concern In freshwater systems, as a
       general Indicator of water quality and of the. suitability of water for various uses,
       are not a concern In estuarlne or coastal systems. Dissolved Inorganic solids are
       normal components of sea water (sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium,
       carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate Ions).

       2) Mole (M) Is the gram-molecular weight of a substance. It is the amount of the
       substance having a weight equal to the molecular weight of the substance In
       grams. A mleromole friM) Is 1 one-mBIIionth of a mole.
      3) Mlerogram (ug) atomic weight off a chemical element Is the amount of the
      element with the weight equal to Its atomic weight measured In mlcrograms. For
      example, the atomic weight of nitrogen Is 14, thus 14 ug of nitrogen Is 1
      mlcrogram atom. A solution containing 14 |ig of nitrogen In 1 liter of water would
      produce a concentration o« 1 |ig atom of nitrogen/liter.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                           25

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Phytoplankton. Phytoplankton, such as algae, are microscopic plants that live in
water. Phytoplankton is measured in several ways, either as the rate of primary
production, biomass (concentration of chlorophyll), or number of individuals.
Phytoplankton growth requires nitrogen and phosphorus in the approximate
atomic proportion of 16:1, the Redfield Ratio (Redfield, 1934,1958).  The National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Team on Near Coastal Waters (USDOC,  1990b) suggested that N:P ratios between
10:1 to 20:1 were the range for which a potentially limiting nutrient could not be
determined with any assurance without site-specific information. Where N:P ratios
fall between 10:1 and 20:1, the potentially limiting nutrient may be highly dependent
upon the species of phytoplankton present. Outside of this range, there may be
insufficient nitrogen to balance all of the available phosphorus, or vice versa. Silica
is also an important nutrient for phytoplankton growth  and is likely to limit diatom
growth when adequate supplies of the other nutrients are present. Silica is required
by diatoms in proportions of Si:N:P=20:16:l (Redfield,  1958).

With time, changes in single or multiple nutrients and the relative  proportion of
these nutrients are important indicators of nutrient enrichment.  These changes are
important to understand,  if only because nitrogen is commonly thought to be
limiting phytoplankton growth in coastal and oceanic  waters (e.g., Harris, 1986;
Valiela, 1984).  However,  not all coastal systems are nitrogen-limited (Turner et al,
1990), nor is changing nutrient loading  the only factor influencing phytoplankton
growth (Skreslet, 1986). Marine phytoplankton may also respond differently to
nutrient additions that are introduced gradually or suddenly, with changing
flushing rates or salinity, and with cell density (Sakshaug et al., 1983; Sommer, 1985;
Suttle and Harrison, 1986; Turpin and Harrison, 1990). In many cases,
determination of the limiting nutrient in a system is difficult because  there is no
single, generally accepted method for determination.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             26

-------
 NuMent Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                 Chapter 2
Sources of Nutrient Enrichment-Anthropogenic Faetors

As human activities have increased within the drainage area of the Gulf of Mexico,
nutrient loads within the rivers draining into the Gulf have increased.  This has
resulted in eutrophication of some of the estuaries and near coastal waters of the -
Gulf. Human population growth; increased numbers of animals in concentrated
feeding operations; application of fertilizers on cropland, parks, and lawns; along
with manufacturing, mining, construction, increased use of fossil fuels for energy;
and other associated activities have each contributed to the increase in nutrients.
The implications of these nutrient contributions to rivers, estuarine systems, and
coastal waters are a matter for concern.  Long-term changes in coastal systems have
been documented worldwide where major rivers deliver nutrient enriched  waters
to coastal seas. (Nehring, 1984; Fransz and Verhagen, 1985; Rosenberg, 1985;
Lancelot et al, 1987; Anderson and Rydberg, 1988; Wulff and Rahn, 1988; Turner and
Rabalais, 1991b).
Table 2.3
Major Sources off Nutrient Enrichment
Problems in the Gulf of Mexico
      POINT SOURCES!
            Industrial Point Sources
                  (including food processing facilities and fertilizer manufacturing plants)

            Municipal Wastewalter Treatment Plants
      NONPOINT SOURCES:
            Agricultural Nonpoint Sources
                  •  Crop Production
                        -Rainfed
                        -Irrigation
                  •  Livestock Production (including dairies, aquacultural operations,
                        poultry feeding operations, swine feeding operations, and other
                        concentrated feeding operations)
                  •  Silviculture

            Urban and Suburban Nonpoint Sources
                  (including storm run-off, individual septic tanks, and golf courses)

            Atmospheric Deposition
      OTHER SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS:

            Transport from Offshore Waters

            Sanitary Discharges from Boats & Ships
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient (Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                          27

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Point Sources

Industrial Point Sources.  The Gulf of Mexico region has 3,700 permitted point
sources of pollution—more than any other region in the U.S. (USDOC, 1990b).  Over
 alf of the 3,700 permits are to industrial facilities. A federal government-sponsored
study found that 347 major permits are to industrial facilities that discharge wastes
through pipelines directly into the waters of the Gulf and its surrounding estuaries
(Weber et al, 1992). These were distributed among the Gulf States as follows:  Texas
(192), Louisiana (79), Mississippi (30), Alabama (29), and the Gulf Coast of Florida
(17). The majority of these permitted dischargers are petroleum refineries and
petrochemical plants, although there are many forest product and fish processing
permits as well. Galveston Bay, TX, has the greatest concentration of permitted
point sources, followed by Mississippi Sound (USDOC,  1991 a).

In addition to these direct point source dischargers,  there are many other permitted
sources that discharge their treated wastes into streams and rivers that ultimately
flow into the Gulf.  After draining more than 40 percent of the  land area of the
contiguous U.S., the Mississippi River flows into the Gulf transporting large
amounts of contaminants from other parts of the country (Weber et al, 1992).

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.  The coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico
have experienced rapid population growth in recent years along with its associated
burdens. The most significant burdens are changes  in land use patterns  as more
land becomes urbanized (or suburbanized), and the increased need for the treatment
and discharge of sewage.  There are 1,293 permitted municipally-owned waste water
treatment plants in Gulf of Mexico estuarine drainage areas (USDOC, 1990b). Most
municipal wastewater treatment plants provide secondary treatment and discharge
treated waste, including nutrients, into receiving waters. The  113 municipalities
immediately surrounding the Gulf release more than a billion  gallons  a  day of
treated sewage effluent into Gulf waters  (Weber et al, 1992). Waste treatment loads
in Florida are expected to increase by more than three hundred percent by the year
2000; similar trends can be expected elsewhere (USDOC, 1990b).

Accidental Spills. Accidental spills and discharges that exceed permit limitations
continue to present risks to human health and the environment. The major source
of pollutants entering the Mississippi River in Louisiana, other than permitted
industrial and municipal discharges, is accidental spills.  During the period from
October 1989 through September 1991, the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Water Quality Management Division investigated 1,524 spills statewide.
Ambient monitoring for priority organic pollutants in the Mississippi River has
revealed that, most of the time, few, if any, pollutants are detected, and  when
detected, they are usually associated with short-term spill events (LADEQ,  1992).
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             28

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint sources have been identified as the main factor contributing to a large and
recurring area of oxygen-depleted waters off the Louisiana coast. There is evidence
of oxygen-depleted waters in other parts of the Gulf as well. Nonpoint sources have
also been identified as the primary pollution factor in many estuaries nationwide
that are too polluted to support fishing, swimming, and the propagation of marine
life. (Weber et al, 1992).

Agricultural  Nonpoint Sources.  Fertilizer use on agricultural land is a source of
nutrients. Agricultural activity accounts for 31 percent of the land use in the Gulf of
Mexico region (USDOC, 1990b); however, agricultural land use is probably declining
in some areas due to increased urbanization. With this land use comes  the
application of fertilizers and pesticides.

The use of fertilizer by agricultural operations has increased dramatically in  the U.S.
since the 1940s (see Figure 2.3), along with more intense cropping systems,
concentration of livestock operations, changes in land ownership and leasing
patterns, and greater implementation of drainage and tillage practices. These
changes in farming operations  have  created a higher potential for nutrient
contribution to the bays and estuaries. The application of fertilizer to agricultural
lands in the Gulf of Mexico  estuarine drainage areas  is substantial depending on the
type of agriculture. In 1989, the greatest applications per acre within Gulf of  Mexico
watersheds were around the Galveston Bay, Matagorda Bay, and Lower Laguna
Madre estuaries.

Nutrient runoff  from  fertilizers is a significant nutrient source (greater than 25
percent of the total inputs of either phosphorus or nitrogen) in South Ten
Thousand Islands, North Ten Thousand Islands, Charlotte Harbor, Suwannee
River, Lower Laguna Madre, Apalachee Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, Pensacola Bay,
Perdido Bay, Matagorda Bay, San Antonio Bay, Aransas Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay
(USDOC, 1990b). This runoff includes fertilizer, which has been picked up by runoff
water or eroding sediment and transported off-site, runoff from excess applications
of fertilizer due  to improper management, as well as direct discharges and runoff
from  fertilizer manufacturing facilities.

Widespread changes in nutrient loading to coastal zones has also changed the
annual and seasonal variability of nutrient concentration.  Fertilizer  is usually
applied in the spring, just before or during the planting period.  A spring rise in
nitrate concentration is now evident in the lower Mississippi River at St.
Francisville and New Orleans, Louisiana, and a previous seasonal signal in  silicate
concentration is  no longer evident (Turner and Rabalais, 1991b). Increased nutrient
enrichment during  the spring may be attributed to the following:  1) increased
fertilizer applications  reach  the Gulf of Mexico via smaller, shorter rivers that flow
directly into the Gulf; 2) runoff is greatest in the spring and is therefore more likely
to carry additional nutrients; and 3) during the lag time between winter and  spring,
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
 Nutrlont Enrichment In the Gulf of Mexico
                                               Chapter 2
nutrient levels in the water are higher because plants are growing slower and are
consuming fewer nutrients.

Animal waste runoff may be another potential nutrient source related to
agricultural activities.  In some cases, feed lots are considered point sources since
they generate large quantities of waste that should be treated in mass.  By leaching
into ground water or running off into surface water, animal manure can
contaminate drinking water with nitrates and cause eutrophication of ponds, lakes,
and estuaries. Excessive eutrophication and releases of ammonia from urine may
have adverse effects on fish.  In addition, bacteria from animal manure has resulted
in the closure of shellfish beds (USEPA, 1992).

Other agricultural sources of nutrients may be the improper handling or storage of
manure or the application of manure to land at rates that exceed crop uptake,
resulting in excessive manure supplies. Also, although farmers  may apply manure
to cropland at agronomic rates, water resource degradation still may occur because
the rate of nutrient release in manure is not synchronized with the rate of nutrient
uptake in the crop (USEPA, 1992).

Additional nutrients are released through decomposition of vegetation, soil erosion
in general, and mineralization.
Figure 2.3
Nitrogen (as N) and Phosphorus (as P2OS Equivalent)
Fertilizer Use This Century in the U.S.
Up To 1987-1988
                     121
                      8
                  o

                  iE
                           • N
                           oP
                                1920
                         1940
                         Year
1960
1980
(Source: Turner and Rabalals, 1991b)
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                         30

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter
Silvieultural Nonpoint Sources.  Approximately 50 percent of the land area in the
five Gulf States is classified as timberland, covering a wide range of types. Fourteen
percent of the timberland area are pine plantations, 23 percent are natural pine •
stands, 17 percent are mixed pine/hardwood stands, 22 percent are bottom land
hardwood stands, and 24 percent are upland hardwood stands. Combined timber
products are the highest valued agricultural crop in the Gulf States with the total
value exceeding $2 billion.  During the past ten years, 3-5 percent of the total
timberland acreage was disturbed to some degree by timber management, natural
occurrences, or activities associated with community development or agriculture.
Various studies have allocated 3-9 percent of total nonpoint pollution to  forest land
management activities on a broad watershed basis. However, increases in runoff
and sediment can be significant on an individual stream reach or tributary
watershed.  Silvieultural best management practices have been proven to be
effective in preventing nonpoint pollution in the form of excess sediment and
nutrients when adequately utilized. Each of the Gulf States has a voluntary
Silvieultural nonpoint pollution program in place.  State forestry agencies manage
the programs and monitor  compliance and effectiveness.

Urban & Suburban Nonpoint Sources.  Septic tanks and Other forms of on-site
sewage disposal systems (OSDS) are commonly used by residences in Gulf rural
areas.  Septic tanks in coastal areas and estuarine watersheds may represent a major
source of nutrients in coastal waters. Such systems are relatively inefficient at
degrading human wastes unless several conditions are maintained, including
unsaturated soil conditions, minimal densities, and routine pumping of  solids from
the tank. Typically, these systems do very little to prevent nitrogen from entering
ground water; a nitrogen removal rate of 20 percent is typical in conventional
systems.  Effluent leaving a typical septic system is estimated to have a total nitrogen
concentration of 40-60 mg/L, primarily in the form of  ammonia and organic
nitrogen.  These forms are readily converted to nitrates in the drainage field, and
could result in groundwater contamination.

Other urban and suburban nonpoint sources of nutrients include storm water
runoff from sites such as industries, golf courses, and residential lawns. A recent
report indicates that runoff from residential use of commercial fertilizers and
pesticides in Houston may be impacting the Galveston Bay watershed (Newel  et al.,
1992).

Atmospheric Deposition.  Atmospheric deposition results when nitrogen and
sulfur compounds or other  substances, such as heavy metals and toxic organic
compounds, are transformed by complex chemical processes and deposited on the
earth away from the original sources.  The transformed chemicals  return to the
earth in either a wet or dry form.  The wet forms can fall to the earth in the form of
rain, snow, or fog; the dry forms may exist as gases or particulates.  Once these
transformed substances reach the earth, they can pollute  surface waters, including
rivers, lakes, and  estuaries.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         31

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
The worldwide rise in the concentration of nitrogen in rainfall and snowfall is
symptomatic of the extent of human activities on the environment.  The
importance of atmospheric inputs of essential nutrients has only recently been
understood, but is clearly important and changing (Morris, 1991). Atmospheric
sources of ammonium (NH4+> may also be generated from livestock wastes
(concentrated production) (Morris, 1991).  Emissions from power plants and
industrial boilers, as well as urban air pollution, may be sources of increased
nitrogen in surface waters.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            32

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter a
Other Sources of Nutrients

Another potential source of noripoint source pollution in tributaries and near-
coastal waters is transport from waters far offshore. This problem may involve the
transport of phosphorus into estuaries with subsequent adsorption into fine
sediment (suspended and in-place) and subsequent use by plants.  Estuaries along
the east coast have been adversely affected by phosphate that has been transported
from the continental shelf, a major and uncontrollable source.  Consequently, the
benefits of a strategy to control phosphorus may be diminished. Several
phosphorus control measures should be evaluated to determine the relative
magnitude of phosphorus loads from the land versus loads from the sea. Mass
balances may determine whether observed phosphorus concentrations can be
accounted for or not.

Erosion of soils will mobilize the organic carbon and nutrients  found in those soils.
While some of this material may be refractory (i.e.,  unreactive), there is nonetheless
the potential to cause further oxygen depletion in areas where  human activities
accelerate this erosion.  This oxygen depletion occurs through the bacterial
respiration of the organic matter, as well as through the stimulation of productivity
by the associated nutrients. Table 2.5 shows that soil loss from  croplands can be
substantial.  However, erosion is likely to be of special concern for marshy areas,
which typically have a high organic content.  Coastal Louisiana, which is
experiencing a high loss of wetlands, may be particularly affected by this issue. No
detailed examination of this potential problem has been performed.

An additional nonpoint source of nutrients in the Gulf may be  sanitary discharges
from boats and ships.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         33

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                              Chapter 2
Mississippi  River as a Conduit for Upstream Sources
of Nutrients

Nutrient inputs and concentrations within an estuarine body or coastal area
originate from sources outside the system and from within the system.  The relative
proportion of nutrients will likely vary down the stem of an estuary.  An example of
water quality changes in the U.S. is .represented by the nitrate and silicate
concentrations in the Mississippi River, which drains 40 percent of the U.S. and is
the dominant freshwater inflow source into the Gulf of Mexico. The average
annual nitrate-nitrogen concentration doubled after 1950, and the  silicate
concentration was reduced by half (see Figure 2.4) (Turner and Rabalais, 1991b). The
average annual nitrate concentration is affected by a broad range of human activities
within the watershed.  The annual silicate concentration in the river has been
reduced, presumably because phosphorus stimulates diatom growth and diatoms
sink to lake and reservoir sediments, thus storing silica that would otherwise go
into the water column and downstream (Turner and Rabalais, 1991b).
Figure 2.4
Generalized Diagram of the Drainage Basin of the
Mississippi River and the Changes in Nitrate &
Silicate in the Lower Mississippi River

                             ^ 200
                                                03
                                                  100
                                                E
                                               ^ 250
                                               «o  200

                                               .3 150


                                               |  10°^
                                               CO
                                               £  so
                                                    1950
 (Source: Turner and Rabalais, 1991b)
                                                             Year
                                                        2000
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                       34

-------
NuMont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
For an average day in 1989, it is estimated that more than 171,914 kg (189.5 tons) of
phosphorus and more than 849,441 kg (936.3 tons) of nitrogen (TKN) were
discharged into the Gulf of Mexico from the surface waters of the US. (Loyejoy,
1992).  Based on a 1989 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration/U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency report, approximately 72 percent of the total
loadings of nitrogen and  74 percent of the total loadings of phosphorus come from
the Mississippi River system  alone (including the Atchafalaya River), originating far
upstream from the Gulf of Mexico (USDOG, 1989),

Increased loadings of nutrients from outside the system can lead to increased
primary production (Nixon et at., 1986; Oviatt et al, 1986a,b; Malone, 1987) The
quantification of these relationships and paths of nutrient uptake and regeneration
are not, however, adequately known.  Several studies suggest that recycled nutrients
account for a greater percentage of the ambient nutrient concentration than the
"new" load entering the system each year (Boynton et al., 1982; Kemp et al., 1982;
Fisher and Doyle, 1987).  Although recycled nutrients from within the system are
essentially unmanageable, an understanding of their contributions is necessary to
understand the effects of all sources of nutrient inputs.

From the Lovejoy analysis  (Purdue University), it is clear that the regions of the
Ohio River basin and the Upper Mississippi River basin are the major sources of
both nitrogen and phosphorus during much of the year. In both of these regions,
nonurban nonpoint sources provide by far the largest sources of nutrient pollution
to the waterways.  Therefore, policies directed toward decreasing nutrient runoff
from nonurban lands  in these upstream regions would have the biggest impact on
programs to reduce nutrient pollution  in the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         35

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment In the Gulf of Mexico
                                               Chapter 2
Selected Characteristics of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries

The Gulf of Mexico ranks first among U.S. regions in total square miles of estuarine
drainage area (EDA) and in total water surface area. Within the Gulf of Mexico
region, the estuaries vary substantially with respect to size, relative size of fluvial
drainage area, amount of freshwater inflow, hydrologic characteristics, variability in
freshwater inflow, precipitation patterns, tidal cycles, and land use patterns. Figure
2.5, Table 2.4, and Table 2.5 provide information on physical and hydrologic
features, economic activities, and demographics for major estuaries within the Gulf
of Mexico.  More specific analyses of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings are provided
in Table 2.6 and Table 2.7; however, please note that these tables are based on 1987
data.
Figure 2.5
Urban & Agricultural Land Use In Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries
                   a
                   a
                   HI
                               20     40     ISO    80

                                Percentage of EDA

                            Urban       £] Agricultural
                                     100
(Source: Modified from USDOC, 1990b)
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                        36

-------
Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                                 Chapter 2
TabU 2.4
                 Selected Characteristics of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries
   a
      ra o

      €?!
                          as
                                                                             »t.
 CO
 LU
 fe
 LU

 O
 g

 x
 LU


 LL
 O

 LL
o
u.
O

CO
g

CO
cc
LU
 £
 O
 LU
LU

LU

CO
                                                ssa
                                                                             as
   Q
           llst
             II
                          58
                                                IS*
                          a;
                                                          1
sippi So

BorgrM
             la
                                                ,&$
 (Source:  USDOC, 199Ob)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                          37

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                                                          Chapter 2
Tabla 2.5
                    Nutrient Discharge Indicators by Entire  Watershed
   %
   t
       •a
       o

       (0
 cc


.i
 c
UJ
 >
JCJ
 w
 o

 s
"•5
 

 ca

 o
 (0

         •^  UJ £
         «  ""I S

         18-1
75 2 CO
2 o 2 o

Ifetl
^ if «  .
;=. =r O CO
S> tr jc o
^ O Q.
           _ 13
           s -5
                 r u> ^

                  ^ o
    ft    T3  K

    3  t: J  S
    _  g CL ***


    W    O  o
             I
             — s co -g

             S "Q. 2  .
             £ o  • a
             .So S-S
                •gi^-:
             ™ C. on "~
             « ™ en E
             O C3. ^~  •
             f- O _i O

                <5 S 42
              e   o

             S g>5
             S C CM
              3 ™ o !2

             £§l'
                5 g "£
                  WJ "=
                  o> E
                        o o  o o o  o o
                                   CM  i- CO
                                   CO    ^T
                                       oooooooooo
                                       *—  COCO^-COCOCOCO    IO
                                       CO  to    03. CO    lp_ CO    CM_
                                          tC    co" •»-"    en co"    co"

                                                       " ^    to
                                                                         0000
                                                      cq »- C3 CM.  oo *-. ^r.
                                                      co"    oT CM"  o co" co"
                                                      CO          T-
                                                                              000
                                                                              G)  !•"  1^
                                                                              r-  T-  
                                        00
                                        r*t>-
                                        *-CNJ
                                          00
                                          *-Tr
                                          OO
                                      0000
                                      u3'*r*-g>
                                      COCO    CO
                                                                                 000
                                                                                 cocoo
              0
              co
                        T- CM  CO    T-
                                        T- i-    CM
                                                                 s    °
                                      O O O O O
                  o o o  o
                  (s. CO tO  CO  --------
                  O>CDCOCOh»O>T-^-CMCO

                  r-^ co r-^     ^    co in to o
                                  ~' CO *— t*~
                                                                      0

                                                                      co"
                                                                 oooooooooooooooo  o
                                        CM
                                              to    T~Oi-^rOCOCMCM    CM    CMCO

                                              of                                     of
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo  o

5 S^ i-^ 5 ?c^t^^^^^cc^c£^^S  e»

O CO 03    C3 If CO Oi  U3 IO O  CO *~ O> CO  IO CM ^~  ^ CO CO  CO CD T^  CM ^ O3  CM O> tA  CO  00


                   IOCM'CO    V co    cMca"    •*       cncM'cMcnoi'rC^t"    co»-:''-:' v"  CO CO
                                   to    co 10
                        s
                   •r-    CO"
                                      pooooooooooooooooooooo



                                                    to cy"    co~       u$"   oi  io iff o  oT    w    ^
                                                            t£)       C\J         T-. v»
cq^ tp^ o__
tsT oT hT co~ ^t7

* » «    SI
                                                                      ooooo
                                                                      iis.O'r-o>-r-
                                                                                    oooooooo
                                                                                          -
                                                                                TI -cf CO  CO
                                                                                CM"
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
f— CDOCOCOCOr^TrOCOOOircOCOOJ^-OCOCOCOCOCMCOCD
                                                                                              oo
                                                                                              OJCM
                                                                                         S  S §  5
                        »- •*  T- CO O>


                        CO 1^  CM    1^
                COCOCOI--OCOCOO'-CMC»'-r^O)COt^CMCO'    T-
                                                                                              oo
                                                                                              wco
                                                                                    n
                                                                                    o
                                                                                                      "I
                                                                                                      to
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                      "I

                                                                                                                1
                           f
                           «
                         **
                                                                    w
                              co


                              I
                  m
                  oj •"
                  S S

                  o  B
                  U. CY>
                        §§
           E
         s? co
        ffl x
         &s
         OJ ^

        I ^
        cc o

                                                                     II
                                                                     CQ  CQ
                                                                     03  o
                                                                     is  :•=

                                                 -                .--





                                                                            -

                                                                                       CO «  ~| -^  .0

                                                                                       S3 rt  O  CD  X
                                                                                       £ B- a.  3  CD
                                              oo
                                O
                                             oooooooooooo
                               — .   — — —  T— CMCO*TlOCOl^CQO>OT-CM
                               OOOOi—i— ••— T-I--T--I-V--F-T-OOCMCM
                               O C3  O O O  O OOC3OOOOO C3  O O
                                                           8 °
                                                           SS
                                                                              CM CM  CM
                                                                              CD O  O
        o o  o  ^

                 o
                                                                         CM CO CO
                                                                         C5 O O
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                                                        38

-------
Nuirieni Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Tabl* 2.6
Itomber 1992
S
(0
I
























I
&
c
o

"£
E
o
O
•g
.C
O
1
-s
0
1
"c
o
1
•c
c
UJ
*c.
o
•=• -
i
£
•5

c
o
1
•riexico Comi
n .
0
O


CO
0)


CD
0)
CO
c
1
D

o

co
3
4^
CO
UJ
>»
•d
CO
o
to
_o
•^jU
c
^M
CD
cn
CO

°™j
o
CO
5
"c
.2
V.
"3
•Z





f*x.
CO
O)
1r"
CO
o


^
co
I
£Z
"~"
CO
 e
/ y -s
3 *
l/^ u3 "8
Z 0
o
CM

o





o





o


o




o
CJ





o





o














a-
Florida B
o
§

Nitrogen Discharges in
OOOOOOC3OOCDOOOO
comcocDocoifiv.o5cO«— r^-i— ^«
w oir-oiOi-CMinco^j

oooooooooooooo
C3 r*- CO ^ O) C33
co in i-^ oj_ oj i-_
u^ oT i—" ^i"
"*"



oooooooooooooo





§0000000000000
o>*-coi-coocn cocjincoco
^ CO CJ CM O
i-" T- i-1 CM" co"


oooooooooooooo
*~ '"'"'" -.-OJ-r-COCDCicoCM
T- -


oooooooooooooo
in cu cn co 01 m o> CM tn




oooooooooooooo
in co co


•

oooooooooooooo
CO CO T— CO CM T— C35




CO /n
•0 T>
S 5
J2 ^o

? ~° co"
« « ^ m
i§ E ig^ci11-"^

!~ H co'^S'i,'^111 — CD-SDD >» ^
ccmXcD*'
£.§>,§«CQ<2«:|2fo™tS
tr1-




O
CM"










•a
c

t
1
o
O

. Tons,
o o o
CO" i-

°i°
o>"
S



o o o





go o
CM "


0 g 2

CM


o o o
*~ c3 co




o o o
CM CO
CM"



o o o
CO





CO
T3
c
3
o
CO
w
3
— c5

III1
in
o o o
O CD O

§


o





o





0


o




§





o





0
CO





to
^
CO
GO
a>
15
j3

1
1
o
8

Circa 1987
SS||S|||§||
co" co" r^" oT cb" co" |*»T T-CO"I-
i- • i- CM T-

§0000000000
CO r^ CO O O) O3 r^
co-r-r»c\ji-mi- co
CO i- i- CO Tf ^f t^




OOOOOC3OOOOO





foooooooooo
COincOCO-fl-CMCMTrt^CO
-•*. "- "i "i
•r- in o


o o o o o o o o o o o
co^SSIoS^S^Sco
to w *- ey


ooooooooooo
O)t

CD
S £ £
~ >» "g "g
£ S* co 2 2

f 3 1 » s « ! !*! i !

ooooooooooo
ooSoooooSSS


0
cn
CO

°l
co"
§



g





CT


o
g
§


o
CO

CM"



o
co^
CM*
-r-


O
r~^
CM












CD
£
O
o
•x
CD
'o
ci

•^
CO
1
CD
1

§
8
§
c:
;§

P
«
1




O
u>
•g
(D
J
C
O
§
1

5
1
CO
•Q
i

a.
§
OJ
c
CD
0
3
§
g
g

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                           Chapter 2
Tabl« 2.7
Phosphorus Discharges in Tons, Circa 1987
   fe
   I


CO
2

^5,
CD
en
CO
c

CO
1_
Q
CD
.£
CO
3
W
UJ
>,
o
tr\
CO
O
to
~

JE

o
O)
CO
JC
o
CO
o
c
.2
"H
"3
z

'V
1»
_K
— s?
S

i
-1
. (
v
I/




Js^
00
0
ca

1^
O""™"
to
0
c

co
o
E?
CO
x:
o
CO
b
CO
ZJ
o

Q.
CO
o
a.









*£}
rSP*




\
y
?


1
E
CO
2
to


§
^
1

"S ffi
3 c
tn a
£cn


TJ
ca
•.=
§


c

•s



Q>
E
^
~

CO
a.
|


^





i

in
ooooo

o o o o o



ooooo




ooooo




ooooo





0 ° ° ° g





ooooo
in




ooooo




l-g
£ c
S co
.<2 VI
•D -a
ca S
Florida Bay
South Ten Thous
North Ten Thousi
Rookery Bay
Charlotte Harbor
° ° CO ° §
§ § O 0 CS
a|ggS|S|Sg§8.||§||||l§S8|8|
^-
0000000000g020000|g|0|0000



oooooooooooooooooooooooooo




ooooooooooooooooooooooooog




000000000000000000000005=00





OC5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC3OOOOSS
'5'55'ir-tO'*— %)-COTj-'TCOeQ OlJO1»--'l*'COOJ''~v3T''~'CVPJvv*O





ogoooooooogoggoggggooooooo
& T? C\f
•r-


gg°2§SS§S|S0§|8|8||§|2§|§S
TT"



CO CO W

a CD co
5 7; c 0 a.

m 133 JiH S"*10
^J.tltL^JIIiiii.t.iLlli
5 £ 1 1 11 1 * f sld 1« I fi 5 1 -1 1 1 -s § f§
l|iiiliiSsiHSll8Il|fl!lil
lllll-Ssrllli^Ss^lslSciiclls^!
§°§§82SCT°SS°§S82SOT§SSS§§o^
§§§C3C}OCDOOC3OOC5OC3CDC5OOOOCDC5OC5
1
CO
o
in



o




g
OJ




S
03




o
s





o
o
f~
^~


TO
-"









of Mexico Total
«
c

i
i
i

i
i
5
i
s
o
<0

i
i
j
3
3
03




5
to*

5
o
5
5

D
D
1
C
cd
jfl
CD
V)
£
i"
s
"6
c
CD
CD
^
>
?
CD
M



C
0
: All values rounded 1
o
o

 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                     4O

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Guif of Mexico
Chapter 2
Reversal of Eutrophication

This section provides three examples (Bayou Texar, Florida; Tampa Bay, Florida;
and Houston Ship Channel, Texas) of the results of reversing eutrophication.  These
three studies document the obvious possibilities for recovery following a reduction ,
in nutrient loading.  When the causes of eutrophication are reversed, the symptoms
may be reversed; but recovery varies with the cycling rate of various stored
nutrients, and the flushing rate of the water body.  Seagrasses, at least those that are
inhibited by reduced light penetration that often accompanies eutrophication, may
eventually recover over time.

Bayou Texar, Florida.  The eutrophication of Bayou Texar, near Pensacola, Florida,
was studied to determine the causes of and remedies for extensive fish kills (up to
five weeks) and recreational closures. Dinoflagellate blooms (primarily Ceratium
sp. and Gymnodinium  sp.), chrysophytes (primarily from genera               ,
Chrysochromulina and Chromulina), diatoms (Navicula and Cyclotella), and high
algal biomass all contributed to low dissolved oxygen levels (Moshiri et aL, 1981).  In
1974, a retention reservoir and weirs in the upstream channels were built, and
sewage treatment plants were repaired.  The authors reported an almost total
elimination of fish kills, a 90 percent reduction in phytoplankton primary
production, and virtual elimination of algal blooms. However, fish kills in recent
years (1988-1990) indicate that the problem has not completely disappeared.

Tampa Bay, Florida. In Hillsborough Bay, near Tampa Bay, Florida, results of water
quality restoration have also been documented (Johansson and Lewis, 1992). Tampa
Bay was determined  to be highly eutrophic during the late 1960s. The City of
Tampa's primary  sewage treatment plant and runoff from fertilizer industry
activities were considered as the major sources of excessive  nutrient loading
(Johansson and Lewis, 1992).  A principal concern was the loss of submerged
macrophytes (Halodule wrightif),  presumably because of increased turbidity
following eutrophication.  Other concerns included anoxia and high coliform
counts.  Following improved sewage treatment (between 1979 and 1980), the
nitrogen loading to Hillsborough Bay was reduced by 30 percent. It was not until
four years later that the ambient  chlorophyll a concentration decreased substantially,
which was coincident with the decline in a nuisance planktonic blue-green algae,
Schizothrix calcicola  sensu Drouet.

A major increase in seagrasses, which had been reduced to 20 percent of the areal
coverage of 100 years ago, occurred in 1984; followed by a doubling in areal coverage
(Hillsborough Bay and  Middle Tampa Bay) from 1986 to 1989. Seagrasses in most
shallow areas, however, have not yet recovered, and high concentrations of
chlorophyll a persist. Major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are fertilizer plants'
and storage facilities, as well as leakage at loading terminals.                       >

Houston Ship Channel, Texas.,  The Houston Ship Channel  (HSC) is located in
Harris  County within the San Jacinto River Basin on the southeast Texas coast.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         41

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Water quality in HSC is influenced by a variety of point and nonpoint sources.
Approximately 400 industrial and municipal facilities discharge into HSC and its
tidal tributaries. The system is impacted by urban runoff from the cities of Houston,
Pasadena, Deer Park, and others located on HSC and its tributaries. Other potentially
important nonpoint pollutant pathways include ground water and atmospheric
deposition.  Long-term impacts result from the nearly constant ship traffic, periodic
dredging, as well as episodic discharges and spills.

While water quality in HSC was believed to be improving, water quality trends until
recently had not been adequately verified and documented. In 1991, USEPA-Region 6
conducted a preliminary study to evaluate and document water quality trends in HSC
during the last 10-20 years (Crocker et al, 1992). Mean concentrations of dissolved
oxygen (DO) were lowest at the turning basin, and increased progressively moving
downstream.  Significant increasing trends in DO concentrations were apparent at the
turning basin, Greens Bayou, and San Jacinto Monument.  The trend for DO further
downstream at Channel Marker 120 and Morgans Point is decreasing. The reason for
this is not known, although it is possible  that point source biochemical oxygen
demand  (BOD) loading in this segment may be increasing. Another possible reason is
that there may be a decrease in higher DO concentrations resulting from
supersaturation caused by phytoplankton blooms.

Significant downward trends in total organic carbon (TOC) were found, and the rate
of reduction was similar at each sampling station. Average concentrations of
ammonia-nitrogen are the greatest at the  turning basin and decrease progressively
downstream.  As with TOC, significant declines in ammonium are occurring at each
station.  These findings appear to reflect the dramatic reductions in loading  resulting
from increased sewage treatment efficiency  demonstrated during 1984-1991.  As with
ammonia-nitrogen, average concentrations of nitrate were greatest in the turning
basin and decreased downstream, although differences by each station were much
less extreme.  Of great interest was the finding of significant increasing trends at
every station with the rate of increase proportional to the average concentrations
(i.e., highest at turning basin, lowest  at Morgans Point). The results suggest that
municipal treatment plants are increasing efficiency with regard to discharges of
ammonia-nitrogen, but the form of nitrogen is shifting to nitrate.

Average concentrations of nitrite were lowest at the turning basin and Morgans
Point and about the same at the other three stations.  In general, levels appear to be
increasing although this was most significant at the Greens Bayou location.  The
weaker increases observed for nitrite may be due to effective oxidation to nitrate in
treatment plants or in the receiving  waters.

As with nitrogen compounds, average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations were
highest in the turning basin and decreased downstream. A bimodal trend was
found with significant decreases over time at the three upstream stations, although
no apparent trend was found at channel marker 120, and an upward trend was
found at Morgans Point. Increases may be due to point source inputs.  Again, for
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            42

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
total phosphorus, the averages were highest upstream at the turning basin and
decreased downstream.  Significant decreasing trends were found for all sites.

The fish community serves as an overall indicator of ecological health of the
system. Sampling in the late 1950s found the  portion of HSC above the tidal San
Jacinto River to be virtually devoid of aquatic  life. By the mid-1970s, diversity and
utilization of segment 1006 (San Jacinto River and Greens Bayou) had improved,
with segment 1007 (Greens Bayou to turning basin) remaining unsuitable habitat A
1991 study (Seiler et al.,  1991) documented further improvement and diversification
of the fish community during 1988-1989. There was extensive use of the upper
portions of HSC as habitat for juvenile fishes and invertebrates.  Segment  1006
maintained a diverse, viable fish population throughout the year. During winter
months richness and abundance in segment 1007 equaled or exceeded that of 1006.
During periods of low dissolved oxygen, segment 1007 continued to sustain a viable
shoreline assemblage of organisms.  The study confirms a  trend of improvement in
abundance and diversity over time, which is most likely reflective of water quality
conditions resulting from  more stringent regulatory control of point source
discharges.  Overall, available data strongly indicate that all three HSC segments
studies are supporting an aquatic life use.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         43

-------
 NutrSont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                 Chapter 2
Summary of Status & Trends In Indicators of Nutrient
Enrichment

Each of 58 estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico was placed within a category describing its
condition (Rabalais, 1992).  Categories were determined based on identifiable effects
of nutrient enrichment, as well as the less obvious, indirect effects.  Based on the
literature and data available, classifications of each estuary by indicators of nutrient
enrichment were treated as uniformly as possible.  A summary of the status of each
estuary is given in Table 2.8 and Figure 2.6 (Rabalais, 1992), with codes defined as
follows:
                   Yes
               There is a problem in estuarine condition due to nutrient
               enrichment.
                   Potential       There is a potential problem, no real data, but some
                                  indicators that the estuary, or a subunit of the estuary, may
                                  be on the brink of water quality problems.
      N
No
There is not a problem.
                   Insufficient
                   Data
               There are insufficient data to make a determination,
               but limited data may support a tentative conclusion of Yes,
               No, or Potential.
There are notable instances of "?"s, indicating lack of sufficient data to draw
conclusions across many Gulf of Mexico estuaries. The "Yes" and "Potential"
categories, however, are not short lists, and no state is excluded. Areas with known
or potential problems related to nutrient enrichment should be addressed. The
number of estuaries without problems (or unknown, but unsuspected), outweigh
those with problems, or potential problems.  These estuaries are still of concern
because land use and water management practices may change and other human-
induced changes or factors may impinge on these water bodies (e.g., altered
freshwater inflow, dredging, chemical pollution).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             44

-------
Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.8     Compilation of Status Matrix Indicators of Nutrient
              Enrichment

*
3
C-"
"TO
•n
g

~P
a
£
<>•



CO

?-*
a
jO
C'*



73

c
S
o
a.



C/3

































IWhitewaterBay
[Chatham Bay




2r
cd
CQ

jS
0
2
•a
c
3
O
CO
'E.
c
.23

V!
s

oi

«1
QJ
J=
O

1

"as
u
[Charlotte Harbor

CQ
00
s
CO
,3
M
CQ
CQ
1
1
3
O
CJ
•o
i



2
CQ

.^
ca
CQ
_og
3
a
ca
o
1



.
d

i
:£
3
co
SarasotaBay

I Fior. inner Shelf (SW)
[East Miss. Sound


CO
in
o
c
c
J8
£-
s
I— '












CQ

TO
•1
o
Q
CO
m
2.

to
3
u
ra
CQ
en
"3
o
co






















CQ

1

73
O
•a
c:
g
CO
CJ
op
6
CO

[withlacoocheeR.
§






















CO
CQ

"2
1
a
S
ca
CQ
VI
1
OO

f Waccasassa Bay
[LakeBorgne
























CO
CQ
c
^2
CQ
Ichoctawhatchee Bay

lAucillaRiver
| CaillouBay



















1
75

co
c3
c
c
si
K
i—
[ Pensacola Bay

lochlockonee Bay
| Vermilion Bay




























|PerdidoBay

lApalachicolaBay
| Mermentau




























CQ
m
•o
Flor. Inner Shelf (Panhai
|LakeCalcasieu




























Lake Pontchartrain

Alabama Inner Shelf
IsabineLake




























Louisiana Inner Shelf

[Mississippi Inner Shelf
I Brazos River




























(Mississippi River

| Atchafalaya R./Bay
IE. MatagordaBay




























>-
TO
CQ
1
CQ

Texas Inner Shelf, part
Colorado River




























1 Upper Laguna Madre


San Antonio Bay




























1 Lower Laguna Madrc |


Aransas Bay































Corpus Christi Bay































Rio Grande Tidal





























 (Source: Rabalais, 1992)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         45

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Figure 2.6    Gulf of Mexico Estuaries & Coastal Areas With
               Symbols Indicating Status of Nutrient Enrichment
Note: As listed in Table 2.8, Status Matrix, and explained In text. In this ease, category of
"PROBLEM?" Closed Triangle (A) = Yes; Closed CIrele (•) = Potential.

(Source: Rabalals, 1992}
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         46

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Alabama

The estuarine systems of Alabama are dominated by the Mobile River delta and
Mobile Bay. Other significant water bodies include Mississippi Sound and Perdido
Bay. The Mobile Bay system, which supports significant natural resources, is
experiencing intensive growth and development of coastal areas and water quality  •:
stress (Horn, 1990).  Population growth is evidenced by an upsurge of
condominiums in Baldwin County. Waterborne transportation may increase with
the completion of the Tennessee-tombigbee Waterway with Mobile Bay as its
southern terminus.  Exploitation of mineral resources, particularly natural gas, will
increase. There are 106 industrial, 15 sewage, and 29 semi-private/small service
sources of wastewater discharging into the Bay.  Nonpoint source contributions
include agriculture, forestry, construction, and urban runoff.

Fish kills and closures of oyster shellfishing grounds, obvious indicators of poor
water quality, have been historically prevalent in coastal Alabama (Crance, 1971).
However, environmental regulations implemented during recent years that are
increasingly protective of aquatic resources have assisted in the reduction of major
fish kill occurrences. In 1990, there were 18 fish kill events in Alabama's coastal
waters, six events in 1991, and four in 1992. The largest fish kill to occur in Alabama
was attributed to domestic waste, which depleted oxygen in the receiving water
body.                        •                                       •

Progressive  dilution of high nutrients in the Mobile River delta is evident with
movement down the axis of Mobile Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. Although  observed
nutrient concentrations for Mobile Bay suggest that the system should have a
relatively low susceptibility to nutrient  enrichment, chlorophyll a concentrations
(an indicator of phytoplankton biomass) are high in winter, and recurring hypoxic
conditions are seen during summer.  Stratification in Mobile Bay, on the other
hand, is important in the low oxygen  concentrations (Turner and Boesch,  1987).

Although discharges are increasing and population is growing, water quality
measurements over the last two years indicate that water quality standards in
Mobile and Baldwin Counties have been met 86.7 percent of the time (Horn, 1990).
Several management plans exist or are in preliminary stages for Mobile  Bay and
surrounding areas:  1) the South  Baldwin County Environmental Impact  Statement
project with USEPA to develop and assess various  wastewater management
alternatives for coastal Baldwin County;  2) water quality modeling for Oyster and
Wolf Bays; 3) the establishment of.the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, which is managed by the state in a cooperative effort with NOAA; and
4) extensive water quality studies of Perdido Bay involving the States of Alabama
and Florida, USEPA, NOAA, and Champion International.

Degradation of water quality conditions in Perdido  Bay (bordering Alabama and
Florida) has been documented in several ways, and this estuary has been assessed as
having a problem regarding nutrient enrichment (see Table 2.8 and Figure 2.6).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         47

-------
 Nutrlont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                Chapter 2
Florida

The length 1,239 km (770 statute miles) and biological diversity of the Florida Gulf
Coast exceed those of any other Gulf State (McNulty et al, 1972).  The climate varies
from subtropical to temperate. Tidal swamps and marshes fringe the coast and
submerged vegetation covers the seabed of most shallow-water bottoms. The
mangrove swamps of the southern and central coasts are gradually replaced by tidal
marshes north of Cedar Key (see Figure 2.7) (McNulty et al, 1972).
Figure 2.7
Major Coastal Types of the West Coast of Florida
               und b««eh«» •
               Uw Jun«f •« Cull;
                  m«r«h.t an
               .« .!n«l-n
-------
 Nutrient Enrichment In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapters
There are many activities that impact Florida's estuaries (Estevez et al., 1984).  The
Port of Tampa is the seventh largest port in the U.S. and largest on Florida's west
coast. The impacts of maritime transportation and industry include dredge and fill
activities, retention structure failure, long-term overall effects of increased turbidity,
resuspension of contaminants, and filling of inter tidal areas.  Declines in fisheries
have been attributed to pollution, overfishing, and habitat loss. Other habitat
alterations result from dredging activities for fill material, either sand or oyster
shell, and thermal effluents from power generating facilities. Western Florida has
been and will continue to be the most rapidly growing area in the Gulf; its
population is expected to increase  by more than 1.5 million over the next two
decades (Cuilliton et al, 1990).

Several estuarine areas of Florida receive major flows of pollutants.  Industrial
pollution from wood processing and phosphate processing plants are prevalent
along the western panhandle and southwest Florida coasts, respectively. Activities
related to phosphate extraction are expected to increase in Manatee and Sarasota
counties  and may begin near Charlotte Harbor (Estevez et al., 1984).  A 1972
(McNulty et al.,  1972) study outlined high levels of domestic pollution in Tampa
Bay, eutrophication, increased primary production and algal growth, decreased
species richness of mollusks, and evidence of eutrophication in Boca Ciega Bay.
While water quality has recently improved in  the Tampa Bay area in response to
advanced waste water treatment, control and management of the contributing
nitrogen  sources is still imperative in order to restore damaged  seagrass  habitats
(Johansson and Lewis, 1992). The  Fenholloway River carries  heavy loads of paper
mill wastes to the Gulf at Apalachee Bay.  The St. Marks River is subject to domestic
sewage pollution and occasional oil spills. Industrial pollutants have altered the
water quality and biota of St. Joseph Bay.  Fish kills and other evidence of pollution
have been documented in Pensacola and Escambia Bays, and upper Escambia Bay
may still experience periods of hypoxia.  Heavy pollution has been documented in
the northern part of Perdido Bay (McNulty et al., 1972). Several of the Florida
embayments  have recorded fish, kills attributed to low oxygen levels,
eutrophication,  or nutrients.

Several Florida estuarine areas were classified  as having water quality problems/or
potential problems, with respect to nutrient enrichment (see Table 2.8 and Figure
2.6). These are the Caloosahatchee River, Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa
Bay, Suwanee River, Deadmans Bay, St. George Sound, St. Andrews Bay,
Choctawhatchee Bay, and Pensacola Bay.  These estuaries receive the effluents of
many of  the human-based activities in the drainage areas as described above; as well
as many other landscape alterations resulting from human activities.  Several
estuaries are experiencing rapid, population growth.  Where water quality
management has reduced wasteload allocations, noticeable improvement has been
seen in water quality in portions of the most eutrophied estuaries (i.e., Tampa Bay
and Pensacola Bay).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Louisiana.

Louisiana estuaries are experiencing some impacts from nutrient enrichment and
eutrophication. Indicators of these impacts include: 1) the Louisiana Departments
of Wildlife and Fisheries and Environmental Quality frequently receive reports of
estuarine fish kills that they ascribe to low oxygen conditions/ which are likely the
result of high algal production; 2) chlorophyll a concentrations in several coastal
water bodies frequently exceed 50 |ig/L, which is high (Turner, personal
communication); and 3) the dissolved silica:nitrate-nitrogen atomic ratio fluctuates
between 2 and 0.5 in many estuaries, indicating potential chemical control of diatom
abundance (Turner, personal communication).  Major sources of this nutrient
enrichment and eutrophication are fertilizer use, urban runoff, and industrial and
wastewater treatment plant discharges, which have risen dramatically since the
1940s.

Although an in-depth analysis of the long-term trends in water quality of the
Mississippi River has been completed (Turner and Rabalais, 1991a) and shows
significant increases in concentrations of nitrate and loadings of nitrogen and
phosphorus, other data for Louisiana remain unanalyzed.  The water quality in
southern Barataria Bay and Terrebonne Bay may be affected by changes in
Mississippi River water quality because of its relatively large freshwater inflow and
evidence that salinity in Barataria Bay is inversely related to river discharge
(Wiseman and Swenson, 1987; Wiseman et at., 1990).  However, it is believed that
most of Louisiana's estuaries receive significant nutrients from agricultural and
urban runoff; this data for Louisiana remain unanalyzed. There is also sewage
discharge from numerous small camps and towns.

Four Louisiana estuarine systems have been assessed with estuarine condition
problems resulting from nutrient enrichment.  These are Lake Pontchartrain,
Barataria  Bay, the Mississippi River, and the Louisiana inner continental shelf.
Over the past 60 years, human population in the Pontchartrain drainage area has
risen dramatically.  Many indicators of eutrophication, such as increased
phosphorus concentrations, increased turbidity, reduced coverage of submerged
aquatic vegetation, and oxygen depletion in bottom waters, are documented for the
area; however, many human activities not related to nutrient additions may
contribute to these observed conditions. Within Barataria Bay there is a gradient
along its  axis of nutrient concentration, phytoplankton production, chlorophyll
biomass, and turbidity; the upper end is classified as eutrophic (Witzig and Day,
1983; Madden et al, 1988).  While turbidity primarily limits phytoplankton
production in the Mississippi River  proper, the consequences of nutrient
concentration increases and concomitant effects may also have significant effects on
the adjacent continental shelf where extensive areas of severe oxygen depletion
occur during most years in the summer.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          50

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Mississippi

Mississippi Sound dominates the estuarine system of the state; this complex
includes the small bays, marshes, bayous, and rivers along the northern shore.
Mississippi Sound is an elongated, shallow [3 m (9.8 ft)] water body which is
separated from the open Gulf of Mexico by a series of barrier islands (Eleuterius,
1976).  Narrow peninsulas and shallow shell reefs connecting Dauphin Island to the
Alabama mainland separate the Sound from Mobile Bay on the east.  Freshwater
enters the Sound on this eastern end from Mobile Bay.  It is estimated (Austin, 1954;
cited in Eleuterius, 1976) that one-fifth of the discharge from Mobile Bay is diverted
into Mississippi Sound mainly via Grants Pass. On  the western end, the Sound
receives inputs from Lake Borgrie and the Pearl River, indirectly from Lake
Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River, and even more infrequently, when the
Bonnet Carre spillway  is opened. Several other major sources of freshwater enter
the Sound directly: the Pearl River on the western end with a flow of 327.9
m3/second (11,580 ft3/second), and the Pascagoula River with an average flow of
378.6 m3/second (13,369 ft3/second).  The Biloxi and Tchoutacabouffa Rivers [flows
of 14 m3/second and 12.4 m3/second (494 and 437 ft3/second), respectively] reach the
Sound via Biloxi Bay.  The Jourdan and Wolf Rivers empty into St. Louis Bay with
average flows of 43.5 m3 /second and 20 m3 /second (1,535 and 706 ft3 /second),
respectively.  Tidal bayous contribute lesser amounts of freshwater.  Connection
through passes and over shoal areas along the barrier island chain permit the
intrusion of higher salinity Gulf of Mexico waters.

Three navigation channels traverse Mississippi Sound.  The ports at Pascagoula and
Gulfport have deep water access with authorized depths of 13 and 11 m (36.1 and
42.6 ft) respectively. The third, Biloxi Channel, used primarily by barge, commercial
fishing vessels, and pleasure craft, has an authorized depth of 4 m (13.1 ft). A fourth
channel, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, spans the east-west axis of the Sound at an
authorized  depth of 4 m which is exceeded in most parts of the Sound by the natural
bathymetry.

The greatest abundance of industrial development has occurred in the Pascagoula
River, Escatawpa River, and  Bayou Casotte (Lytle and Lytle,  1990).  Biloxi Bay has a
moderate degree of industrialization and St. Louis Bay and Heron Bay have little
industrial development. Extensive work by Lytle and Lytle (1985,1990 and
references therein) has documented the distribution of organic pollutants.
Sediment sampling was conducted over a three year period.  Total organic carbon
(TOC) values were greatest in the Pascagoula River with Biloxi Bay having
considerably lower TOC values, and TOC in St. Louis Bay occurred at levels only
slightly higher than the Sound and Gulf samples (see Table 2.9) (Lytle and Lytle,
1990).  Using TOC as a gross indicator of pollution/the strongest evidence of
pollution exists for discrete sample sites along the Pascagoula River, with  some sites
in Biloxi Bay also showing unusually high TOC.  Ranges of TKN were less dramatic,
although there were generally higher values in the bays and rivers compared to the
Sound and Gulf, with isolated highs near municipal sewage discharges.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient E-nriehment Action Agenda (3.2)
         51

-------
 Nutrlont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                Chapter 2
Table 2.9
Pollutant Variables in Mississippi Sound Surface
Sediments
Location

Pascagoula River
(26 samples)
Biloxi Bay
(19 samples)
St. Louis Bay
(4 samples)
Mississippi Sound
(15 samples)
Gulf of Mexico
(1 sample)
TOC

4.05 ±3.98
0.145-14.0
1.76 ±0.832
0.315-3.67
1.45 ±0.777
0.328-2.08
0.869 ±0.420
0.096-1.36
1.09
TKN
(moo"1)
1.43 ± 1.21
n.d.-4.24
0.88 ±0.616
0.07-2.59
1.19 ±0.200
0.97-1.39
0.568 ±0.505
0.0045 - 1.55
0.73
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total organic carbon. Reported values are mean ±
one standard deviation/minimum-maximum values, n.d. is not detected and
entered as 0.0 in mean calculations.
(Source:  Lytlc and Lytle, 199O)
Although data concerning nutrient concentrations and loadings are sparse for
Mississippi estuarine areas, based on the Mississippi Department of Natural
Resources 1988 Water Quality Report, Biloxi Bay was listed as an area with a
problem concerning nutrient enrichment and Pascagoula Bay with a potential
problem.  In these areas, degraded water quality was identified by high fecal coliform
counts, depressed oxygen concentrations, elevated levels of ammonia, nitrogen and
orthphosphorus, high hydrocarbon concentrations and TOC in sediments, and
depressed benthic faunal communities.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                           52

-------
 NuMent Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Texas

Similar to Florida, the coastline of Texas is diverse, crosses several latitudes, covers a
gradient of estuarine types, and is influenced primarily by rainfall and freshwater
inflow differences.  With the exception of the Sabine and Galveston estuaries, the
remaining Texas estuaries fall into a semi-arid habitat classification with rainfall
averages of less than 61 cm/year (24 inches/year).  Freshwater inflow into Texas
estuaries is, therefore, disproportionate with dramatic decreases southward. Much
of the rainfall along the Texas coast is aperiodic and extremely variable between
years.  Prolonged trends of moist periods and droughts last 10-25 years. Many
streams and rivers in Texas are partially controlled by dams and reservoirs.

Texas is the second most rapidly growing state on the Gulf Coast (western Florida,
first); its coastal population is expected to increase by over 1.1 million  persons
during the next two decades (Cuilliton et a/., 1990).  Parts of the Texas coast are
heavily urbanized and industrialized. These  centers of point source discharges are
located in Sabine Lake, Galveston Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay. Three Texas
estuaries (Galveston Bay, Matagorda Bay, and Lower Laguna Madre) receive the
greatest applications of fertilizer to agricultural lands among Gulf of Mexico
estuarine drainage areas (USDOC, 1990b).

A synthesis of nutrient loadings into each of  the major Texas estuaries was
developed by, Armstrong (1982) (cited in Armstrong, 1987)  (see Table 2.10). The
relative proportions of nutrients are influenced by several factors, including the
amount of freshwater inflow and the receiving volume.  The Sabine estuary
receives the highest areal loading, because of its large freshwater inflows. There is a
general decrease in areal loading  rates with direction southward to the Laguna
Madre. Nutrients derived from freshwater inflow dominate the nutrient budgets of
all estuaries; marsh contributions and precipitation are minimal.  Armstrong (1987)
also provided a  synthesis of the information concerning phytoplankton
assemblages, primary production and zooplankton and nekton population estimates
across  the major Texas estuaries.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department collects surface water samples with  its
monthly gill net and bag seine samples throughout Texas estuaries during spring
and fall collection periods.  For all the Texas Bay systems sampled between 1975 and
1986, the surface oxygen levels were within the range expected, and there were no
obvious trends for an increase in  these values (Hegen, 1983;  Rice et al., 1988).
Turbidity readings taken at the same time indicate that concentrations of suspended
materials  are controlled by meteorological events.  Recent trends in increased
turbidity within  the Laguna Madre system, however, may be related to changes in
land use on its periphery (i.e., increased pastureland being converted to cropland).
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         53

-------
 Nutriont Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                              Chapter 2
Estuaries with problems, or potential problems, related to nutrient enrichment are
the Laguna Madre system, Galveston Bay, Matagorda Bay, Baffin Bay, and upper
reaches of the Texas inner continental shelf within the influence of the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River effluent (see Table 2.8 and Figure 2.0). Studies in the Laguna
Madre system indicate that one possible symptom of the nutrient enrichment
problem may be brown tides.
Table 2.10
Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus Loading Budgets for
Texas Estuaries
Freshwater
Nutrient
Carbon






Nitrogen






Phosphorus






inflows
Estuary (10'kg/yr)
Sabine Lake
Galveston Bay
Matagorda Bay
San Antonio Bay
Copano-Aransas Bays
Corpus .Christi Bay
Laguna Madre
Sabine Lake
Galveston Bay
Matagorda Bay
San Antonio Bay
Copano-Aransas Bays
Corpus Christi Bay
Laguna Madre
Sabine Lake
Galveston Bay
Matagorda Bay
San Antonio Bay
Copano-Aransas Bays
Corpus Christi Bay
Laguna Madre
115.70
103.44
75.75
17.95
5.98
8.21
6.00
9.32
11.58
3.58
5.80
0.44
0.55
0.61
0.74
3.63
1.31
1.00
0.07
0.22
0.72
Marshes
Tidal
(10*kg/yr)
2.50
4.02
5.35
0.88

9.11

0.02
0.12
0.05
0.01

0.02

0.50
0.09
0.11
0.02

0.18

Flood
(10'kg/yr)
1.44
0.14
0.14
0.30

0.42

0.36
0.04
0.04
0.08
f
0.01

0.41
0.04
0.04
0.09

0.12

Precipi-
tation
(10'kg/yr)







0.04
0.34
0.51
0.14
0.11
0.11

0.01
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01

Total
(lO'kg/yr)
119.64
107.60
81.62
19.13
5.98
17.74
6.00
9.75
12.08
4.33
6.02
0.55
0.68
0.61
1.21
3.81
1.54
1.12
0.08
0.53
0.72
Areal
loading
(g/n2/yr)
672.20
75.20
80.50
34.10
12.90
39.90
2.90
54.80
8.40
4.30
10.70
2.00
1.52
.28
6.82
2.66
1.52
2.00
0.18
1.20
0.34
 (Source: Armstrong, 1987)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                        54

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
                                                                   Chapter 2
Conclusion

The bays and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico are parts of a very productive sea.  High
productivity in any ecosystem requires the presence of nutrients in adequate
amounts.  Nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicate are the primary nutrients which limit
productivity in coastal systems.  Phosphorus tends to be the nutrient most limiting
in fresh water systems, but nitrogen is commonly the most limiting in marine
systems. The importance of silica and the relative proportions of the various
nutrients are becoming increasingly obvious.  Estuarine systems, where fresh and
salt water mix, often show complex nutrient responses  with seasonal changes  and
along salinity gradients.

Some areas of the Gulf of Mexico are receiving more nutrients  than can be
assimilated without adverse effects on the marine organisms in the system.
Nutrient enrichment leads to eutrophication symptoms including low oxygen
levels, high chlorophyll levels, and changes in community structure.  Nutrient
enrichment may result from: increased anthropogenic  quantities or changes in
seasonal loading rates from both point and nonpoint sources and changes in
hydrology.

Nutrient enrichment within the Gulf which is associated with "on land" activities
is almost sure to increase if no action is taken. The coastal regions of the Gulf of
Mexico have experienced rapid population growth in recent years along with its
associated burdens. The following is a list of potential results:
Q
a
a
      Oxygen depletion episodes could intensify in duration and severity and the
      affected area or areas could become enlarged. Desirable living marine
      resources would then become less productive in bays, estuaries, and
      near shore waters.
                                                              s

      Economic impacts of reduced fisheries could cost thousands of jobs within the
      Gulf region.. Jobs related to commercial fisheries would be the most heavily
      impacted, as well as jobs associated with recreational fishing and tourism.

      Aesthetic qualities of Gulf waters could be adversely impacted by excessive
      algal blooms.  Coastal residents, sightseers, swimmers, and recreational
      boaters would be discouraged by these excessive algae blooms.

      Decreased light penetration in shallow water areas, which will almost
      certainly become worse if nutrient loadings increase, could  result in further
      loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. This vegetation is an important factor
      in the habitat  requirements of many marine organisms.

      "Red tides"  associated with anthropogenic nutrient enrichment could affect
      public health and the area's economy.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            55

-------
 Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Nutrient enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico is caused by the practices of rural and
urban residents far from the Gulf Coast, as well as those living near the coast. Plans
to protect the Gulf must examine ways of influencing these practices.  The particular
nutrient which is the limiting factor in the Gulf ecosystem must be determined,
however the determination of "limiting" nutrients in estuaries and other
ecologically open coastal systems is still problematical. In addition, priority
geographic areas must be determined.  The contributions from the regions whose
waterways flow to the Gulf vary widely, both by season and by nutrient, though
there is not much consistency in these variations (Lovejoy, 1992).  The proportion of
nutrients coming from point sources and nonpoint sources also varies,  though
nonpoint sources appear to be the larger factor in those regions that provide the
majority of the nutrients in most seasons (Lovejoy, 1992).

The viewpoint that eutrophication is a  local and perhaps point source problem,
manageable on a regional scale, is changing to an appreciation that eutrophication is
the cumulative result of many small actions throughout  the world, and whose scale
of management is vastly expanded and more expensive (Turner and Rabalais,
1991a). Protection of the Gulf ecosystem requires a consideration of the full range of
activities throughout the entire drainage area of river systems flowing into the Gulf
of Mexico.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         56

-------
Federal & State Framework
Chapter 3
3    FEDERAL & STATE FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING
      NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
Many federal agencies are mandated by legislative statutes to address eutrophication.
These agencies include:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Transportation.  Each of the five
Gulf of Mexico states also has a regulatory framework for addressing nutrient
enrichment.  (For a description, see Appendix A.)
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
        57

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
       THE UNFINISHED AGENDA--
            Both Current Commitments & Uncommitted Activities
Goal

This Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda for the Gulf of Mexico sets forth an initial
framework for conserving, protecting, and restoring Gulf waters that will minimize
nutrient enrichment, thereby allowing the use and enjoyment of its resources.  The
Gulf of Mexico Program has established the following long-term goal for addressing
nutrient  enrichment:

      Q     Protect the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from the deleterious effects of
            nutrient enrichment, from all contributing sources,  and thereby
            enhance biodiversity, and aesthetic, recreational, and economic
            benefits.

This Action Agenda focuses on protecting the tidal, estuarine, and nearshore waters
of the Gulf of Mexico. Freshwater transport from landward sources is addressed as a
contributing source.
Action Agenda Framework

This chapter of the Action Agenda provides objectives, action items, and specific
project descriptions for addressing the nutrient enrichment problem in the Gulf of
Mexico and for meeting the long-term goal as stated above. Objectives and action
items are clustered under three types of activity: 1) Characterization and
Demonstration, 2) Source Reduction, and 3) Public Education and Outreach (see
Index of Objectives & Action Items). The fifty-one action items represent the
Committee's best judgment today, based on existing data and information, as to
what must be done initially to tackle the nutrient enrichment problem in the Gulf
of Mexico.  As current action items are completed and future generations of this
document are developed, it is anticipated that more geographically targeted actions
will emerge. Also, since major sources of both nitrogen and phosphorus may
originate far upstream in the Gulf watershed, the continuation and expansion of
policies and activities directed toward decreasing nutrient runoff from upstream
regions could have the biggest impact on the reduction of nutrient enrichment in
the Gulf.

The Gulf of Mexico  Program will maintain an overview of National Estuary
Program activities which address nutrient enrichment in the Gulf and will provide
coordination among related Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committees to ensure
the compatibility of objectives and approaches with the Nutrient Enrichment
Action Agenda.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            58

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
                         Chapter 4
Lead. The Nutrient Enrichment Committee has identified a lead agency for each
project-the agency with the most authority or jurisdiction over the particular issue.
A proposed project may involve the execution of legislative or regulatory
authorities or programmatic initiatives which derive from these authorities.  In
other cases, a proposed project may involve the facilitation or coordination of
activities among several agencies or organizations.  In these cases, and where there
is no clear legislative authority involved, the "lead" could be the agency or
organization who expresses an interest in taking on the task during Gulf of Mexico
Program Committee deliberations, the action planning workshop or public
comment period, or, in the Issue Committee's judgment, is best able to guide
multiple parties in carrying out the activity.  This does not necessarily mean that the
agency has agreed to carry out the  activity or that the agency has the necessary
funding.  The Nutrient  Enrichment Committee  understands these action  items will
require  commitments  by agencies and  organizations  that are dependent on  budget
decisions.  However, the Committee members hope this document provides the
rationale and support for such commitments and that future iterations of this
document will include additional specific commitments.

Initiation Date. The date indicated represents a determination by the Committee of
the most realistic initiation date for the project. As lead agencies begin
implementation planning for specific projects, these initiation dates may change
due to resource availability and prioritization within the individual agencies.

Underway or Completed Action  Items/Projects. Some of the action item projects
may already be underway or even completed.  In these cases, short status reports are
provided and completion dates are provided if known.  These projects are
designated with the following icons:
                   Underway
Completed
Some projects are cross referenced to other action items and projects and are
designated with a "->" sign in the left hand column.  This signals a close
relationship among those action items and projects and a need for coordination.

The Gulf of Mexico Program recognizes the need to identify indicators of
environmental progress relative to this Action Agenda for nutrient enrichment.
Many of the action items and projects specified in Chapter 4 of this document will
aid the Program in developing a baseline for measuring success in the future.  For
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
T/io Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
the time being, however, acceptance and completion of action items and projects
specified in this Action Agenda will be considered a measure of success.  As future
iterations of this document are written, and current projects are completed, new
action items and projects will be developed to better measure environmental
progress.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             60

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chanter 4
          Index of Nutrient Enrichment Objectives & Action Items
                          Characterization & Demonstration

Objective:  Identify programs engaged in managing or regulating nutrient inputs and the ongoing and planned
research related to nutrient enrichment for the watersheds draining into the Gulf of Mexico to support effective
integration with Gulf initiatives.

        Action Item 1: Develop an inventory report and data base on institutions engaged in managing or
        regulating nutrient enrichment activities in watersheds draining into the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item 2: Develop an inventory report and data base on nutrient related research, evaluation,
        and monitoring programs that are relevant to the Gulf of Mexico.

Objective:  Identify the location and quantities of nutrient loadings to Gulf of Mexico watersheds and evaluate
the relative contribution of nutrients to the Gulf among these sources to support future targeting of control
strategies and the measurement of success.

        Action Item 3: Identify the primary land based sources and quantities of nutrients entering the Gulf
        of Mexico and its bays and estuaries from within the U.S. to establish a baseline for future monitoring.

        Action Item 4: Assess the relative importance of atmospheric deposition to nutrient enrichment
        within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.

        Action Item 6: Assess the relative significance of industrial and sanitary point source loadings of
        nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.

        Action Item 6:  Identify the various contributors to urban storm water runoff within the coastal zones
        of the five Gulf of Mexico states and quantify the relative contributions of nutrients from each source.

        Action Item 7:  Identify the various contributors to nonurban runoff within the coastal zones of the
        five Gulf of Mexico states and quantify the relative contributions of nutrients from each source.

        Action Item 8:  Produce an inventory of septic systems within the coastal zones of the five Gulf of
        Mexico states.


Objective:  Identify the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichment on the bays,  estuaries, and resources of the
Gulf of Mexico to support the future geographic targeting of control strategies.

        Action Item 9: Produce a summary report on the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichment in the 58
        estuaries of the Gulf, based on existing literature and data bases.

        Action Item 10:  Expand and refine the assessment of nutrient enrichment impacts and effects in the
        Gulf of Mexico using the NOAA Estuarine Eutrophication Survey.

        Action Item 11:  Conduct field studies in the Gulf of Mexico on the effects of nutrient enrichment
        within wetlands on parasite/host relationships.

Objective:  Identify and determine the relationships of sources of nutrients to resource impacts within the Gulf
of Mexico to support optimum Gulfwide control strategies.

        Action Item 12:  Identify, quantify, and attempt to reduce human activity-related sources of nutrients
        which contribute to declines of seagrass and wetlands habitats in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item 13:  Quantify the  impact of human activity-related nutrient loadings to coastal ocean
        productivity near the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.

        Action Item 14: Develop pilot watershed characterization reports in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item 15: Assess the need for a standardized information and synthesis capability for Gulf of
        Mexico nutrient data.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
            61

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
 Index of Nutrient Enrichment Objectives & Action Items (continued)
                 Characterization & Demonstration (centinuedll

Objective: Develop demonstration projects on potential Gulfwide priority nonpoint and point sources that
have a high probability of success within a reasonable time and have the potential for transferability Gulfwide.

       Action Item 16:  Demonstrate the use of chlorophyll meters for determining the need for and
       amount of nitrogen fertilizer in Gulf of Mexico agricultural operations.
       Action Item 17:  Evaluate the effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico agricultural irrigation management
       practices on nutrient loadings using water quality monitoring information from subsurface drains.

       Action Item 18:  Evaluate the economic feasibility of transporting animal waste for use as fertilizer.

       Action Item 19: Evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of constructed wetland systems, and
       individual plant species, as a means of removing nutrients, organics, and oxygen-demanding materials
       from dairy and swine operations in  the Gulf of Mexico region.

       Action Item 2O:  Assess the feasibility of reformulating feeds to reduce the nutrient content of
       manures.
       Action Item 21:  Evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands in removing nutrients from
       aquaculture operations in the Gulf of Mexico region.
       Action Item 22:  Evaluate the effects of increased volumes of water within aquaculture production
       ponds for reducing nutrient runoff to the Gulf of Mexico.
       Action Item 23: Evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands for residential wastewater
       treatment in the Gulf of Mexico region.
       Action Item 24: Evaluate the effectiveness of sewage treatment alternatives for reducing
       eutrophication in unsewered areas within the Gulf of Mexico region.

       Action Item 2S: Collect and disseminate information on the use of wastewater treatment plant
       discharges for residential purposes in the Gulf of Mexico region.

       Action Item 26:  Evaluate the use of degraded wetlands for cleansing septic tank pumpdown water in
        the Gulf of Mexico region.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                                                62

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
 Index of Nutrient Enrichment Objectives & Action Item* (continued)
                              Source Reduction Strategies

Objective:  Evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient control technologies for the most significant industrial and
municipal point source categories in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item  27: Identify the range of point source control technologies and pollution prevention
        approaches for  nutrient reduction in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item  28: Conduct cost effectiveness analyses of point source control technologies for nutrient
        reduction in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item  29: Promote technology transfer of effective point source control technologies
        throughout the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.

Objective:  Implement appropriate Gulfwide or targeted control strategies to reduce significant nutrient
loadings from point and nonpoint sources.

        Action Item 30: Provide technical assistance  for effective nutrient management on farms and
        ranches throughout the U.S. portion of the drainage area of the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item  31: Determine the need for NPDES reporting requirements for nutrients in specific Gulf
        of Mexico watersheds.                                                                 .

        Action Item  32: Develop and implement a Gulfwide strategy to support a national ban on
        phosphorus laundry detergents for general use.

        Action Item  33: Accelerate the development of nutrient criteria for waters of the Gulf of Mexico to
        support the development of state water quality standards.

        Action Item  34: Assess, and develop control strategies as appropriate, for reducing the movement of
        organic materials to Gulf of Mexico waters.

        Action Item  35: Determine the impacts of nutrients in the New Orleans canal system on Lake
        Pontchartrain and develop an appropriate control strategy.

        Action Item  36: Assess the nutrient contribution and impacts of coastal mariculture operations in
        the Gulf of Mexico.

        Action Item  37: Assess and document the magnitude of the health and environmental problems
        associated  with the use of septic tanks throughout the Gulf of Mexico region and the costs of conversion
        to public sewer systems.

        Action Item  38: Develop and promote appropriate alternative systems for Gulf of Mexico coastal
        septic systems.

        Action Item  39: Provide information and recommendations to urban areas throughout the Gulf of
        Mexico on successful approaches to urban runoff controls.

        Action Item  40: Analyze the effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico State silviculture programs in controlling
        nutrient runoff.

        Action Item  41: Develop a Gulfwide strategy to effectively transfer successful nutrient
        demonstration  project techniques and approaches.

        Action Item  42: Develop a nonpoint source nutrient reduction strategy for Week's Bay, Alabama.

Objective:  Develop alliances with other organizations and associations to address appropriate control
strategies for Mississippi River contributions to the Gulf of Mexico nutrient problem.

        Action Item  43: Establish an interbasin commission of organizations that address health and welfare
	issues associated with the Mississippi River  and Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.    	•
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda C3.2)
            63

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
 Index of Nutrient Enrichment Objectives & Action Item* (continued)
                            Public Education & Outreach

Objective:  Develop a Gulfwide comprehensive public information and education program to promote
involvement in nutrient reduction actions, through appropriate use of products and environmentally sound
lifestyles.
       Action Item 44: Encourage the efficient and proper use of fertilizers among homeowners and
       businesses in the Gulf of Mexico through an educational outreach initiative.

       Action Item 45: Promote the appropriate use of septic systems in the Gulf of Mexico through an
       educational outreach initiative to potential users and inspectors.

       Action Item 46: Develop a Gulfwide outreach initiative to inform citizens about the impacts of
       phosphorus laundry detergents on Gulf of Mexico resources.

       Action Item 47: Develop a Gulfwide outreach program to improve wastewater treatment plant
       inspections.
       Action Item 48: Develop a Gulfwide education program on the proper handling of residential
       nutrient sources.
       Action Item 49: Initiate cooperative information exchange programs with other groups on nutrient
       reduction  approaches.

       Action Item SO: Develop a Gulfwide outreach program on the use of constructed wetlands for
       wastewater treatment.

       Action Item 51: Develop a Mississippi River outreach program designed to increase awareness of
       nutrients, water quality, and the health of the Gulf of Mexico, as well as relationships between the Gulf
       and the Mississippi River.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Characterization  & Demonstration
Information on nutrient sources and relative loadings provides the raw material for
generating improvement actions. The Nutrient Enrichment Committee has
completed initial work on nutrient loadings to watersheds within the Gulf of
Mexico region.  However, more work is needed on the relationships of sources of
nutrients to cumulative loadings and impacts.  Research is also needed to determine
causes of oxygen depletion and other environmental and biological responses to
nutrient enrichment by geographic area to support site specific control measures.
Proposed Action Item 14 supports a pilot effort at this scale.  Other demonstration
projects are proposed as effective tools in pilot testing appropriate approaches to
point and nonpoint source nutrient management.

Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Identify programs engaged in managing or regulating nutrient inputs
and the ongoing and planned research related to nutrient enrichment for the
watersheds draining into the Gulf of Mexico to support effective integration with
Gulf initiatives.

   Action Item 1:  Develop an inventory report and data base on institutions
   engaged in managing or regulating nutrient enrichment activities in watersheds
   draining into the Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description: Develop a comprehensive
      inventory, and accompanying data base, of all institutions,
      including governmental, private, and non-profit, that
      manage or regulate nutrient enrichment activities in the
      watersheds that drain into the Gulf of Mexico.  The data
      base will include information on statutory and regulatory
      roles and responsibilities, specific projects that are
      underway and time frames, and opportunities for
      coordination with the Gulf of Mexico Program.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee.
      Initiation Date:  1995
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          65

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 2: Develop an inventory report and data base on nutrient related
   research, evaluation, and monitoring programs that are relevant to the Gulf of
   Mexico.
      Project Description: Develop a comprehensive
      inventory, and accompanying data base, on ongoing and
      planned research, evaluation, and monitoring programs,
      such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
      Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
      (EMAP), that are relevant to Gulf of Mexico Program
      nutrient-related activities and decisions. The data base
      should be compatible with the data base produced under
      Action Item 1 and should include information on
      research/monitoring parameters, objectives and
      anticipated products, time frames, key contacts, etc.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      -»•    1
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          66

-------
 The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter A
Objective:  Identify the location and quantities of nutrient loadings to Gulf of
Mexico watersheds and evaluate the relative contribution of nutrients to the Gulf
among these sources to support future targeting of control strategies and the
measurement of success.

   Action Item 3: Identify the primary land based sources and quantities of
   nutrients entering the Gulf of Mexico and its bays and estuaries from within the
   U.S. to establish a baseline for future monitoring.
      Project Description A: Phase 1 - Develop a report which
      provides an initial assessment of nutrient loadings to the
      Gulf by watershed.
      Lead: Soil Conservation Service.
      Initiation Date: 1989    Completion Date:  1992
      Status: Report-with one year's data was completed by
      Purdue University and is being reviewed.	
      I Project Description B: Phase 2 - Develop a report which
      links major tributaries in the Gulf of Mexico drainage area
      iwith significant loadings of nutrients in the Mississippi
      River system.
      Lead:  U.S. Geological Survey.
      Initiation Date: 1993    Completion Date:  1994
      Status: An interagency agreement has been negotiated
      with U.S.  Geological Survey for a summarization of
      nutrient data in the Mississippi River for two years—one a
      high flow year (October 1990-September 1991) and the
      other a low flow year (October 1987-September 1988).	
      Project Description C:  Phase 3 - Develop a report that
      characterizes the primary land based sources of nutrients
      throughout the U.S. portion of the drainage area of the
      Gulf of Mexico, estimates the quantities of nutrients
      discharged from these sources, and  examines the relative
      contributions of nutrient discharges among sources. This
      report will synthesize into a comprehensive report the
      information developed under Action Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
      and 9.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1994    Completion Date: 1996
      -*     *> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         67

-------
Th& Unfinished Agenda
                                                                 Chapter 4
   Action Item 4: Assess the relative importance of atmospheric deposition to
   nutrient enrichment within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
       rojoct Description: Evaluate and select an appropriate
      methodology for assessing the contribution of
      atmospheric deposition to nutrient enrichment in the
      Gulf, using an Environmental Defense Fund (EOF)
      Chesapeake Bay model and the National Oceanic &
      Atmospheric Administration's Atmospheric Nutrient
      Input to Coastal Areas (ANICA) model. Apply the EOF
      methodology to Galveston Bay, TX, Tampa Bay, FL, and
      the Upper Mississippi Drainage Basin above the
      confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Conduct
      the assessment for the Gulf and produce a report which
      documents the findings and provides an assessment of
      the relative contribution of atmospheric deposition,
      compared to other sources, of nutrient enrichment within
      the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
      Lead:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
      Initiation Date: 1993
      Status: In 1988, EDF estimated the varibus sources of
      nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay, including atmospheric
      deposition (both nitrate and ammonia). The U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing and
      evaluating this methodology  and implementing
      procedures to  reproduce  their results using commonly
      available data  sources for the Gulf of Mexico (e.g.
      USEPA/state waste discharges, emission inventories, soils
      and meteorologic data bases).
      NOAA, under its ANICA study is also developing
      methods for assessing the importance of atmospheric
      input.  In 1991, the ANICA program was initiated with a
      focus on the Chesapeake  Bay watershed.  ANICA will
      develop methods for assessing the importance of
      atmospheric input and provide direct experimental
      quantification of areal deposition rates of atmospheric
      nutrients with the objective of introducing this
      information into models.
      :-»     3C                                    		
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                           68

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item «: Assess the relative significance of industrial and sanitary point
   source loadings of nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
      Project Description: Identify specific categories of
      industrial and sanitary point sources which contribute
      nutrient loadings to the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin
      within priority watersheds, as identified by the report in
      Action Item 9.  Using information developed in Action
      Items 6 and 7, which characterize nonpoint source
      discharges, determine whether these point source
      loadings are significant, compared to nonpoint source
      contributions.  If significant, report on the type (e.g.
      nitrogen, phosphorus) of nutrients found in each category
      and identify appropriate continuing information needs,
      such as NPDES permit information requirements.
      Lead:  National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
      Initiation Date: 1996
      -»    3, G, 7, 9, 31
   Action Item 6: Identify the various contributors to urban storm water runoff
   within the coastal zones of the five Gulf of Mexico states and quantify the
   relative contributions of nutrients from each source.
      Project Description: Synthesize information from the
      five  Gulf States on the contributors to urban storm water
      runoff (industrial sites, golf courses, residential lawns,
      etc.)  and quantify the relative contribution of nutrients
      from each source on both a Gulfwide and priority
      watershed basis, as identified by Action Item 9.
      Lead:  Cooperative Extension Service and state water
      quality agencies, in coordination with state nonpoint
      source programs.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      -»    3, 5, 9, 44
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         69

-------
TH& Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item  7: Identify the various contributors to nonurban runoff within the
   coastal zones of the five Gulf of Mexico states and quantify the relative
   contributions of nutrients from each source.
      Project Description: Synthesize information from the
      five Gulf States on the contributors to nonurban runoff
      and quantify the relative contribution of nutrients from
      each source on both a Gulfwide and priority watershed
      basis, as identified by Action Item 9.
      Lead: Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation
      Service, U.S. Forest Service, and state water quality
      agencies, in coordination with state nonpoint source
      programs.
      Initiation Date:  1995
      i-»    3, 5, 9	       	
   Action Item 8: Produce an inventory of septic systems within the coastal zones
   of the five Gulf of Mexico states.
      Project Description: Produce a comprehensive inventory
      and data base of septic systems within the coastal zones of
      the five Gulf States. Septic systems are a suspected
      significant contributor to nonpoint source loadings of
      nutrients to the Gulf.  The data base should include
      information on state regulations concerning septic
      systems and ongoing inspection and maintenance
      programs within the five Gulf States.
      Lead: State health departments and nonpoint source
      programs, in conjunction with Gulf of Mexico Program--
      Nutrient Enrichment and Public Health Committees.
      Initiation Date:  1994
      -»    3C, 24, 38, 45
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          70

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Identify the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichment on the bays,
estuaries, and resources of the Gulf of Mexico to support the future geographic
targeting of control strategies.

   Action  Item 9:  Produce a summary report on the impacts and effects of nutrient
   enrichment in the 58 estuaries of the Gulf, based on existing literature and data
   bases.
      Project Description: Produce a summary report on the
      known and potential impacts and effects of nutrient
      enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico, including its bays and
      estuaries.  The summary report should be based on
      existing literature and data bases and should concentrate
      on nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon, organic carbon and
      oxygen demanding parameters as well as an evaluation of
      dissolved oxygen.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1991     Completion Date: 1992
      Status: Report is complete (see Rabalais, 1992) and
      synthesis information is presented in Chapter 2 of this
      document.
      -*     3C, 5, 10
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         71

-------
T/io Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 1O:  Expand and refine the assessment of nutrient enrichment
   impacts and effects in the Gulf of Mexico using the NOAA Estuarine
   Eutrophication Survey.
      Project Description: Use the results of the National
      Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Estuarine
      Eutrophication Survey to expand and refine the
      assessment of nutrient enrichment impacts and effects in
      the Gulf of Mexico undertaken in Action Item 9. NOAA's
      Survey will be administered to over 200 carefully selected
      local and regional experts nationwide to assess the current
      and historic conditions of algae, nutrient, and dissolved
      oxygen concentrations and the ecosystem response to
      nutrient inputs.  Thirty-one  estuaries in the Gulf of
      Mexico region will be evaluated. Once compiled and
      analyzed, the results of the survey can be used to
      characterize existing conditions, refine the ability to
      predict and anticipate future problems, and provide an
      information base to guide future research and
      monitoring.
      Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
      Initiation Date:  1993    Completion Date: 1994
      Status: The survey is currently being distributed to local
      and regional experts.
   Action Item 11:  Conduct field studies in the Gulf of Mexico on the effects of
   nutrient enrichment within wetlands on parasite/host relationships.
      Project Description: Conduct field studies in Florida on
      the effects of nutrient enrichment on parasite/host
      relationships.  The studies will include both created and
      natural wetlands and will also document the infection
      rate in wading bird populations.  (NOTE: Crosswalk to
      Habitat Degradation Action Agenda.)
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Habitat Degradation
      Committee  and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in
      ! conjunction with University of Florida, Florida Game and
      iFreshwater  Fish Commission  and Southwest Florida
      i Water Management District.
      I Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             72

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Identify and determine the relationships of sources of nutrients to
resource impacts within the Gulf of Mexico to support optimum Gulfwide control
strategies.

   Action Item 12: Identify, quantify, and attempt to reduce human activity-related
   sources of nutrients which contribute to declines of seagrass and wetlands
   habitats in the Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description: Identify and quantify man-related
      sources of nutrients which contribute to declines of
      seagrass and wetlands habitats within the five Gulf States.
      Investigations should include industrial and municipal
      effluents and nonpoint source discharges. Work will be
      coordinated with activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program
      Habitat Degradation Committee to determine relative
      contributions from all sources, such as dredge and fill
      activities and habitat conversions. (NOTE:  Crosswalk to
      Habitat Degradation  Action Agenda.)
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with Habitat Degradation
      Committee, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
      Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish
      and Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Gulf
      States.
       Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         73

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 13: Quantify the impact of human activity-related nutrient
   loadings to coastal ocean productivity near the Mississippi and Atchafalaya
   Rivers.
      Project Description:  Quantify the impact of human
      activity-related nutrient loadings to coastal ocean
      productivity near the  Mississippi and Atchafalaya River
      outflows.  Develop a model to predict the effects of
      changes in nutrient loads on productivity and the
      likelihood of hypoxic/anoxic events as a function of
      physical, chemical, biological, and geologicaf parameters.
      Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration-
      Coastal Ocean Program Office.
      Initiation Date: 1990     Completion Date:  1994
      Status: The Nutrient-Enhanced Coastal Ocean
      Productivity (NECOP) study is a collaborative effort by the
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      (NOAA) and academic scientists.  NOAA initiated NECOP
      in 1989 as the first multidiciplinary field effort of the
      Coastal Ocean Program. NECOP is now in its fourth year
      of research on five components: 1) Retrospective
      Analysis, 2) Productivity of the Shelf/Plume System, 3)
      Hypoxia Research, 4)  Research Modeling, and 5) Carbon
      Flux.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          74

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 14: Develop pilot watershed characterization reports in the Gulf of
   Mexico.
      Project Description: Based on information generated
      from Action Items 9 and 10 and other related Gulf of
      Mexico Committee products, several Gulf of Mexico
      watersheds will be selected for the development of a
      comprehensive watershed characterization report.  These
      pilot characterizations will compile and integrate
      information to 1) identify nutrient sources and quantify
      nutrient loadings, 2)  examine the environmental and
      ecological impacts of increasing or decreasing nutrient
      inputs, 3) identify the limiting nutrient(s), and 4) predict
      the economic and social ramifications of changing
      nutrient inputs. The feasibility and utility of applying this
      approach Gulfwide will be assessed, including the cost of
      compiling/developing the information and its reliability
      for decision-making.  As part of each pilot report, the
      information compiled and any conclusions derived will
      be presented in a format to support effective decision-
      making at the state and local levels. NOTE:  As pilots are
      selected,  individual project descriptions will  be developed.
      I Lead: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration,
      in conjunction with U.S. Environmental Protection
      I Agency.
      i Initiation Date: 1995
      !-»     3,9,10
   Action Item 15:  Assess the need for a standardized information and synthesis
   capability for Gulf of Mexico nutrient data.
      Project Description: Assess the need for.a standardized
      information and synthesis capability for Gulf of Mexico
      nutrient data, such as a geographical information system.
      Produce a report with recommendations including the
      appropriate implementation characteristics of a system:
      study area, scale, data content, type of computer system,
      and need for integration with other Gulf of Mexico
      Program issue areas, etc.
      Lead: National Oceanic- & Atmospheric Administration,
      in conjunction with U.S. Environmental  Protection
      Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          75

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop demonstration projects on potential Gulfwide priority
nonpoint and point sources that have a high probability of success within a
reasonable time and have the potential for transferability Gulfwide.

   Action  Item 16: Demonstrate the use of chlorophyll meters for determining the
   need for and amount of nitrogen fertilizer  in Gulf of Mexico agricultural
   operations.
      Project Description:  Provide funding to purchase
      chlorophyll meters and train selected agricultural
      professionals on their use.  Chlorophyll meters provide
      one way by which scientific determinations can be made
      as to when and how much nitrogen fertilization is
      needed. The project will initially focus on rice production
      in selected Texas counties.  The intent is to expand the
      demonstration to other crop types (corn, cotton, wheat,
      and sorghum) and to  other states within the Gulf drainage
      basin.
      Lead:  Cooperative Extension Service, in coordination
      with Soil Conservation Service, local Soil & Water
      Conservation Districts, state nonpoint source programs,
      and experiment stations.
      Initiation Date: 1991
      status: Four chlorophyll meters have been purchased
      through the Texas Soil & Water Conservation Board for
      use in rice production in Colorado, Wharton, and
      Matagorda Counties, TX. The meters are located  at the
      local soil and water conservation district offices and used
      by district and Soil Conservation Service personnel to
      provide technical assistance to landowners. The  meters
      have been used consistently by eight landowners and
      periodically by four others. The estimated reduction in
      the application of nitrogen as a result of meter use is
      approximately 15 percent. In addition to the four meters,
      six rice producers have purchased their own individual
      meters and one county agent has purchased a meter for
      use in his job. No problems have been encountered with
      use or maintenance.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          76

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 17: Evaluate the effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico agricultural
   irrigation management practices on nutrient loadings using water quality
   monitoring information from subsurface drains.
      Project Description: Evaluate the effectiveness of various
      agricultural irrigation management practices on nutrient
      loadings in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas using
      water quality monitoring information from subsurface
      drains.  The evaluation will cover factors such as the
      timing and volume of irrigation waters. As data are
      available, results will be transferred to other states and
      localities throughout the Gulf of Mexico drainage system.
      Lead:  Gulf of  Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in cooperation with Texas State Soil & Water
      Conservation Board, Soil Conservation Service, involved
      Soil & Water Conservation Districts, and other
      appropriate conservation and agricultural agencies in
      Texas.
      Initiation Date: 1992    Completion Date: 1995
      Status: As of  January 1993,  the instrumentation is in
      place on three hydrologically isolated fields in the Rio
      Grande Valley. One of the  fields will be used for the
      production of cotton; one will be used for grain sorghum;
      land one will be used for vegetable production.  Sampling
      [and analyses we^ initiated ^              1993. 	
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          77

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 18: Evaluate the economic feasibility of transporting animal waste
   for use as fertilizer.
      Project Description:  Evaluate the economic feasibility of
      collecting, processing and transporting animal waste for
      use as fertilizer to locations within the state of Texas. The
      project will include an analysis of potential transport
      distances, suitable soils that could benefit from the waste,
      and quantities that can be economically transported.
      Lead: Soil Conservation Service and Texas A&M
      University.
      Initiation Date:  1989
      Status:  The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in
      cooperation with Texas A&M University, the Erath
      County Soil and Water Conservation District and the
      Leon-Bosque Resource Conservation and Development
      project conducted a study in 1990-1991 to determine the
      economic viability of various animal waste management
      systems, including (but not limited to) the long distance
      transport of sterilized dairy waste.  This approach was not
      economically feasible at the time of the study. SCS
      sponsored studies (in cooperation with Texas A&M
      University)  are continuing to generate economically
      viable options for dairy waste disposal in the State of
      Texas. Emphasis is no longer exclusively on Erath
      County.	
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          78

-------
Tfie Unfinished Agenda
Chapter*
   Action item 19:  Evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of constructed
   wetland systems, and individual plant species, as a means of removing
   nutrients, organics, and oxygen-demandingmaterials from dairy and swine
   operations in the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description A: Evaluate and demonstrate the
      effectiveness of a constructed wetland system in Newton
      County, MS, for removing nutrients, organics, and
      oxygen-demanding materials from dairy lagoons.
      Compare the several plant species to determine which
      remove the greatest proportion of materials. It is
      anticipated that the evaluation will provide valuable
      information which  will be transferable to other similar
      dairy operations across Mississippi, as well as in several
      other states. It is also anticipated that the project will
      solve the on-site water quality problems associated with
      waste water from that particular dairy operation.  The
      evaluation should last approximately four years (through
      1995) to determine  whether the cells become saturated
      with nutrients or organics.
      Lead: Newton County, MS, Soil & Water Conservation
      District, under interagency agreement with U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date:  1990      Completion Date: 1995
      Project Description B: Evaluate and demonstrate the
      effectiveness of a constructed wetland system at two sites
      in northern Alabama to treat effluent from swine lagoons.
      This project will investigate both surface water and
      groundwater impacts and will provide both qualitative
      and quantitative analyses of these impacts.
      Lead:  Soil & Water Conservation District, in coordination
      with Soil Conservation Service, Alabama A&M
      University, Auburn University, and appropriate state
      agencies.
      Initiation Date: 1991    Completion Date: 1996
      Project Description C: Evaluate and demonstrate the
      effectiveness of a constructed wetland system at a site in
      central Georgia to treat outflow from dairy waste holding
      ponds.  This project will investigate surface water impacts.
      Lead:  University of Georgia, in coordination with Soil
      Conservation Service, U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency—Athens Lab, and appropriate state agencies.
      Initiation Date:  1991      Completion Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          73

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
      Project Description b:  Evaluate and demonstrate the
      effectiveness of a constructed wetland system at five sites
      located throughout Kentucky to treat effluent from swine
      waste facilities. This project will investigate surface water
      quality and the impact on reducing land application area
      associated with each waste management system.
      Lead:  Kentucky Department of Environmental Quality,
      in coordination with University of Kentucky, Soil
      Conservation Service, and appropriate state agencies.
      Initiation Date: 1991     Completion Date: 1995	
      Project Description E:  Evaluate and demonstrate the
      effectiveness of the constructed wetlands technology to
      treat effluent from swine and dairy lagoons and waste
      storage ponds.  Use ongoing evaluations of constructed
      wetlands sites in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky
      (see Project Descriptions A, B, C, and D), and one to be
      initiated in North Carolina to determine appropriate
      design criteria for sizing the wetland, loading rates
      (volume and concentration), plant species, and operation
      and maintenance strategies. Data from these various
      evaluations  including management  strategies,  surface and
      groundwater quality, and vegetative health have been
      collected since 1990.  Data resides in various offices of the
      Soil Conservation Service and will be brought together in
      a comprehensive report in the next three years. A
      workshop will be conducted to exchange information.
      Lead: Soil Conservation Service, with cooperating
      federal, state, and local agencies.
      Initiation Date: 1996
      Status: Constructed wetland evaluations are underway
      in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi; with new
      evaluations beginning in Alabama and North Carolina.
      Limited water quality data available for two years on some
      sites show a great deal of unexplained variability, but
      consistent effluent treatment.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             80

-------
Tfio Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item zo: Assess the feasibility of reformulating feeds to reduce the
   nutrient content of manures.
      Project Description: A project is underway in
      cooperation with Alcorn State University to:  1) provide a,
      free animal waste nutrient analysis to dairy producers in
      Pike and Amite counties, MS, to determine the nitrogen
      and phosphorus content of animal wastes being applied
      on their fields,  and 2) create a data base to establish
      reasons for the sometimes substantial differences in the
      nutrient content (especially phosphorus) of dairy
      manures.  It is speculated that this variance is due to the
      wide differences in the type and amount of phosphorus
      added to feeds as a mineral supplement for cows. When
      this data base is complete, it is anticipated that it will be
      used to aid dairy feed producers in determining whether
      feed reformulations can be made to allow for continued
      high milk production while reducing the amount of
      nutrients entering the water. The analysis will  also
      include whether any nutrient reduction might
      significantly affect water quality in the tributaries and in
      the Gulf of Mexico.
      Lead:  Alcorn State University, Mississippi, in cooperation
      with Soil Conservation Service and  Gulf of Mexico
      Program—Nutrient Enrichment Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1992
      Status: Some field samples have been taken and some
      assistance has been given to dairy producers on the
      management of their animal waste.  This phase of the
      project will continue at least through the end of 1993.
      Other projects should address the feasibility of
      reformulating feeds for  catfish, swine, broilers, other
      poultry, and feedlot  cattle to reduce the nutrient content
      of manures.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         81

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
                                                                  Chapter 4
   Action Item 21: Evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands in removing
   nutrients from aquaculture operations in the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description:  Demonstrate, evaluate, and
      document the effectiveness of a constructed wetland in
      removing nutrients from a commercial catfish facility
      near Hattiesburg, MS. Findings are expected to have
      applications throughout the catfish growing area of the
      South. The Gulf of Mexico Program will initiate
      widespread technology transfer efforts.
      Lead: University of Southern Mississippi-Biology
      Department,  Mississippi State Soil & Water Conservation
      Commission, Mississippi Department of Environmental
      Quality, and Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient
      Enrichment  Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1990     Completion Date:  1993
      Status: This project is underway on the Truman Roberts
      catfish production farm near Hattiesburg, MS.  Dr. Gary
      Anderson of the University of Southern Mississippi is
      gathering data  on the effectiveness of various plant
      species at removing nutrients, organic materials, and
      oxygen demanding materials from the water.	
   Action Item 22:  Evaluate the effects of increased volumes of water within
   aquaculture production ponds for reducing nutrient runoff to the Gulf of
   Mexico.
       Project Description: Evaluate the effects oflncreased
       volumes of water within catfish production ponds for
       reducing nutrient runoff.  A project will be selected in
       either Mississippi or Alabama and will include a
       demonstration of an expanded facility with 1.5 feet
       additional water volume above that normally held.
       Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
       Committee, in cooperation with agencies and individuals
       to be identified*
       Initiation Date: 1994
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             82

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chaptor 4
   Action Item 23: Evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands for
   residential wastewater treatment in the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description:  Establish one or more demonstration
      projects of constructed wetlands for the purpose of
      treating wastewater from individual homes in areas
      where conventional septic systems are prone to failure.
      Potential locations include the Grand Lagoon area of
      Florida and a heavy clay soil environment in eastern
      Texas.  An  information exchange workshop will be hosted
      to provide  the data and results to all states within the
      drainage basin.
      Lead: Appropriate health and water quality agencies
      within selected  states, in conjunction with the
      Cooperative Extension Service and Soil Conservation
      Service.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      -»    50
   Action Item 24: Evaluate the effectiveness of sewage treatment alternatives for
   reducing eutrophication in unsewered areas within the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description: Evaluate sewage treatment
      alternatives for reducing eutrophication in Grand Lagoon,
      FL. The results should have application in other bays
      which are unsewered and have actively eroding soils
      nearby.
      Lead:  Florida Bay County Soil & Water Conservation
      District, in conjunction with Gulf of Mexico Program--
      Nutrient Enrichment  Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1994
      -»     8, 38, 45
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient (Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         83

-------
Tho Un finished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 25: Collect and disseminate information on the use of wastewater
   treatment plant discharges for residential purposes in the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description: Collect information from St.
      Petersburg, FL, and other pilot areas on the use of
      wastewater treatment plant discharges for residential
      purposes. This involves the .use of separate water
      distribution systems in towns and cities to allow plant
      discharges to be used by residents to water lawns.
      Distribute the information to state and local agencies
      throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee.
      Initiation Date: 1996
   Action Item 26: Evaluate the use of degraded wetlands for cleansing septic tank
   pumpdown water in the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Project Description: Septic tanks in low lying, high
      rainfall areas tend not to work very well. In southern
      Louisiana, there are numerous communities that rely on
      septic tanks and are surrounded by levees such that all the
      water that leaves the community leaves  via forced
      drainage (pumpdown) systems. One such community is
      in Plaquemines Parish; its pumpdown water enters "Ollie
      Canal" and ultimately flows from there into Barataria Bay.
      This pumpdown water has been shown to be high in
      nutrients and coliform bacteria and Barataria Bay oyster
      beds are being impacted. This project will evaluate the
      use of a degraded wetland which adjoins Ollie Canal as a
      water cleansing system for this pumpdown water. The
      use of the wetland can be made possible by building a
      minimum amount of water control structures.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee and Soil Conservation Service,  Plaquemines
      Parish.
      Initiation Date:  1996
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                           84

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
                             Chapter 4
Source Reduction Strategies
The effective prevention of the harmful effects of nutrient enrichment in Gulf of
Mexico waters will require cooperation from many federal agencies, state and local
governments, and private and public user groups, as well as a long-term
commitment of financial and organizational resources.  Over the longer term, the
Gulf of Mexico Program will assess the vulnerability of Gulf estuaries to nutrient
enrichment and will work to develop  or transfer appropriate management
approaches for tackling problems at the state and local levels.  In some cases, source
reduction policies for the entire Gulf of Mexico drainage basin may be developed
based on the results of the research, characterization , and demonstration projects
within this Action Agenda. Source reduction policies could cover each of the major
sources of nutrient enrichment in the Gulf as identified in Table 2.3:
      Nonpoint Sources
Point Sources
      Agricultural
             Crop Production
             Livestock Production
            Silviculture

      Urban & Suburban

      Atmospheric Deposition
Industrial

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
In the shorter term, the following action items specify projects to:  1) identify the
universe of control strategies that might be appropriate to apply Gulfwide or on a
targeted geographic basis and 2) reduce contributions from known or suspected
significant contributors.

Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                       85

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient control technologies for the most
significant industrial and municipal point source categories in the Gulf of Mexico.

   Action Item 27:  Identify the range of point source control technologies and
   pollution prevention approaches for nutrient reduction in the Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description: Work with Gulf of Mexico industry
      and municipalities (and other local entities) to identify the
      range of control technologies and pollution prevention
      approaches for significant industrial and municipal
      categories. Produce a report which summarizes these
      findings.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction  with U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1994
      -f    28
   Action item 28:  Conduct cost effectiveness analyses of point source control
   technologies for nutrient reduction in the Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description: Select specific point source control
      technologies and approaches from those identified in
      Action Item' 26 for further analysis.  Conduct cost
      effectiveness analyses for these control technologies and
      pollution prevention approaches and produce a report on
      findings and recommendations.
      Lead: U. S Environmental Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      -»    27
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          86

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4.
   Action Item 29: Promote technology transfer of effective point source control
   technologies throughout the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
      Project Description:  Develop a technology transfer
      program to encourage and promote the use of effective
      point source control and pollution prevention
      technologies by municipal and industrial point source
      dischargers throughout the Gulf of Mexico region.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with U.S Environmental
      Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      l-»    47
Objective: Implement appropriate Gulfwide or targeted control strategies to reduce
significant nutrient loadings from point and nonpoint sources.

   Action Item 3O:  Provide technical assistance for effective nutrient management
   on farms and ranches throughout the U.S. portion of the drainage area of the
   Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description:  Farms and ranches will be targeted
      for nutrient reduction actions using the Action Item 9
      report and other Gulf of Mexico Issue Committee
      information.  Technical assistance will include soil testing
      and recommended application rates for all types of crops.
      The product is a conservation plan/agreement between
      the landowner and the local Soil & Water Conservation
      District which incorporates the beneficial and efficient use
      of animal wastes, supplemental sludges, and commercial
      fertilizers, and addresses other requirements under the
      Conservation Reserve Program  and Farm Bill of 1990,
      Swampbuster provisions of the  Food Security Act, and
      conservation compliance.
      Lead:  State conservation agencies, in conjunction with
      local Soil & Water Conservation Districts and Soil
      Conservation Service.            •    .
      Initiation Date:   1994
      ->    9
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         87

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 31: Determine the need for NPDES reporting requirements for
   nutrients in specific Gulf of Mexico watersheds.
      Project Description: Based on information generated by
      Action Item 5, determine the need for National Pollutant
      Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees in
      specific Gulf of Mexico watersheds to report nitrogen and
      phosphorus concentrations or loadings  within their
      regular Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).  Work
      with specific permittees to incorporate these requirements
      in the permit renewal process.
      Lead:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
      conjunction with Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient
      Enrichment Committee and state regulatory agencies.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      -»    5
   Action Item 32: Develop and implement a Gulfwide strategy to support a
   national ban on phosphorus laundry detergents for general use.
      Project Description A: Working with other interested
      organizations and associations, collect and synthesize
      information nationwide on the number and types of
      statewide legislation that currently exist on phosphorus
      detergent limitations and bans, the types of impacts that
      have been documented from the use of such detergents,
      and any "success stories" that have been documented
      resulting from the bans.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program-Citizens Advisory
      Committee.
      Initiation Date:  1995
      -»    46
       Project Description B: Develop an informational package
       targeted to Gulf of Mexico Congressional delegations and
       state legislators on the current status of phosphate
       detergent bans and the potential impacts of too much
       phosphorus in the rivers, bays, and estuaries of the Gulf of
       Mexico. Arrange and conduct appropriate briefings
       throughout the Gulf of Mexico region.
       Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Citizens Advisory
       Committee.
       Initiation Date: 1995
      :-»    46
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                           88

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 33: Accelerate the development of nutrient criteria for waters of the
   Gulf of Mexico to support the development of state water quality standards.
      Project Description: Accelerate the development of a
      nutrient methodology to produce criteria for Gulf of
      Mexico waters at the watershed level. The methodology
      should be designed to be simple and enable local
      authorities to incorporate a limited amount of site specific
      information.  When completed, provide technical
      assistance to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Regions 4 and 6 and the Gulf States to develop appropriate
      limits for discharges.
      Lead:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
      Initiation Date: 1994
   Action Item 34: Assess, and develop control strategies as appropriate, for
   reducing the movement of organic materials to Gulf of Mexico waters.
      Project Description:  Assess, and develop control
      strategies as appropriate, to reduce the movement of
      organic materials to Gulf waters. As organic soils subside
      and erode, large amounts of organic carbon and nutrients
      may move into eutrophic areas of the Gulf, thus further
      enriching these waters.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with Habitat Degradation and
      Coastal & Shoreline Erosion Committees and Soil
      Conservation  Service.
      Initiation Date:  1995
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         89

-------
Th0 Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
  ' Action Item 35: Determine the impacts of nutrients in the New Orleans canal
   system on Lake Pontchartrain and develop an appropriate control strategy.
      Project Description:  Determine the impacts of nutrients
      in the canal water of the City of New Orleans on Lake
      Pontchartrain.  Determine the sources of these nutrients
      (and coliform bacteria) to the canal water of the City of
      New Orleans (and other cities as appropriate). Develop
      appropriate control strategies.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program-Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with Public Health and Toxic
      Substances & Pesticides Committees, Lake Pontchartrain
      Basin Foundation, Louisiana Departments of
      Environmental Quality and  Health & Hospitals, and
      Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson.
      Initiation Date: 1996
   Action Item 36:  Assess the nutrient contribution and impacts of coastal
   mariculture operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
      Project Description: Evaluate nutrient loadings from
      shore-based and open-water mariculture operations along
      the Gulf Coast to determine whether additional action
      should be taken to minimize or control nutrient
      discharges from these operations.
      Lead: State water quality agencies in conjunction with
      U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine
      Fisheries Service.
      Initiation Date: 1996
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             9O

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action item 37: Assess and document the magnitude of the health and
   environmental problems associated with the use of septic tanks throughout1 the
   Gulf of Mexico region and the costs of conversion to public sewer systems.
      Project Description: Septic tanks in low lying, high
      rainfall areas tend not to work very well.  There are
      dozens of small communities  in the coastal areas of the
      Gulf Coast that do not have community sewers. A new
      "constructions grants program" for building and
      modernizing public sewerage treatment facilities may be
      needed in these coastal areas.  This project will assess and
      document the magnitude of the health and
      environmental problems associated with the use of septic
      tanks throughout the Gulf of Mexico region  and the costs
      of conversion to public sewer systems.
      Lead:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state
      water quality agencies.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      .-»    38
   Action Item 38: Develop and promote appropriate alternative systems for Gulf
   of Mexico coastal septic systems.
      Project Description: Conduct a multi-state workshop,
      geared to Gulf State and local agencies, on alternative
      systems for coastal septic systems. Workshop will address
      appropriate and innovative technologies based on soil
      types and hydrologic characteristics, as well as potential
      funding sources.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction with Public Health
      Committee, state nonpoint source programs, and state
      departments of health.
      Initiation Date:  1993
      Status: A workshop was held on August 16-17, 1993, and
      a summary report is currently being prepared.
      -*    8, 24, 38, 45
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          91

-------
TAo Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 39: Provide information and recommendations to urban areas
   throughout the Gulf of Mexico on successful approaches to urban runoff
   controls.
      Project Description: Track and compile information on
      successful state approaches, both within and outside of the
      Gulf of Mexico region, for urban runoff controls, to
      include  ordinances, riparian areas, detention/retention,
      growth (zoning), and wetlands/urban forests.  This project
      will include the following steps: 1) work with the states to
      compile information; 2) organize a forum to determine
      "successful" approaches; and 3) make recommendations
      through states to local urban communities throughout
      the Gulf on successful approaches.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in conjunction  with state nonpoint source
      programs and coastal zone  management programs.
      Initiation Date:  1995
      -»     48
   Action Item 4O: Analyze the effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico State silviculture
   programs in controlling nutrient runoff.
      Project Description: Compile and analyze existing state
      regulatory and non-regulatory programs related to the
      control of forestry nonpoint source pollution, including
      the Best Management Practices (BMPs) currently
      recommended in the five Gulf States and the phases of
      operation that contribute to nutrient enrichment.
      Determine the extent to which compliance with BMPs has
      been documented in the states and the methodologies
      employed in each. The sharing of information on
      program application and effectiveness should help
      strengthen the silvicultural nonpoint program (sediment
      and nutrient reduction) in the Gulf States.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico  Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in cooperation with U.S. Forest Service, state
      forestry organizations,  state nonpoint source programs,
      and Southern Group of State Foresters.
      Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          92

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 41:  Develop a Gulfwide strategy to effectively transfer successful
   nutrient demonstration project techniques and approaches.
      Project Description: Conduct a comprehensive
      evaluation of demonstration project results, Action Items
      16 - 26.  Design and conduct a Gulfwide workshop to
      inform participants of successful and cost effective
      approaches based on these results.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee]
      Initiation Date: 1996
      -+.    16-26
   Action Item 42: Develop a nonpoint source nutrient reduction strategy for
   Week's Bay, Alabama.
      Project Description:  Conduct an agricultural nonpoint
      source control project within the drainage area of Week's
      Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Baldwin
      County, AL, to reduce nutrients, sediments, and pesticides
      entering the Bay from agricultural nonpoint sources
      within the drainage area. Week's  Bay is not especially
      impacted by nutrients from point  sources but the
      watershed is an intensively farmed area and parts of it are
      being converted to rural residences on small acreages
      (mostly 1-5 acres per honxesite) and small subdivisions.
      Some of the soils are well suited to use of conventional
      septic tanks while others are not.  Week's Bay is one of
      two "Outstanding National Resource Waters" identified
      in Alabama.
      Lead:  Baldwin County Soil & Water Conservation
      District, in cooperation with Soil  & Water Conservation
      Service, Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation
      Service, Week's Bay National Estuarine Research
      Reserve, Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, and Alabama Department of Environmental
      Management.
      Initiation Date: 1993     Completion Date: 1995
      Status: A planning meeting was held in Baldwin County
                            finalizing  the project plan.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          93

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop alliances with other organizations and associations to address
appropriate control strategies for Mississippi River contributions to the Gulf of
Mexico nutrient problem.
   Action Item 43:  Establish an interbasin commission of organizations that
   address health and welfare issues associated with the Mississippi River and Gulf
   of Mexico drainage basin.
      Project Description: Establish an interbasin commission
      of existing organizations and associations that are engaged
      in health and welfare issues associated with the
      Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico drainage basin to
      include the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource
      Agreement, Upper Mississippi River Conservation
      Commission, Missouri  River Natural Resources
      Commission, Ohio River Fish Management Team, and
      Lower Mississippi River Conservation Commission.  The
      Commission should review and address appropriate
      control strategies for nutrients, to include riparian
      restoration and wetland preservation, restoration, and
      utilization.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program using expertise within
      appropriate committees.
      Initiation Date: 1994
      -*    49
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          94

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Public Education & Outreach
People living in two-thirds of the U.S. ultimately affect the environmental quality
of the Gulf of Mexico.  Effective management of nutrients will require an ongoing
commitment from an informed citizenry throughout the Gulf drainage basin.
Public outreach nurtures such a commitment.  Public information, education, and
involvement are three components of an effective outreach strategy, which can reap
significant benefits both for the Gulf of Mexico and for citizens utilizing its
resources. More and more, public outreach is recognized as an effective resource
management tool to address problems resulting from individual actions and to
create a sense of stewardship within the community. A committed citizenry
presents both a supplement and an alternative to enforcement programs.

Public outreach can foster recognition of the Gulf as a regional and national
resource; stimulate civic, governmental,  and private sector support for changing
lifestyles; and develop  the financial commitments necessary to preserve the
resource. A strong outreach program showing the effects human activities have on
the health of the Gulf will enable all  individuals, whether living on the coast or
along the upper stretches of the Mississippi, to see themselves as caretakers of a
vital, shared resource.

Public education and outreach is an integral part of the overall Nutrient
Enrichment Action Agenda, designed to support and promote all other action items
contained in the Agenda. All action items will incorporate activities and/or
materials that are geared to specific public audiences who are targeted as being
critical to the success of the actions.

The specific public education and outreach objective, action items, and project
descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         95

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objoctivo: Develop a. Gulfwide comprehensive public information and education
program to promote involvement in nutrient reduction actions, through
appropriate use of products and environmentally sound lifestyles.

   Action Item 44: Encourage the efficient and proper use of fertilizers among
   homeowners and businesses in the Gulf of Mexico through an educational
   outreach initiative.
      Project Description: Develop a Gulfwide public
      information and education initiative to encourage
      efficient/proper use of fertilizers on lawns, golf courses,
      industrial sites, etc. Target homeowners and businesses,
      including professional lawn care companies, for
      information.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Public Education &
      Outreach Operations, in conjunction with Cooperative
      Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, state coastal
      zone management programs, and SeaGrant.
      Initiation Date: 1995
   Action Item 45: Promote the appropriate use of septic systems in the Gulf of
   Mexico through an educational outreach initiative to potential users and
   inspectors.
      Project Description: Develop a public information and
      education effort targeted to users and inspectors of septic
      systems in the Gulf of Mexico.  Information will include
      appropriate installation and pump-out procedures.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Public Education &
      Outreach Operations, in conjunction with state nonpoint
      source programs, state departments of health, and
      SeaGrant programs.
      Initiation Date: 1995
      :-*    8, 24, 38		
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Aetlon Agenda (3.2)

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
   Action Item 46:  Develop a Gulfwide outreach initiative to inform citizens about
   the impacts of phosphorus laundry detergents on Gulf of Mexico resources.
      i Project Description: Develop a public information and
      I education initiative to explain the potential impacts of
      i phosphate detergents on Gulf of Mexico resources.  The
      I objective is to encourage the consuming public
      ! throughout the Gulf of Mexico to buy only those
      detergents which have low or no phosphorus and to
      generate support for a national ban on phosphate laundry
      detergents for general use.  Materials and  activities will be
      geared to a variety of target audiences and coordinated
      with other ongoing efforts nationwide.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Public Education &
      Outreach  Operations, in conjunction with Nutrient
      Enrichment Committee and others to be identified
      (possibly include Auxiliary of the National Association of
      Conservation Districts, Associations  of Garden Clubs,
      Associations of Home Demonstration Clubs, colleges,
      SeaGrant programs, and universities).
      Initiation  Date:  1996
      -»    32A, 32 B
   Action Item 47: Develop a Gulfwide outreach program to improve wastewater
   treatment plant inspections.
      Project Description:  Develop an outreach program,
      including training and materials, targeted to inspectors of
      i wastewater treatment plants.  The objective is to improve
      inspections and ensure that appropriate operations and
      maintenance procedures are followed.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program Public—Education &
      Outreach Operations, in conjunction with U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency and SeaGrant
      programs.
      Initiation Date: 1996
      -»     29
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
         97

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
                                                                 Chapter 4
   Action Item 48:  Develop a. Gulfwide education program on the proper handling
   of residential nutrient sources.
      Project Description: Develop a public information and
      education effort in urban and suburban areas of the Gulf
      to encourage proper disposal methods for garden
      fertilizers and animal waste.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
      Pesticides Committee, in coordination with SeaGrant
      programs.
      Initiation Date: 1996
      -»    39                                		
   Action Item 49: Initiate cooperative information exchange programs with other
   groups on nutrient reduction approaches.
      Project Description: Identify groups and organizations
      throughout the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin, as well as
      other countries, that conduct nutrient reduction
      programs.  Initiate a cooperative information exchange
      network with these groups.
      Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education &
      Outreach Operations, in coordination with Nutrient
      Enrichment Committee and SeaGrant programs.
      Initiation Date: 1994
      -»    43                                 	.
    Action Item SO:  Develop a Gulfwide outreach program on the use of
    constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment.
       Project Description: Develop an outreach and education
       program on the use of constructed wetlands to remove
       nutrients and organics from wastewater treatment plant
       and residential effluents.  The program should highlight
       advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
       Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education &
       Outreach Operations, in coordination with Nutrient
       Enrichment Committee and SeaGrant programs.
       Initiation Date: 1996
       !-»     23                                     .	
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            98

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chanter 4
   Action Item 51: Develop a. Mississippi River outreach program designed to
   increase awareness of nutrients, water quality, and the health of the Gulf of
   Mexico, as well as relationships between the Gulf and the Mississippi River.
      Project Description: Develop an outreach and education
      program designed to increase public awareness about:
      l)the relationship between feeder rivers, the Mississippi
      River, and the health of the Gulf of Mexico; 2) the impact
      of pollutants on the marine environment; 3)  and what
      individuals can do to make a difference.  The Mississippi
      River Project should link groups with a  common interest
      in protecting the nation's water bodies through education
      and coordinated action.
      Lead:  Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee, in coordination with Public Education &
      Outreach Operations, Soil Conservation Service, Soil &
      Water Conservation Districts, U.S. Army Corps of
      Engineers, Mote Marine Laboratory, Clorox Foundation,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological
      Survey, states, and Tennessee Valley Authority.
      Initiation Date:  1993
      Status:  Materials were developed and provided to
      selected schools along  the Mississippi River.  Sessions
      taught by Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel
      addressed the relationships between waterbodies, the
      impact of pollutants on  the marine environment, and
      what actions individuals can take.  On May 12,1993; 1000
      students in 10 states along the Mississippi River
      (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
      Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
      Louisiana) conducted a real water quality test for
      i phosphates and nitrates. SCS personnel conducted a field
      i test, as well.  Samples were sent to Mote Marine
      ! Laboratory for analysis and a report surveying the results
      | will be made available. The U.S. Geological Survey in
      I Colorado participated in the May 12 activities by testing for
      i pesticide residues  in water and will develop a fact sheet.
      | Local television stations in central Florida sponsored a
      I public education initiative and local lakes were tested.
      | Towns in Indiana and Wisconsin conducted testing on
      feeder rivers to the Mississippi River.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
                                                             In Closing
In Closing...
           We intend this document to be a beginning, not an end.
           Our hope is that this Action Agenda will serve as an
           inspiration and a call to action for the millions  who live
           and work in the Gulf of Mexico region. Together, our
           coordinated actions can make a difference in controlling
           and substantially reducing nutrient enrichment and its
           damaging effects and restoring the ecological and
           economic health of the Gulf of Mexico.
                   The Gulf of Mexico Program
                 Nutrient Enrichment Committee
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                       1OO

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Anderson, L. and L. Rydberg. 1988,  "Trends in Nutrient and Oxygen Conditions
      Within the Kattegat:  Effects of Local Nutrient Supply;  Estuarine Coastal
      Shelf Sci.  26(5):559-579.

Armstrong, N.E. 1987.  "The Ecology of Open-Bay Bottoms of Texas: A Community
      Profile."  Biological Report No.  85(7.12).  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
      & Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National  Wetlands Research
      Center.  Washington, DC.

Bault, E.I. 1972. "Hydrology of Alabama Estuarine Areas - Cooperative Gulf of
      Mexico Estuarine Inventory."  Ala. Mar. Resour. Bull  7:1-36.

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais. 1991.  "Effects of Hypoxia on Continental Shelf
      Benthos;  Comparisons Between the New York Bight and the Northern Gulf.
      of Mexico." Pages 27-34 In R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson (eds.), Modern and
      Ancient  Continental Shelf Anoxia.  Geological Society  Special Publication No.
      58. The Geological Society. London.

Boynton, W.R., W.M. Kemp and C.W. Keefe. 1982. "A Comparative Analysis of
      Nutrients and Other Factors Influencing Estuarine Phytoplankton
      Production." Pages 69-90 In V.S.  Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons.
      Academic Press. New York, NY.

Buff, V. and S. Turner.  1987.  "The Gulf Initiative." Coastal  Zone.

Cadee, G.C. 1990a.  "Increase of Phaeocystis Blooms in the Westernmost Inlet of the
      Wadden Sea, the Marsdiep, Since 1973." Pages 105-112 In C. Lancelot, G.
      Billen, and H. Barth (eds.), "Eutrophication and Algal Blooms in North Sea
      Coastal Zones, the Baltic and Adjacent Areas: Prediction and Assessment of
      Preventive Actions."   Water Pollution  Research Report, Vol.  12. CEC,
      Brussels.

Cadee, G.C. 1990b.  "Trends in North Sea Phytoplankton." Lutra 33:187-189.

Cadee, G.C. 1990c. "Increased Bloom." Nature 346(6283):418.

Cambridge, M.L. and A.J. McComb.  1984.  "The Loss of Seagrasses in Cockburn
      Sound, Western Australia.  I.  The Time Course and Magnitude of Seagrass
      Declines in Relation  to Industrial  Development." Aq. Bot. 20(3-4):229-243.

Cambridge, M.L., A.W. Chiffings, C. Britton and L.M., A.J. Moore.  1986. "The Loss
      of Seagrass in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia.  II. Possible Causes of
      Seagrass Decline."  Ac\. Bot. 24(3):269-285.

Cherfas, J. 1990.  "The Fringe of the Ocean-Under Siege From Land." Science
      248(4952): 163-165.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
101

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1990.  Nonpoint Source Program Evaluation Panel.
      December 1990.

Crance, J.H. 1971.  "Description of Alabama Estuarine Areas-Cooperative Gulf of
      Mexico Estuarine Inventory."  Ala. Mar. Resour. Bull. 6:1-85.

Crocker, P.A., P.C. Koska, B.J. Schrodt and D. Evans. 1992. Trends in Selected Water
      Quality Parameters for the Houston Ship Channel.   U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Management Branch &
      Surveillance Branch. Dallas, TX.  September 1992.

Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R.  Goodspeed, D.G. Remer, C.M. Blackwell and J.J.
      McDonough, III. 1990. 50  Years  of Population Change Along the Nation's
      Coasts, 1960-2010. Strategic Assessments Branch, Ocean Assessments
      Division, Office of Oceanography & Marine Assessment, National Ocean
      Service, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.  Silver Spring,
      MD.

Dortch, Q. and T.E. Whitledge. 1992. "Does Nitrogen or Silicon Limit Phytoplankton
      Production in the Mississippi River Plume and Nearby Regions?"
      Continental Shelf Res. 12(11):  1293-1309.

Dudley, J.L.  1992.  Secondary Succession and Nitrogen Availability in Coastal
      Heathlands.  Ph.D.  Dissertation.  Boston University. Boston, MA.

Dunbar, J.B., L.D. Britsch, and E.B. Kemp III.  1992.  Land Loss Rate:  Report 3,
      Louisiana Coastal Plain.  USAGE Technical Report.  GL-90-2. Department of
      the Army-WES-CE.  Vicksburg, MS. 28pp.

Dundas, L, O.M. Johannessen, G. Berge and B.R. Heimdal.  1989.  "Toxic Algal
      Bloom in Scandinavian Waters, May-June 1988."  Oceanography  2(1):9-14.

Eleuterius, C.K. 1976. "Mississippi Sound: Salinity Distribution and Indicated Flow
      Pattern."  Sea Grant  Pub.  No. MASGP-76-023, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
      Consortium, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. Ocean Spring, MS.

Estevez, E.D., J. Miller and J. Morris. 1984.  "Charlotte Harbor Estuarine Ecosystem
      Complex and The Peace  River."  Vol. I. A Review of Scientific Information.
      Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Ft.  Meyers, FL.

Faganeli, J., A. Avcin, N. Fanuko, A. Malej, V. Turk, P. Tusnik, B. Vriser and A.
      Vukovic. 1985. "Bottom Layer Anoxia in the Central Part of the Gulf of
      Trieste in the Late Summer of 1983." Mar Pollut. Bull. 16(2):75-78.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            1O2

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Falkowski, P.G., J. Vidal, T.S. Hopkins, G.T. Rowe, T.E. Whitledge and W.G.
      Harrison.  1983.  "Summer Nutrient Dynamics in the Middle Atlantic Bight:
      Primary Production and Utilization of Phytoplankton Carbon."  /. Plankton
      Res. 5(4):515-537.

Fisher, T.R. and R.D. Doyle.  1987.  "Nutrient Cycling in Chesapeake Bay." Pages 49-
      53.In G.B. Mackiernan (ed.), Dissolved Oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay:  Process
      and Effects. Proceedings of a Seminar on Hypoxic and Related Processes in
      Chesapeake Bay.  Maryland Sea Grant Publication. University of Maryland,
      College Park, MD.

Fransz, H.G. and J.H.G. Verhagen. 1985. "Modelling Research on the Production
      Cycle of Phytoplankton in the Southern Bight of the North Sea in Relation to
      Riverborne Nutrient Loads."  Neth. J. Sea Res. 19(3/4):241-250.

Gaston, G.R. 1985. "Effects of Hypoxia on Macrobenthos of the Inner Shelf off
      Cameron, Louisiana."  Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 20(5):603-613.

Gaston, G.R., P.A. Rutledge and M.L. Walther. 1985.  "The Effects of Hypoxia and
      Brine on Recolonization  by Macrobenthos off Cameron, Louisiana."  Contrib.
      Mar. Sci. 28:79-93.

Govoni, J.J., D.E. Hoss and D.R. Colby.  1989.  "The Spatial Distribution of Larval
      Fishes About the Mississippi River Plume."  Limnol. and Oceanogr.
      34(1):178-187.

Harper, Jr. D.E., L.D. McKinney, J.M. Nance and R.R. Salver. 1991.  "Recovery
      Responses of Two Benthic Assemblages Following an Acute Hypoxic Event
      on the Texas Continental Shelf, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico."  Pages 49-64
      In R.V. Tyson and T.H.  Pearson (eds.), Modern  and Ancient Continental Shelf
      Anoxia. Geological Society Special Publication No.  58.  The Geological
      Society. London.
Harris, G.P.  1986.  Phytoplankton Ecology:
      Chapman and Hall.  New York, NY.
Structure, Function and Fluctuations.
Hegen, H.E.  1983. Monitoring of Coastal Finfish Resources for Sport Fish
      Management, October 1981-September 1982. Management Data Series No. 49.
      Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch.  Austin, TX.

Horn, C.R. 1990.  "Water Quality." Pages 53^62 In Mobile Bay:  Issues, Resources,
      Status, and Management. Proceedings of a Seminar, November 17, 1988,
      Washington, DC. NOAA Estuary of the Month Seminar Series No. 15.  U.S.
    -  Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration,
      Estuarine Programs Office.  Washington, DC.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                  1O3

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Hunter, J.R. 1981. "Feeding Ecology and Predation of Marine Fish Larvae." In:  R.
      Lasker (ed.) Marine Fish Larvae:  Morphology, Ecology, and Relation to
      Fisheries.  University of Washington Press.  Seattle, WA.

 Johansson, J.O.R. and R.R. Lewis. 1992. "Recent Improvements of Water Quality
      and Biological Indicators in Hillsborough Bay, a Highly Impacted Subdivision
      of Tampa Bay, Florida, USA."  In: R.A. Vollenweider, R.  Marchetti and R.
      Viviani (eds).  Marine Coastal Eutrophication, Proceedings  of an
      International Conference, Bologna,  Italy, 21-24 March  1990.  Reprinted from
      the journal Science of the Total Environment, Supplement  1992.  Elsevier
      Publishers. Amsterdam.

Justic", D., T. Legovic'and L. Rottini-Sandrini. 1987. "Trends in Oxygen Content
      1911-1984 and Occurrence of Benthic Mortality in the Northern Adriatic Sea."
      Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 25(4):435-445.

Kemp, W.M., R.L. Wetzel, W.R. Boyton, C. D'Elia and J.C. Stevenson.  1982.
      "Nitrogen Cycling and Estuarine  Interface:  Some Current Concepts and
      Research Directions." Pages 209-230 In V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine
      Comparisons.  Academic Press. New York, NY.

Kircher, J.E., R.J.  Gilliom and R.E. Hickman.  1984. "Loads and Concentrations of
      Dissolved  Solids, Phosphorus, and Inorganic. Nitrogen at U.S. Geological
      Survey National Stream Quality  Accounting Network Stations."  U.S.
      Geological Survey Water-Supply  Paper 2275:61-65.

Lancelot, C., G. Billen, A. Sournia, T. Weisse, F. Colijn, M.J.W. Veldhuis, A. Davies
      and P. Wassmann. 1987.  "Phaeocystis Blooms and Nutrient Enrichment in
      the Continental Coastal Zones of the North Sea." Ambio 16(l):38-46.

LMER Coordinating Committee.  1992.  "Understanding Changes in Coastal
      Environments: The LMER Program."  EOS, Trans.  Amer. Geophysical
       Union, 73(45):481-485.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
       pp. 62-69.
1992.  Water Quality Inventory.
 Lovejoy, S.B. 1992.  Sources and Quantities of Nutrients Entering the Gulf of Mexico
      from Surface Waters of the United States.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Nutrient Enrichment
      Committee.  Publication No. USEPA/800-R-92-002. Purdue University. West
      Lafayette, IN.

 Lytle, T.F. and J.S. Lytle.  1985. Pollutant Transport in Mississippi Sound. Sea Grant
      Publ. No MASGC-82-038. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, Gulf
      Coast Research Laboratory. Ocean Springs, MS.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                           1O4

-------
                                                                Bibliography
Lytle, T.F. and J.S. Lytle. 1990. Contaminants in Sediments from the Central Gulf of
      Mexico.  Estuaries 13(1):98-111.

Madden, C.J., J.W. Day, Jr. and J.M. Randall. 1988. "Freshwater and Marine
      Coupling in Estuaries of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain."  Limnol.
      Oceanogr. 33(4, part 2):982-1004.

Malone, T.C. 1987.  "Seasonal Oxygen Depletion and Phytoplankton Production in
      Chesapeake Bay: Preliminary Results of 1985-86 Field Studies." Pages 54-60 In
      G.B. Mackernan (ed.), Dissolved Oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay:  Processes and
      Effects. Proceedings of a Seminar on Hypoxia and Related Processes in
      Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Sea Grant Publ. No. UM-SG-TS-87-03.  University
      of Maryland, College Park, MD.

McNulty, J.K., W.N. Lindall, Jr. and J.E. Sykes.  1972. "Cooperative Gulf of Mexico
      Estuarine Inventory and Study, Florida:  Phase I, Area Description." NOAA
      Technical Report NMFS CIRC-368.  U.S. Department of Commerce, National
      Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
      Seattle, WA.

Meade, R.H. and R.S. Parker.  1985.  "Sediment in Rivers of the United States."
      National Water-Supply Summary 1984.  U.S. Geological Survey Water-
      Supply Paper No. 2275. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
      Washington, DC.

Morris, J.T.  1991. "Effects of Nitrogen Loading on Wetland Ecosystems With
      Particular Reference to Atmospheric Deposition."  Annu. Rev. Syst. 22:257-
      279.,

Moshiri,  G.A., N.G. Aumen and W.G. Crumpton.  1981.  "Reversal of the
      Eutrophication Process: A Case Study."  Pages 373-390 In B.J. Neilson and L.E.
      Cronin (eds.), Estuaries and  Nutrients.  Proceedings of an International
      Symposium on the Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in Estuaries, May 29-31,
      1979, Williamsburg, VA.  Contemporary Issues in  Science and Society.
      Humana Press.  Clifton, NJ.

National Academy of Sciences. 1969.  "Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences,
      Correctives." Proceedings of a Symposium, 1967.  National Academy of
      Sciences.  Washington, DC.

Nehring, D.  1984.  "The Further Development of the Nutrient Situation  in the
      Baltic Proper."  Ophelia  Suppl. 3:167-179.

Newel, C.J., H.S. Rifai and P.B. Bedient.  1992. Characterization of Nonpoint Sources
      and Loadings to Galveston  Bay.  Volume I:  Technical Report.  Galveston Bay
      National Estuary Program. Publication GBNEP-15.  March 1992.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
105

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Nielsen, A. and S. Mellergaard.  1989.  "Impact of Oxygen Deficiency on Fish Disease
      Levels."  Danish Institute for Fisheries and Marine Research.  Research
      Report No. 353.  Danish Institute for Fisheries and Marine Research.
      Charlottenlund, Denmark.

Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt, J.B. Frithsen and B.K. Sullivan. 1986.  "Nutrients and the
      Productivity of Estuarine and Coastal Marine Ecosystems." /. Limnol. Soc.
      South. Afr. 12(l/2):43-71.

Officer, C.B. and J.H. Ryther. 1980. "The Possible Importance of Silicon in Marine
      Eutrophication."  Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3(1):83-91.

Oviatt, C.A., D.T. Rudnick, A.A. Keller, P.A. Sampou and G.T. Almquist.  1986a.  "A
      Comparison of System (Oi and COz) and C-14 Measurements of Metabolism
      in Estuarine Mesocosms." Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 28(l/2):57-67.

Oviatt, C.A., A.A. Keller, P.A. Sampou and L.L.  Beatty.  1986b. "Patterns of
      Productivity During Eutrophication: A Mesocosm Experiment." Mar. Ecol.
      Prog. Ser. 28:69-80.

Pennock, J.R. 1985.  "Chlorophyll Distributions  in the Delaware  Estuary: Regulation
      by Light Limitation."  Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 21(5):711-725.
Pennock, J.R. and J.H. Sharp.  1987.  "Phytoplankton Production in the Delaware
      Estuary: Temoral and Spatial Variability."  Mar. Ecol. 34:143-145.

Pokryfki, L.B. and R.E. Randall. 1987.  "Nearshore Hypoxia in the Bottom Water of
      the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico from 1981 to 1984." Mar. Environ. Res.
      22(1):75-90.

Rabalais, N.N.  1992. An Updated Summary of Status and Trends in Indicators  of
      Nutrient Enrichment in the  Gulf of Mexico.  Prepared for U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Nutrient
      Enrichment Committee. Publication No. USEPA/800-R-92-004.  Louisiana
      Universities Marine Consortium.  Chauvin,  LA.

Rabalais, N.N., M.J. Dagg and D.F. Boesch.  1985.  "Nationwide Review of Oxygen
      Depletion and Eutrophication in Estuarine and Coastal Waters: Gulf of
      Mexico."  Report to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Admimistration, National Ocean Service, Office of
      Oceanography and Marine Services, Ocean Assessments Division. Rockville,
      MD.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            1O6

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, W.J. Wiseman, Jr. and D.F. Boesch.  1991.  "A Brief
      Summary of Hypoxia on the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf:
   .   1985-1988."  Pages 35-47 In R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson (eds.), Modern -and
      Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia.  Geological Society Special Publication No.
      58. The Geological Society. London.

Redfield, A.C. 1934. "On the Proportions of Organic Derivatives in Sea Water and
     .Their Relation to the Composition of Plankton."  James Johnstone Memorial
      Volume.  Liverpool.

Redfield, A.C. 1958. "The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the
      Environment." Amer. Sci. 46:205-221.

Renaud, M.L. 1986a.  "Detecting and Avoiding Oxygen Deficient Sea Water by
      Brown Shrimp, Penaeus aztecus (Ives), and White Shrimp, Penaeus setiferus
      (Linnaeus)." /. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 98:283-292.

Renaud, M.L.  1986b. "Hypoxia in Louisiana Coastal Waters During 1983:
      Implications for Fisheries." Fish. Bull. 84(l):19-26.

Rice, K.W., L.W. McEachron and P.C. Hammerschmidt.  1988.  "Trends in Relative
      Abundance  and Size of. Selected Finfishes in Texas Bays: November 1975-  >.'•
      December 1986."  Management Data Series No. 139. Texas Parks and Wildlife
      Dept., Coastal Fisheries Branch. Austin, TX.

Richardson, K.  1989. "Algal Blooms  in the North Sea:  The Good, the Bad and the
      Ugly." Dana 8:83-93.

Rosenberg. R.  1977.  "Benthic Macrofaunal Dynamics,  Production, and Dispersion
      in an Oxygen-Deficient Estuary ,of West Sweden." /. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
      26:107-133.

Rosenberg, R.  1985.  "Eutrophication-The Future Marine Coastal  Nuisance?" Mar.
      Pollut. Bull.  16(6):227-231.

Rosenberg, R.  (ed.)  1986.  "A Review:  Eutrophication in Marine Waters
      Surrounding Sweden." Report No. 3054. The National Swedish
      Environmental Protection Board.  Solna, Sweden.

Rosenberg, R. 1990.  "Negative Oxygen Trends in Swedish Coastal Bottom Waters."
      Mar. Pollut. Bull.  21(7):335-339.

Rosenberg, R. and L.O. Loo. 1988.  "Marine Eutrophication Induced Oxygen:
      Deficiency:  Effects on Soft Bottom Fauna, Western Sweden."  Ophelia
      29(3):213-225.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
107

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Sakshaug, E.K. Andresen, S. Mkklestad and Y. Olsen. 1983. "Nutrient Status of
      Phytoplankton Communities in Norwegian Waters (marine, brackish, and
      fresh) as Revealed by Their Chemical Composition." /. Plankton Res. 5: 175-
      196.

Seiler, R., G. Guillen and A.M. Landry. 1991. "Utilization of the Upper Houston
      Ship Channel by Fish and" Macroinvertebrates with Respect to Water Quality
      Trends."  In: Proceedings of the Galveston Bay  Characterization Workshop,
      February 21-23, 1991, Houston, Texas. Galveston Bay National Estuary
      Program.  February 1991.
                                              .-,      L    J ,    ,       ,          .?
Short, F.T. 1987. "Effects of Sediment Nutrient on Seagrass:  Literature Review and
      Mesocosm Experiment."  Aq. Bot. 27:41-57.

Short, F.T. 1991. "Effects of Excessive Nutrient Loading on the Eelgr-ass
      Community." Pages 25-27 In K.R. Hinga, D.W. Stanley, C.J. Klein, D.T. Lucid
      and M.J. Katz (eds.), The National Estuarine Eutrophication Project:
      Workshop Proceedings.  Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,
      Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean
      Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Rockville, MD.

Skreslet, S. (ed.). 1986.  "The Role of Freshwater Outflow in Coastal Marine
      Ecosystems."  Springer-Verlag, NY.

Smayda, T.J. 1989.  "Primary Production  and the Global Epidemic of Phytoplankton
      Blooms in the Sea: A Linkage?"  Pages 449-483 In E.M. Cosper, V.M. Bricelj
      and E.J. Carpenter (eds.), Novel Phytoplankton Blooms:  Causes and Impacts
      of Recurrent  Brown Tides and Other Unusual  Blooms.  Proceedings of a
      Symposium,  October 27-28,1988. Stony Brook, New York.  Coastal  and
      Estuarine Studies No. 35. Springer-Verlag, NY.

Smayda, T.J.  1990.  "Novel and Nuisance Phytoplankton Blooms in the Sea:
      Evidence  for a Global Epidemic." Pages 29-40 In  E. Graneli, B. Sundstrom, L.
      Edler and D.M. Anderson (eds), Toxic Marine Phytoplankton.  Proceedings of
      the 4th International Conference on Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, June 26-30,
      1989, Lund, Sweden. Elsevier Science, NY.

Smayda, T. 1991. "Increasing Worldwide Frequency of Nuisance Algal Blooms."
      Page 41 In K.R. Hinga, D.W. Stanley, C.J. Klein, D.T. Lucid and M.J.  Katz (eds.),
      The National Estuarine  Eutrophication Project:   Workshop Proceedings.
      Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Office of Ocean Resource
      Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
1O8

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Smith, R.A. and R. B. Alexander.  1984.  "Trends in Concentrations of Dissolved,
      Solids, Suspended Sediments, Phosphorus, and Inorganic Nitrogen at U.S.
      Geological Survey National Stream Quality Accounting Network Stations."
      U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275:66-73.
Smith, R.A, R.B. Alexander and M.G. Wolman, 1987.
      Nation's Rivers." Science 235(4796):1607-1615.
"Water-Quality Trends in the
Sommer, U.  1985. "Comparison Between Steady State and Non-Steady State ,
      Competition:  Experiments with Natural Phytoplankton."  Limnol. Oceanogr
      30:335-346.

Stachowitsch, M. 1984.  "Mass Mortality in the Gulf of Trieste:  The Course of
      Community Destruction." Mar. Ecol. 5(3):243-264.

Stachowitsch, M. 1986.  "The Gulf of Trieste: A Sensitive Ecosystem."  Nova
      Thalassia 8 (Suppl. 3):221-235.

Suttle, C.A. and P.J, Harrison.  1986. "Phosphate Uptake Rates of Phytoplankton
      Assemblages Grown at Different Dilution Rates in Semicontinuous Culture."
      Can. }. Fish. Aquat. SczV43:1474-1481.

Swanson, R.L. and C.A.  Parker. 1988.  "Physical Environmental Factors
      Contributing to Recurring Hypoxia in the New York Bight." Trans. Am. Fish.
      Soc. 117(1)37-47.

Swanson, R.L. and C.J. Sindermann (eds.).  1979. "Oxygen Depletion and Associated
      Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight, 1976." NOAA Professional Paper No.
      11. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.   Washington, DC.

Tolmazin, D. 1985. "Changing Coastal Oceanography of the Black  Sea. I:
      Northwestern Shelf."  Prog. Oceanogr. 15(4):217-276.

Turner,  R.E. and D.F. Boesch.  1987. "Aquatic Animal Production  and Wetland
      Relationships: Insights Gleaned Following Wetland Loss or Gain." Pages 25-
      39 In  D.  Hooks (ed.),  Ecology and  Management of  Wetlands.  Croons Helms,
      Ltd. Beckenham, Kent, United  Kingdom.

Turner,  R.E. and N.N. Rabalais. 1991a. "Eutrophication and its Effects on Coastal
      Habitats."  Coastal Zone '91. Pages 61-74 In S.H. Bolton (ed.), "Coastal
      Wetlands." Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
      Management, July 8-12,  1991, Long Beach, California. American Society of
      Civil Engineers Press.  New York, NY.        .
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                       1O9

-------
                                                               Bibliography
Turner, R.E. and N.N. Rabalais.  1991b.  "Changes in Mississippi River Water
      Quality This Century:  Implications for Coastal Food Webs."  BioScience
      41(3):140-147.

Turner, R.E., N.N. Rabalais and Z.N. Zhang.  1990.  "Phytoplankton Biomass,
      Production and Growth Limitations on the Huanghe (Yellow River)
      Continental Shelf." Cont. Shelf Res. 10:545-571.

Turpin, D.H. and P.J. Harrison. 1990.  "Cell Size Manipulation in Natural Marine,
      Planktonic, Diatom Communities."  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:  1193-1195.

Tyson, R.V. and T.H. Pearson.  1991.  "Modern and Ancient Continental Shelf
      Anoxia:  An Overview."  Pages 1-24 In R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson (eds).
      Modern and Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia.  Geological Society Special
      Publication No. 58. The Geological Society of London.

U.S. Department of  Commerce.  1989.  Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters:
      Susceptibility and  Status of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges.
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration/U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency Team on Near Coastal Waters. February 1989.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  1990a.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.   National Ocean Service.  A Special Earthweek Report:  50
      Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960-2010.  April 1990.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  1990b.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.  National Ocean Service. Estuaries of the United States:
      Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. October 1990.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  1991a.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.  National Ocean  Pollution Program.  Draft Federal Plan for
      Ocean Pollution Research,  Development,  and Monitoring, Fiscal  Years 1991-
      1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce.  1991b.   The 1990  National Shellfish Register of
       Classified Estuarine Waters.  National  Oceanic & Atmospheric
       Administration.  National Ocean Service.  Rockville, MD.

U.S. Department of Commerce.   1992. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.   Fisheries of the United States, 1992. Current Fishery-
       Statistics No.  9100. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
      National Marine  Fisheries Service.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1991.  Gulf Facts.  Gulf of Mexico Program
       Office. John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
110

-------
                                                               Bibliography
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1992.  Managing Nonpoint Source
      Pollution:  Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
      (1989). Off ice of Water. Washington, D.C. 20460.

Valiela, I. 1984. Marine Ecological Processes.  Springer-Verlag, NY.

Walsh, JJ./.G.T. Rowe, R.L. Iverson and C.P. McRoy.  1981. "Biological Export of
      Shelf Carbon is a Sink of the Global CO2 Cycle." Nature 291 (5821): 196-201.

Weber, M., R.T. Townsend,  and R. Bierce.  1992. Environmental Quality in the Gulf
      of Mexico:  A Citizen's Guide. Center for Marine Conservation. Partial
      funding provided by USEPA/Gulf of Mexico Program. Washington, DC.

Westernhagen,  H.V., W. Hickel, E. Bauerfeind, U. Niermann and I. Kroncke. 1986.
      "Sources  and Effects of Oxygen Deficiencies in the South-Eastern North Sea."
      Ophelia 26:457-473.

Whitledge, T.E.  1985.  "Nationwide Review of Oxygen Depletion and
      Eutrophication in Estuarine and Coastal Waters." Executive Summary.
      Report to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic &
      Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of
      Oceanography & Marine Services, Ocean Assessments Division. Upton, NY.

Whitledge, T.E.  1991.  "The Nutrient and Hypdrographic Conditions Prevailing in
      Laguna Madre, Texas, Before and During a Brown Tide Bloom." Report
      presented at the Brown Tide Symposium and Workshop July 15-16,  1991. The
      University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute.  Port Aransas, TX

Windsor, Jr., J.G. 1985.  "Nationwide Review of Oxygen Depletion and
      Eutrophication in Estuarine and Coastal Waters: Florida Region."  Project
      Completion Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY and U.S.
      Dept. of  Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimistration,
      National Ocean Service, Office of Oceanography and Marine Services, Ocean
      Assessments Division.  Rockville, MD.

Wiseman, Jr., W.J. and E.M.  Swenson.  1987.  "Long-Term Salinity Trends  in
      Louisiana Estuaries."  Pages 101-121 In R.E. Turner and D.R. Cahoon (eds.),
      Causes of Wetland  Loss in the Coastal Central  Gulf of Mexico.  Vol.  II:
      Technical Narrative. OCS Study MMS 87-0120. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
      Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office. New
      Orleans,  LA.

Wiseman, Jr., W.J. E.M. Swenson and J. Power. 1990. "Salinity Trends in Louisiana
      Estuaries." Estuaries 13(3):265-271.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
111

-------
                                                                Bibliography
Witzig, A.S. and J.W. Day. 1983. "A Multivariate Approach to the Investigation of
      Nutrient Interactions in the Barataria Basin, Louisiana." Final Reort to the
      Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute.  Project A-047-LA.  Coastal
      Ecology Laboratory, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State
      University.  Baton Rouge, LA.

Wulff, F. and L. Rahm. 1988. "Long-Term, Seasonal, and Spatial Variations of
      Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Silicate in the Baltic: An Overview."  Mar.
      Environ. Res. 26(l):19-37.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                             112

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
FEDERAL LEVEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has historically supported
research, interagency work, and regulatory activities aimed at reducing adverse
impacts from nutrient loading.

      Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
      The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "allow for protection and
      propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and to allow for recreation in and
      on the water," otherwise known as the fishable/swimmable goal.  The
      objective of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
      biological integrity of the nation's waters."  CWA creates a national permit
      system with minimum standards for the quality of the discharged waters.
      CWA does not set specific standards for water bodies, but does provide
      guidance to the states. States, however, are required to establish standards
      based on the designated uses of these waters. As part of this  process, states
      establish total maximum  daily loads for pollutants to  achieve their water
      quality standards.

      CWA establishes types of pollution to be regulated and categories of
      industries to be regulated.  Conventional pollutants, toxic or "priority"
      pollutants, and non-conventional pollutants are regulated under the CWA.
      Federal numerical "criteria" designating allowable concentrations  in
      receiving waters  have been established for the priority pollutants.

      Ambient Water  Quality Criteria.  USEPA has published 40 marine water quality
      criteria, including ammonia, nitrate/nitrite (drinking  water only), and
      elemental phosphorus,  based upon the presumed toxicity of the compounds.

      Water Quality Standards for Wetlands. USEPA has  published a guidance document
      for developing water quality standards for wetlands.  This document provides
      guidance to states which  must include wetlands in their definitions of state
      waters and thus protect the quality of those waters. As a part of that process,
      states will have to identify "beneficial uses," adopt criteria, and apply
      antidegradation policies to their wetlands.  It is likely that nutrient criteria are
      going to be necessary in order for states to promulgate even narrative water
      quality standards for wetlands since uses are impacted by nutrient
      enrichment.

      Biological Criteria.  USEPA has published guidelines for  developing biological
      criteria for streams and rivers.  These guidelines can be used by states to
      identify, protect, and maintain the biological integrity of their surface waters,
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           113

-------
Federal & Stafe Framework
Appendix A
      especially when biocriteria are used as triggers to set-off more indepth
      evaluation and management activities. Biological criteria should allow water
      resource managers to account for the effects of seasonality. Biocriteria may
      serve as excellent assessment tools to derive site-specific nutrient criteria,
      especially for rivers and streams.

      National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESV CWA requires that direct
      point source dischargers obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
      System  (NPDES) permits that regulate their discharges to attain effluent
      standards or state water quality standards. Specific wastewater dischargers
      into storm water drainage systems must also receive permits. CWA requires
      direct point source industrial dischargers to control  conventional, as well as
      toxic  and non-conventional, pollutants.

      Municipal wastewater treatment plants are required to meet standards
      different from those for direct industrial dischargers. However, both
      municipal and industrial dischargers are required to meet the same ambient
      water quality standards.  Technology-based regulation of discharges focuses
      almost exclusively on conventional pollutant  control through the
      requirement for secondary (85 percent removal of suspended solids  and
      biochemical oxygen demand) levels of treatment.  To meet state water quality
      standards, some municipal wastewater treatment plants have been required
      to go to more advanced levels of treatment (tertiary treatment).

      Nonpoint Source Program.  Section 319 of the CWA also establishes a program for
      managing contaminated runoff from nonpoint sources of pollution. Each
      state identifies all water body segments that fail to meet water quality
      standards for designated uses due to runoff, boating  wastes, faulty septic
      systems, and other sources of nonpoint pollution. The source category codes
      used by states to identify nonpoint source impairments are listed in Table A.1.
      Each  state has submitted a four-year management program for controlling
      these pollutant sources.

      National  Estuarv Program (NEPV Sections 317 and 320 of the Clean Water Act (as
      amended in 1987) established the National Estuary Program  (NEP).  The
      mission of the Program is "to promote long-term planning and management
      in nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or
      overuse...and to promote the preparation of comprehensive conservation
      and management plans (CCMP) to ensure their ecological integrity." At
      present, there are twenty-one estuaries in the National Estuary Program; five
      in the Gulf of Mexico (Galveston Bay, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Corpus
      Christi Bay, and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex).  Each of the
      Gulf NEPs are addressing eutrophication problems, from point and/or
      nonpoint sources.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           114

-------
Federal  &  State Framework
Appendix A
Table A.1   Source Category Codes Used by States to Identify
                  Nonpolnt Source Impairments*
                                  \ 10   Agriculture
                                       11:  Non-irrigated crop production
                                       12:  Irrigated crop production
                                       13:  Specialty crop production (e.g., truck farming and orchards)
                                       14:  Pastureland (Grazing)
                                       15:  Rangeland (Grazing)
                                       16:  Feedlots—all types         *     :
                                       17:  Aquaculture
                                       18:  Animal holding/management areas
                                       19:  Unspecified &/or Odd	
                                  120   Silviculture
                                       21:  Harvesting, reforestation, residue management
                                       22:  Forest management
                                       23:  Road construction/maintenance
                                       29:  Unspecified	
                                  13O   Construction
                                       31:  Highway/road/bridge
                                       32:  Land development
                                       38:  Railroads
                                       39:  Unspecified	
                                  140   Urban Runoff
                                       41:  Storm sewers (source control)
                                       42:  Combined sewers (source control)
                                       43:  Surface runoff
                                       45:  Shipyards
                                       46:  Marinas
                                       49:  Unspecified	
                                  ISO   Resource* Extraction/Exploration Development
                                       51:  Surface mining
                                       52:  Subsurface mining
                                       53:  Placer mining
                                       54:  Dredge mining
                                       55:  Petroleum activities
                                       56:  Mill tailings
                                       57:  Mine tailings
                                       59:  Unspecified	
                                  16O  Land Disposal (Runeff/Leaehate from Permitted Areas)
                                       61:  Sludge
                                       62:  Wastewater
                                       63:  Landfills
                                       64:  Industrial land treatment
                                       65:  On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
                                       66:  Hazardous waste
                                       69:  Unspecified	
                                  170   Hydrologlc/Habitat Modification
                                       71:  Channelization
                                       72:  Dredging
                                       73:  Dam construction
                                       74:  Flow regulation/modification
                                       75:  Bridge construction
                                       76:  Removal of riparian vegetation
                                       77:  Shoreline for lakes/streambank modification/
                                           destabilization/erosion
                                       78:  Ag streambank erosion (Sub of 10)
                                       79:  Unspecified	
                                  I SO   Othor
                                       81:  Atmospheric deposition
                                       82:  Waste storage/storage tank leaks
                                       83:  Highway maintenance and runoff
                                       84:  Spills
                                       85:  In-place contaminants
                                       86:  Natural
                                       87: ' Recreational activities
                                       88:  Growth urban
                                       89:  Unspecified &/or Odd	
                                  |9O   Souirce Unknown
                                  *Thls  may  Include both  point  and nonpolnt sources.


                                                   (Source: USEPA, 1992)
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                11 5

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). NEPA
      requires that all federal agencies recognize and give appropriate consideration
      to environmental amenities and values in the course of their decision-
      making.  In an effort to  create and maintain conditions under which man and
      nature can exist in productive harmony, NEPA requires that federal agencies
      prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to undertaking major
      federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
      In some cases, issuing a discharge permit may constitute a "major federal
      action." Within these statements, alternatives to the proposed action that
      may better safeguard environmental values are to be carefully assessed.

      The Clean Air Act of 197O, 1977, and 199O Amendments (CAA). The CAA
      requires USEPA to control air pollution by specifying maximum acceptable
      levels for pollutants in outdoor air; limiting the release of hazardous
      substances; developing standards for new stationary and motor vehicle
      emissions; and requiring states to develop and enforce state implementation
      plans that spell out measures that will be taken to achieve acceptable air
      quality.

      Section 112 of the CAA  addresses hazardous air pollution - "air pollution to
      which no ambient air quality standard is applicable and which in the
      judgment of the Administrator causes, or contributes to, air pollution which
      may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an
      increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible, illness."

      Section 112(m) of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires USEPA and NOAA to
      estimate the importance of atmospheric deposition of hazardous air
      pollutants to the Great Waters. This  section requires documentation of gross
      atmospheric contaminant loadings to each water body, as well as
      quantification of the relative importance of those loadings compared  to those
      from all other possible sources. Further, the agencies are required to
      determine whether atmospherically-derived contamination results in
      exceedences of water quality standards and to estimate the fraction of
      contaminants accumulating in biota which are derived from the atmosphere.
      Simply stated, Section 112(m) requires the agencies to  construct quantitative
      chemical mass balances  for relevant contaminants in each  of the Great
      Waters.

      Safe Drinking Water Act and Amendments of 1974 and 1386 (SDWA). The
      SDWA authorizes USEPA to  establish national standards for drinking water
      from both surface and groundwater sources and to protect  aquifers against
      contamination from the  disposal of wastes by injection into deep wells.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          116

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

      Farm Bills of 1985 and 199O (Food Security Act of 1985 and Food,
      Agriculture, Conservation & Trade Act of 199O). The conservation
      provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill created several new USDA programs arid/or
      program requirements.  For the first time, eligibility for most USDA program
      benefits was tied to compliance with the conservation provisions. Important
      conservation provisions created in the 1985 Farm Bill, some of which were
      subsequently modified and strengthened by the 1990 Farm Bill include the
      following:

      Conservation  Reserve Program. This is a long-term land retirement program
      applicable to agricultural land that is eroding at excessive rates or is otherwise
      environmentally sensitive, including prior converted wetlands that could be
      restored to stands or hardwood trees and filter strips  along streams.
      Approximately 40  million acres of previously farmed land has been
      converted to long-term stands of grasses or trees under this program. The
      program contracts  are usually for ten year periods."

      Sodbuster. This provision provides that any highly erodible farm land which
      is converted from perennial vegetation, such as grass or trees to cultivated
      agriculture, be given appropriate erosion control treatment prior to planting
      an agricultural commodity.

      Swampbus.ter, This provision provides severe economic disincentives for
      conversion of wetlands for the production of agricultural commodities (land
      converted after December 23,1985).

      Conservation Compliance, This provision provides that highly erodible land
      used for production of agricultural crops before the passage of the 1985 Farm
      Bill must have a conservation plan developed by January 1, 1990, and that the
      plan be completely applied by January 1,1995.

      Conservation Easements.  This provision  allows for "write-downs" on farm
      loans held by the  Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) in return for
      perpetual easements on wetlands or other environmentally sensitive lands.
      In appropriate cases, Fm.HA may retain perpetual conservation easements on
      wetlands owned by the agency before disposing of that land.

      Wetland Reserve Program. This program was created by the 1990 Farm Bill as a
      pilot program to determine the feasibility of USDA purchasing perpetual
      easements on prior converted wetlands.  The land would then be re-
      established  to wetland vegetation  (mostly trees in the southern states).  To
      date, there has been one "sign-up" period under this program and the
      response from land  users was very positive.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           117

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      Compliance and/or participation in each of these conservation programs is
      voluntary.  Noncompliance may result in economic consequences of
      substantial proportions for those agricultural producers who participate in
      USD A programs, such as price supports, farm commodity loans, etc. All of
      these programs and requirements should have a beneficial effect on soil
      erosion control, as well as improving quality of runoff from applicable fields.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is USDA's primary technical assistance agency
in the areas of soil and water conservation and in water quality. SCS focuses its
assistance on non-federal land. It works primarily with private landowners in
planning and applying measures to reduce soil erosion, conserve water, protect and
improve water quality, and protect other renewable natural resources such as plants,
animals, and air.  The guiding principle is the use and conservation treatment of the
land and water in harmony with its capabilities and needs.

SCS has an office in almost every county in the U.S. where it works closely with
local subdivisions of state government called Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
The conservation districts are governed by local people and typically have legislative
mandates to plan and implement comprehensive soil and water conservation
programs within their boundaries.  These boundaries usually coincide with county
lines.

SCS's basic authorities were created by PL (74) - 46, PL (83) -566, and PL (78) - 534.
Program authorities were added under various Farm Bills including those enacted
in 1961 (Resource Conservation and Development Program), 1985 (Swampbuster,
Sodbuster, Conservation Compliance and Conservation Reserve Program), and 1990
(Wetlands Reserve Program and others).

SCS also performs soil surveys and operates a system of some 27 Plant Material
Centers for selecting, developing, testing, and releasing plants for use in
conservation programs.

SCS works with private landowners  and others to preserve, protect, and restore
wetlands and to  develop wildlife and fisheries habitat.
Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service (ASCS)

The Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service (ASCS) administers the
following programs: Agricultural Conservation Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetland Program, as well as others. In addition, ASCS administers
various agricultural commodity production programs designed to balance
production of those commodities which are in demand. Commodities affected
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          118

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
include cotton, rice, corn, wheat, peanuts, tobacco, .and others.  Commodity Program
decisions dramatically affect land use and nutrients applied to land.  ASCS also has
an office in essentially every county in the U.S.  SCS and ASCS work closely on
implementation of conservation programs.                      ,
Cooperative Extension Service (CES)            ,                    .

The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is the education and outreach branch of
land grant colleges and institutions.  Funding for this program is provided through
a cooperative effort between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, individual states,
and local governments. CES staff are located in each county, with specialists at the
state level to support their activities.  CES focuses on four main areas:  1) agriculture
and natural resources, 2) home economics, 3) 4H, and 4) community and rural.
development. CES promotes the wise use of fertilizer through a. public
education/outreach program and other activities, such  as applied demonstrations
on agricultural fields, to illustrate,the proper and efficient use of fertilizer.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) administers various rural financial
assistance programs for rural residents and small communities. These programs
include loans for construction of homes in rural areas and small towns, loans and
grants for rural water and sewerage projects, and loans for small watershed project
sponsors.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers large units of land called "National
Forests" in most of the fifty states, as well as "National Grasslands" in some states.
USFS is directly responsible for management of natural resources in the National
Forests and Grasslands. In addition, USFS assists with forestry and silvicultural
matters on private lands as appropriate.  The Service.manages 44 national wildlife
refuges [366,925 hectares (906,660 acres)] and ten national fish hatcheries [436 hectares
(1,078 acres)] in the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin, and utilizes Best Management
Practices in management of these lands to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

USFS State & Private Forestry programs are implemented cooperatively through the
various state forestry organizations and are guided by the Southern Group of State
Foresters. Funding is granted to the state foresters to provide technical assistance   •
and financial incentives to forest landowners  and cooperators through a variety of
federal programs. These federal/state cooperative programs are aimed at protecting
and enhancing the quality of all forest resources including watershed, timber, and
wildlife values.  USFS provides technical assistance for developing, implementing,
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          119

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
and monitoring silvicultural best management practices, programs, and plans to
control nonpoint pollution from forest management activities.

USFS's Bay/Estuary Program is a nationwide effort, focusing on specific bay and
estuary systems, to integrate and coordinate all Service functions affecting
conservation of coastal living resources in these systems. Bay/Estuary Programs
work in partnership with other agencies and non-governmental organizations to
develop and implement ecosystem-based policies and programs that protect and
enhance coastal living resources. Where appropriate, actions to address nutrient
enrichment problems are integrated into individual Bay/Estuary Programs.
Bay/Estuary Programs have either begun or have been proposed for seven estuarine
systems in the Gulf of Mexico. In some systems, the Bay/Estuary Program
complements the Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program.

USFS's Partners for Wildlife Program identifies opportunities and implements
wetland habitat restoration, creation, or improvement projects on private lands in
partnership with landowners. Such projects ultimately  contribute to nutrient
reduction due to the nutrient removal function of healthy wetland habitats. Areas
appropriate for such projects are identified through review of Farmers  Home
Administration inventory properties or other landowner contacts. The Service
assists landowners in developing projects through outreach, technical support, and
arranging for land use payments.


U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC)

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

      Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The Coastal Zone
      Management Act of 1972 encourages coastal and Great Lakes states to develop
      and implement management programs to achieve wise use of land and water
      resources in the coastal zone and authorizes the National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to issue grants for state coastal
      management programs.

      Coastal Zone Act Reauthorizatlon Amendments of 1990 (CZARAV  Section 6217 requires
      states to establish coastal nonpoint programs, which must be approved by
      both NOAA and USEPA. Once approved, the coastal nonpoint programs will
      be implemented through changes to the state nonpoint source pollution
      program approved by USEPA under Section 319  of the CWA and through
       changes to the state coastal zone management program approved by NOAA
      under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Beginning
      in fiscal year 1996, states that fail to submit an approvable coastal nonpoint
      program to NOAA and USEPA face statutory reductions in federal funds
       awarded under both Section 306 of the CZMA and Section 319 of the CWA.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           120

-------
Feeferaf & State Framework
Appendix A
      The central purpose of Section 6217 is to strengthen the links between federal
      and state coastal zone management and water quality programs in order to
      enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade
      coastal waters and coastal habitats. This is to be accomplished primarily
      through the implementation of 1) management measures in conformity with
      guidance published by USEPA under Section 6217(g) of the CZARA and
      2) additional state-developed management measures as necessary to achieve
      and maintain applicable water quality standards.

      The Section 6217 program guidance identifies and explains provisions state
      coastal nonpoint programs must include in order to be approved by USEPA
      and NOAA. Four of the many requirements for state programs are:
      1) identify critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters which are impaired
      or threatened by nonpoint source pollution; 2) implement additional
      management measures for land uses or critical coastal areas as necessary to
      achieve and maintain water quality standards; 3) establish mechanisms to
      improve coordination among state and local agencies responsible for land use
      programs and permitting, water quality  permitting and enforcement, habitat
      protection, and public health and safety;  and 4) modify coastal zone
      boundaries as the state determines is necessary  to implement NOAA's
      recommendations under Section 6217(e)  of the CZARA.  (This section
      requires NOAA  and USEPA to determine whether the landward coastal zone
      of each coastal state extends far enough inland to control significant upland
      sources of nonpoint source pollution.)             :

      Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division Programs.  NOAA's
      Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division develops
      comprehensive information about environmental quality  as it relates to
      estuarine and oceanic resources. These data are used for national and
      regional assessments to  develop practical strategies to balance conservation
      requirements and use demands.

      This Division is  conducting the Estuarine Eutrophication  Survey, a national
      survey of the conditions and trends of nutrient  enrichment and
      eutrophication in the estuaries of the,contiguous U.S.  The goal is to assess
      the scale and scope of existing problems  and provide an information base to
      identify future research  and monitoring needs. Using a standard survey
      instrument that will be administered to over 200 local and regional  experts,
      the assessment will collect information on the current and historic  conditions
      of algal, nutrient, and dissolved oxygen concentrations and ecosystem
      response for 102 major estuaries in the nation. ;The project, scheduled for
      completion in 1994, will improve the understanding of the relationship
      between eutrophication  status and nutrient input.

      The Estuarine Eutrophication Survey builds on early work by the SEA
      Division (FY89) that evaluated the susceptibility of estuaries to nutrient
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          121

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      enrichment using flushing dilution characteristics/ rate of freshwater inflow,
      estuarine volume, and estimated nutrient loadings.  The results of this work
      were presented in a series of regional reports that summarized the physical
      dimensions, pollution susceptibility indices, estimated loadings, predicted
      concentrations status, land use, and point and nonpoint source loadings of
      nitrogen and phosphorus for each estuary in the region. Also included was a
      brief interpretation of the information for each estuary and an estimate of the
      effect of changes in nutrient loadings.

      The National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory (NCPDI) is a data base
      and computational framework for characterizing the sources, location,
      timing, and magnitude of pollution discharges from land-based sources in
      coastal areas.  It includes seasonal and annual estimates for point, nonpoint,
      and upstream sources discharging to the estuarine, coastal, and oceanic waters
      of the contiguous U.S.  (excluding the Great Lakes). The estimates in NCPDI
      are intended for first order assessments of the relative contributions of
      pollutant discharges among sources within and across watersheds.

      NCPDI estimates for the watersheds draining to the Gulf of Mexico are for a
      base year of 1987, and will be updated to a 1991 base year in FY94. As part of
      the update, the study area will be expanded to incorporate more inland areas
      and the methods used to estimate discharges will be improved for all sources.

      National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The National Marine Fisheries
      Service (NMFS) acts primarily under the auspices of the Fish and Wildlife
      Coordination Act (FWCA) as an advisory agency to federal construction and
      permitting agencies. The FWCA requires any federal agency, permitting
      construction in the waters of any stream or other body of water, to first
      consult with NMFS and other federal and state natural resource agencies,
      with a view toward the conservation of fish and wildlife resources.  The
      FWCA directs NMFS to take such steps as may be required for the
      conservation and protection of marine and estuarine fishery resources and
      their habitats.  NMFS  recommendations are provided to USAGE for proposed
      Department of Army permits  under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of
      the Rivers and Harbors Act.  NMFS information is also used in developing
      environmental documents required by the National Environmental Policy
      Act.

      Coastal Ocean Program (COP). The Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is a cross-
      cutting NOAA effort to provide the highest quality science delivered in time
      for important coastal policy decisions.  COP activities are organized around
      four goals. These address the major coastal ocean issues of Environmental
      Quality, Fisheries Productivity, and Coastal Hazards; and the fourth,
      Information Delivery, operates at the science-policy interface. One of the COP
       themes, Nutrient Enhanced Productivity, is examining the effects of human-
       induced nutrient enrichment  on the productivity of the Gulf of Mexico at the
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            122

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. A smaller effort in the Chesapeake Bay
      area is addressing the role of the atmosphere in nutrient input.

      Nutrient-Enhanced Coastal Ocean ProductlvitvfNECOPV-Mississlppi/Atchafalava River  •  .
      Study. The Nutrient-Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity (NECOP) study is a
      collaborative effort by NOAA and academic scientists. NOAA initiated
      NECOP in 1989 as the first multidiciplinary field effort of the Coastal  Ocean
      Program.  NECOP is a five year study that is now in its fourth year of research
      on the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes that relate to
      anthropogenic nutrient enrichment and productivity in the vicinity of the
      Mississippi/Atchafalaya River outflows. The NECOP study has fiye  major
      research components: 1) Retrospective Analysis, 2) Productivity of the
      Shelf/Plume System, 3) Hypoxia Research, 4) Research Modeling, and
      5) Carbon Flux.

      NECOP researchers are quantifying the impact of anthropogenic nutrients on
      coastal productivity. Long-term objectives of  the NECOP study include
      developing a capability to predict the impact that nutrient control strategies
      are likely to have on productivity and a capability to predict the likelihood of
      hypoxic/anoxic events as  a function of physical, chemical,.and biological
      parameters.  A model is being developed that will  permit estimates of the
      effects of changes in nutrient loads to the system.

      National Sea Grant College Program. The National Sea Grant College
      Program provides a major effort in  the Gulf regarding research, education,
      and outreach activities.  The Sea Grant education program  is  an important
      environmental program in the Gulf, affecting many tens of thousands of
      students and citizens annually. The outreach program provides the public a
      marine agent in each coastal county in all of the Gulf States. The Nutrient-
      Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity (NECOP) program is  managed  through
      Sea Grant programs in each  state.
U.S. Department of the Inferior (USDOI)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) focuses attention on nonpoint source
pollution problems in a number of areas. USFWS has conducted research to define
the scope and effect of pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff, mining;
silviculture, and hydromodification on fish and wildlife species and their habitats.
USFWS has also conducted special information and-education efforts to encourage
farm owners  to participate in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program and worked
with the Agricultural Extension Service to develop a pamphlet emphasizing the
benefits of riparian vegetation in reducing nonpoint source pollution.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          123

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
In accordance with USDOI's Irrigation Drainwater Program, USFWS is determining
the causes and degree of problems associated with excessive levels of micronutrient
(e.g., selenium, boron) in irrigation wastewaters. Controls and alternatives to help
mitigate these problems are under development.

USFWS routinely provides recommendations to construction/regulatory agencies
on best management practices to control nonpoint source pollution when
reviewing permit/license applications, federal project construction and operation
plans, resource management plans, conservation easements, and other types of land
management activities. Measures to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife resources
or their habitats  are included in these recommendations.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) focuses its efforts on assisting states to
identify affected bodies of water and develop nonpoint source management plans.
The foundation for these efforts was provided by the Clean Water Act Section 208
Program.  The Bureau and the U.S. Forest Service jointly developed a training
program for managers, planners, and natural resource staffs on the role and
responsibility of each agency in nonpoint source pollution control. Congress
provided specific funding for the Bureau's Riparian Management Program. This
program has had and will continue to have a significant effect on improving water
quality on  stream reaches under Bureau management and will remain one of the
Bureau's highest priorities.
 Bureau of Reclamation

 The Bureau of Reclamation operates under the authority of the 1902 Reclamation
 Act and Amendments and Executive Orders.  In 1987, Reclamation announced a
 redirection in its mission. Instead of concentrating primarily on water resource
 development, Reclamation is placing greater emphasis on more efficient operation
 of existing projects and resource management issues, such as water quality and
 environmental restoration.  Several initiatives address nonpoint source pollution,
 including irrigation drainage research, technology development, cooperative basin
 water quality studies, and a national irrigation water quality program.
 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

 The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division, is to
 provide the hydrologic information and understanding needed for the optimum
 utilization and management of the nation's water resources for the overall benefit
 of the people of the U.S.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           124

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)

Nonpoint source pollution control efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) include those made by the agency in its own operating projects and
support of state nonpoint source management programs. Efforts within the
agency's operating projects focus on sedimentation and water quality in flood
control reservoirs and navigation channels.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 1135, authorized USAGE to
make modifications in the structures and operations of water resources projects
which are feasible, consistent with the authorized project purpose, and will improve
the quality of the environment in the public interest.  Nonpoint source pollution
control activities may be  incorporated into such projects.

USAGE has reviewed state assessments and management programs for nonpoint
source control to: 1) plan future steps for federal projects; 2) provide for technical
coordination so that the best practicable control measures can be achieved; and
3) facilitate the review of consistency between such projects and state nonpoint
source management programs.


Tennessee Valley Authority

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) carries out its statutory authority related to
land management, administration of land rights, and permitting jurisdiction under
Section 26a of the TVA Act to protect or enhance the quality of the environment on
its reservoir properties. In conducting its  own operations and construction
activities, TVA ensures the use of BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution.

In compliance with Section 401 (a) of the Clean Water Act, TVA requires that
applicants proposing activities that may result in discharges into navigable waters
provide state certification that they will comply with applicable provisions of the
CWA. In addition, TVA  requires that any permit approval, contract, license, or
other authorization of any activity required by TVA that will disturb the land
contain the following condition:  "The applicant will conduct all land-disturbing
activities in accordance with best management practices as defined by section 208 of
the CWA and implement these practices to control erosion  and sedimentation so as
to prevent adverse water quality and related aquatic impacts."

TVA has established erosion control measures that help to mitigate nonpoint
source pollution on the agency's lands [over 8,094 hectares (20,000 acres)].  Control
measures include no-till cropping, crop rotation, contour plowing, terracing, winter
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          125

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
cover crops, and uncultivated buffer strips along TVA reservoirs and streams. Only
land that is not highly erodible and is not hydric is licensed for row crop use. Best
management plans for cropland and grassland are reviewed by Soil Conservation
Service personnel.

To reduce nonpoint source pollution from crop production, TVA conducts fertilizer
research and development at its national laboratory at Muscle Shoals, AL, and
works with the land grant universities and USD A.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           126

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
STATE LEVEL

Alabama

Regulatory Agencies & Programs

•     Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). The Department of
      Environmental Management (ADEM) is responsible for establishing and
      enforcing water quality standards, in accordance with criteria contained in the
      Clean Water Act.  ADEM sets and enforces water quality standards for point
      source discharges.  ADEM's resource management responsibilities include
      regulation of construction in wetlands and monitoring of biological
      resources, in conjunction with enforcement of water quality standards and
      coastal program regulations.                   .           ,

      Department of Conservation & Natural Resources (ADCNR).  The
      Department of Conservation & Natural Resources (ADCNR), in addition to
      other responsibilities, has review and comment responsibility in regard to
      coastal construction. The state Land Division of ADCNR manages use of state
      bottoms, including removal of sediment, buried oyster shell, hydrocarbons,
      sand, and gravel.  It also leases such bottomlands for commercial uses such as
      marinas, private oyster reefs, and oil and gas extraction. As noted above,
      approval for construction and discharge activities is administered by ADEM
      (USAGE must approve construction in bay and delta waters and wetlands).

      State Docks Department (ASD).  Any construction in water bottoms or
      wetlands also requires approval and licensing by the Alabama State Docks
      Department (ASD).  ASD is also the local sponsor of navigation
      improvements in  the Port of Mobile and is therefore responsible for
      designing, securing, and maintaining disposal sites for dredged material. Use
      of such sites requires approval of ADEM and USACE.

      Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Management  Plan. Alabama's Silvicultural
      Nonpoint Source  Management Plan calls for a voluntary best management
      practices (BMP) program. There are no state laws which regulate forestry
      practices in  Alabama. However, state law prohibits deposition of any
      pollutant into waters of the state from any activity, including forestry.  The
      primary emphasis of the program is on education, training, technical
      assistance,  and implementation monitoring.

      Education.  Alabama's Best Management Practices for Forestry was last revised
      in March 1993. The manual offers non-regulatory guidelines for complying
      with all state and  federal water quality laws up to that  time.  Color
      illustrations demonstrate practical techniques for controlling pollutants and
      protecting water quality.  News releases, radio and television programs, and
      public  presentations are used to inform the forestry community and the
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          127

-------
Fee/oral & State Framework
Appendix A
      general public of the availability, effectiveness, and practicality of using BMPs
      during all forestry operations.

      Training. Forest landowners, loggers, and foresters are trained on practical
      applications of BMPs as standard operating procedures.  Training aids include
      slides, videos, BMP demonstration sites, and field tours to active operations.
      Pre-harvest consultations are provided by Forestry Commission personnel to
      help avoid problems through planning  prior to initiation of forestry
      activities.

      Technical Assistance. Forestry Commission personnel provide technical advice
      and assistance to landowners who wish to stabilize roads, firelanes, skid trails,
      log landings, and stream crossings.  Technical assistance is also offered to help
      mitigate any water quality problems that do result from forest operations.
      Every effort is made to resolve problems without having to refer cases to
      regulatory agencies.

      Monitoring.  Forestry Commission personnel monitor sites on a random basis
      to determine trends in BMP  implementation and effectiveness.
      Approximately 400 sites are visited each year in Alabama!  Visits with active
      operations are turned  into on-the-job training opportunities. Serious
      problems discovered are mitigated between parties responsible.

      Local Management Activities. Alabama counties are responsible for
      management of storm  water drainage, except in the City of Mobile, which has
      enacted stringent restrictions on modification of areas within the 100 year
      flood zone.

      Water quality is affected significantly by storm water runoff, partly as a result
      of seepage from septic systems in or near the coastal zone.  County Boards of
      Health are responsible for issuance of permits to install septic tanks and seep
      systems and to enforce restrictions on septic system use in areas where soil
      conditions are unsuitable. Many systems around the coast are located in
      unsuitable soils or do not operate properly and are responsible for an
      unknown amount of fecal coliform bacteria contamination of surface waters.

      The South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) was
      established to improve local  management and planning, with respect to both
      natural and human resources of Mobile, Baldwin, and Escambia Counties.
      SARPC provides local oversight for a variety of estuary studies and
      management projects, including land use planning, water quality
      management planning (USEPA 208 program), and storm water management
      planning.  In addition, SARPC is responsible for planning guidance for other
      local entities with regard to demographics, outdoor recreation, industrial
      development, and other considerations in coastal zone resource use.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                            128

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Statutes & Initiatives

Alabama Water Pollution Control Act
Alabama Coastal Area Act
Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan
Florida

Regulatory Agencies & Programs

Florida's nonpoint source implementation activities include enforcement of
regulations that require BMPs for erosion and sediment control during and after
construction; enforcement of wetland protection regulations; public education
programs; monitoring; BMP evaluation; and providing technical assistance.

Florida's growth management program and the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program (SWIM) have greatly expanded awareness of nonpoint
source water quality problems and the implementation of watershed management
strategies. SWIM plans have been approved for the priority waterbodies listed in
the Florida assessment.

Florida has undertaken several initiatives to address storm water runoff.  The state
worked with USEPA to refine the draft NPDES storm water regulation published in
December 1988.  In addition, comprehensive storm water management legislation
developed by the state government passed the 1989 Florida Legislature. This
legislation integrates the storm water regulatory program, the SWIM program, and
the growth management  program into a comprehensive watershed approach to
reducing storm water pollution loadings.

To assist with implementation of the legislation, the state government has provided
technical assistance to water management districts, local governments, and the
private sector. In addition, the department  continues to conduct research on the
efficiency of various storm water BMPs.

Florida has also helped local governments revise their land development codes to
include ordinances that will further reduce  nonpoint source pollution^ The state
also has recommended that local governments establish storm water utilities to
provide a dedicated source of revenues for  the development and implementation of
storm water master plans.

Florida began public education efforts in the late 1970s and has continued these
efforts throughout the 1980s. The most recent example of public education is the
distribution of nearly 1,200  copies of the Florida Development  Manual: A Guide to
Sound Land and Water Management to  local governments/state agencies,
consulting engineers, planners,  and citizens.
 Gulf ef Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          129

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Louisiana

Regulatory Agencies & Programs

•      Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ). Office of Water Resources
      (OWm. The Office of Water Resources, Department of Environmental Quality
      is composed of four divisions that provide for regulation  and management of
      the quality of Louisiana surface and ground waters.  The mission of OWR is
      to manage the quality of Louisiana's surface and ground waters by upgrading
      the quality where man's activities have caused degradation and by preserving
      the integrity of those waters where good quality exists.  The OWR divisions
      typically consist of the following programs and activities: Administration,
      Enforcement, Engineering, Permitting, Quality Assurance, Standards and
      Water Quality Management, and Surveillance.  OWR administers its
      programs under authority of the State Water Control Law and Title 33 Part IX
      of the Louisiana Administrative Code, as well as the Federal Clean Water Act.

•      Department of Health & Hospitals (DHH). The goal of programs within the
      Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) is to provide for the protection of
      the public health of the citizens of Louisiana, as  well as provide for
      prevention of death and disease.  DHH is responsible for  the administration
      of the State Sanitary Code. This involves the implementation of the Federal
      Safe  Drinking Water Act, which includes the monitoring of public water
      supplies  and the regulation of water treatment and distribution systems,
      including the proper design, construction, operation, and  water quality in
      public water supplies; regulation of sewage treatment, sanitary sewage
      disposal, and other wastewater matters, including on-site  wastewater
      treatment systems (i.e. septic systems, mechanical plants); and
      bacteriological/chemical analyses  of sewage water, raw water, and drinking
      water.

      Additionally, DHH has responsibility for evaluating the potential adverse
      human health effects caused by exposure to the presence of toxic substances in
      the environment and for providing recommendations for correction and/or
      prevention.

•      Department of Agriculture & Forestry. Office of Agriculture & Environmental
      Sciences. The Office of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences is responsible
      for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and
      Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) dealing with pesticide waste.
      The Department participates in pesticide analyses of water, sediment, and/or
      biological samples and conducts agricultural related nonpoint source
      pollution studies.  The Department is responsible for carrying out the
      Louisiana pesticide law, which provides regulatory authority over the use
      and management of pesticides and the handling of pesticide waste in the
      state.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          13O

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      Office of Soil & Water Conservation. The State Soil & Water Conservation,
      Committee, under the Office of Soil & Water Conservation, has legislative
      authority to establish soil and water conservation districts and to oversee
      activities of established districts.  There are 43 districts covering all 64 parishes
      in the state. Conservation districts established by the State  Committee have
      the responsibility and authority to carry out appropriate corrective measures
      to conserve soil resources, control and prevent soil erosion, prevent
      floodwater and sediment damages, and further the conservation,
      development, utilization, and disposal of water. To protect soil and water
      resources, they have the authority to adopt land use regulations through local
      referendum, discourage and discontinue land use practices  contributing to
      soil erosion, implement works of improvement for flood prevention and
      disposal of water, assist land owners to plan and install practices that control
      soil erosion, prevent flooding and sediment damage, and assist land owners
      in the disposal  of water. Districts are authorized to design, construct,
      improve, operate, and maintain such structures as required to address their
      erosion, flood prevention, and sediment control  responsibilities.

      Office of Forestry. The Office of Forestry provides technical assistance related to
      state  programs, including administrative, supervisory, protection, and
      preservation functions involving water quality. In the fall of 1991, the Office
      of Forestry conducted a survey of selected forestry operations throughout
      Louisiana. The objectives of this BMP implementation survey were to
      determine: 1) the percentage of BMP implementation;  2) educational needs;
      3) areas of the state where water quality may be adversely affected by
      silvicultural practices; and 4) the future direction of Louisiana's forestry
      community on implementing silvicultural BMPs.  Results of the survey
      showed that the overall implementation of forestry BMPs in Louisiana was
      66 percent. Sixty-three  percent of the 151 sites had a higher  than state average
      of implementation. These results indicate that the total BMP
      implementation of 66 percent in 1991 represents substantial progress
      (compared to less than  ten percent in 1985). Continued efforts are needed to
      further implement forestry BMPs.

      Department of Wildlife & Fisheries. The Department of Wildlife and
      Fisheries executes laws and implements policies enacted for the protection,
      conservation, and replenishment of wildlife and aquatic species within
      Louisiana. The Department is charged with the responsibility for
      management of all renewable resources on all wildlife management areas,
      refuges, and preserves that it may own or lease, which would include some
      regulatory powers over water quality for those water bodies within its
      jurisdiction.

      The State Natural and Scenic Rivers System is administered by the
      Department with statutory authority which specifically prohibits
      channelization,  clearing and snagging, channel realignment, and reservoir
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          131

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      construction, and which empowers the Department to regulate other
      activities affecting system streams through permit restrictions.

      The Department also participates in the environmental review process,
      conducts water analysis in conjunction with studies of productivity of
      Louisiana's water, and regulates the use of toxicants for fishing.

      Department of Transportation £ Development (DOTD). The mission of the
      Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is to move people
      and goods safely and efficiently by the planning, design, construction,
      maintenance, and operation of a statewide transportation system.  DOTD also
      is charged to provide a statewide flood control system.

      Office of Engineering & Operations. The Office of Engineering and Operations
      administers the programs relating to the establishment, design, construction,
      extension, improvement, repair,  maintenance, and regulations of roads,
      highways, expressways, bridges, and matters pertaining to them; and
      develops, prepares, and finalizes the annual highway construction program
      authorized by Act 334 of 1974.

      Public Works is a subprogram responsible for administering the
      disbursement of monies appropriated under the Public Improvement Fund
      and the Statewide Flood Control Program. These programs provide
      administrative, engineering, and technical services and benefits to the State of
      Louisiana and citizens in the field of water resources by providing planning,
      coordination, and orderly development of natural resources and geographic
      areas, including the development of protection systems  for floods, hurricanes,
      etc.  Public Works is also responsible for providing engineering support in
      administering certain statewide programs to assure adequate, safe, effective,
      and efficient public works facilities and services.  Programs include the
      following:  Statewide Flood Control Program (Act 351 of 1982), Louisiana
      Water Resources Program (Water and Sewage Systems - Act 625 of 1983),
      Watershed Program (U.S. Soil Conservation Service -  Public Law 566), and
      State Review of Water Resources Permits.

      The Public Hearings and Environmental Impact Section was organized as a
      result of the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Since
      a large portion of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
      Development's construction program is federally funded or requires a federal
      permit, NEPA applies.  The Environmental Unit is responsible for the
      administration, planning, and development of the Department's
      environmental  clearance program.  The Public Hearings Unit  is responsible
      for the Department's public involvement program.

      Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Office of Conservation, The Office of
      Conservation under  the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           132

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      responsible for regulating production from oil and gas wells and from salt
      domes.  The Office also regulates subsurface oil and gas disposal wells and
      hazardous waste underground injection wells to prevent groundwater
      contamination.  The Office administers the Underground Injection Control
      (UIC) program, as well as the regulations and guidelines of the Louisiana
      Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, including water resources quality.
      Geothermal energy programs  including re-injection of geothermal
      wastewater is also regulated by this office.

      Coastal Management Division.  The Coastal Management Division (CMD) of DNR
      is charged with  implementing the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program
      (LCRP)  under authority of the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources
      Management Act of 1978 (Act 361, LRS 49:213.1).  This Act seeks to protect,
      develop, and, where feasible, restore or enhance the resources of the  state's
      coastal zone. Its broad intent is to encourage multiple uses of resources and
      adequate economic growth while minimizing adverse effects of one resource
      use upon another without imposing undue restrictions on any user.

      Besides striving  to balance conservation and resource use, the policies of
      LCRP also help to resolve user conflicts, encourage coastal zone recreational
      values,  and determine the future course of coastal development and
      conservation.

      State Act 6 (1989).  The 1989 Louisiana Legislature passed Act 6 which requires
      the State of Louisiana to annually develop a Coastal Wetlands Conservation
      and Restoration  Plan from both a short and long range perspective. The
      Coastal Restoration Division of DNR has  the responsibility of implementing
      this plan which  is designed to restore, preserve, and enhance Louisiana's
      coastal wetlands. Current restoration techniques include freshwater
      diversion, sediment  diversion, marsh management, sediment capturing,
      shallow bay terracing, and  structural shoreline erosion abatement devices.

      Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism.  The Department of Culture,
      Recreation, and  Tourism is responsible for regulating  the draining or
      dumping of refuse waste in state parks or  on public  lands. The Department is
      also responsible  for water resources protection in state parks.

      Louisiana State University (LSU).  Agricultural Center. The Louisiana State
      University Agricultural  Center was established in 1972 as  one of eight
      campuses in the LSU System.  The three main components are the Louisiana
      Agricultural Experiment Station, the Louisiana Cooperative Extension
      Service, and the Office of International Programs.

      Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Organized in 1886, the Louisiana ..
      Agricultural Experiment Station became a  part of LSU in 1887, and was given
      statewide responsibility for research in agriculture and natural resources
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          133

-------
Fedoral & State Framework
Appendix A
      including forestry, wildlife and fisheries, home economics, food science, and
      other areas. Support is provided by state and federal sources, research grants,
      and self-generated income.  The Station's headquarters are in Baton Rouge
      where its scientists conduct research projects in 21 departments. Research
      specific to geographical areas of the state is conducted through a statewide
      network of 17 branch stations and other off campus facilities.

      Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service.  For nearly a century, the mission of the
      Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service has been to take the information
      developed by the Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. Department of
      Agriculture, universities, and private researchers to Louisiana's citizens.  The
      Extension's educational programs are cooperative—supported by local, state,
      and federal governments.  Although the Extension Service headquarters is
      located in Baton Rouge, each of the state's 64 parishes has an Extension
      Service office staffed by county agricultural agents and home economists. The
      Extension's educational program priorities, such as Water Conservation and
      Conservation  and Management, have a multidiciplinary approach.

Local Groups & Programs

      Parishes, Municipalities & Levee Boards. Probably the most significant
      authority parishes and municipalities have with regard to water resources
      pertains to the erection, operation, and regulation of water works and the
      construction, operation, and regulation of sewerage systems; subject, of
      course, to state and federal laws regarding health and water pollution
      standards. Police juries may regulate causeways, dikes, dams, and levees, and
      the clearing of the banks of rivers and natural drains within their respective
      parishes for the purpose of enhancing the passage of boats and other
      watercrafts; build dams to prevent saltwater inflow into freshwater streams;
      and expropriate property to facilitate the construction and operation of  canals.
      This authority of police juries is in some, but not all, instances subject to
      regulation by the Office of Public Works.

      Waterworks districts are created by police juries within their respective
      parishes, and, when created, may do what is reasonably necessary to establish
      and operate waterworks  systems, including acquiring property by
      expropriation and cooperating with  other districts within their respective
      parishes, or with private individuals, associations, corporations, or
      municipalities.

      Irrigation districts may be created by police juries upon petition of landowners
      within the parish, but located outside of incorporated towns and cities.  The
      basic purposes of irrigation districts are to conserve water for the benefit of the
      inhabitants and property owners within the district boundaries and to
      provide water for irrigation and other uses, both within and outside the
      district. They are authorized to construct, lease, acquire, maintain, and
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           134

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      operate dikes/dams, reservoirs, storage basins, locks, levees, flumes, conduits,
      and to acquire or lease private canals and other bodies of water for district
      purposes.

      Drainage districts are concerned with drainage problems and programs.
      There are a number of statutes relating to their operation.  They have control
      over all public drainage channels within their boundaries, and they may
      contract with the Office of Public Works for technical and financial aid for
      their projects.

      The authority of levee boards to construct levees and drainage channels is
      explicitly made subject to the supervision and approval of the  Office of Public
      Works.

Statutes

PL 100-4, Water Quality Act of 1987
LRS 30:4
LRS 30:901-902
LRS 30:1051 et seq.,  Louisiana Environmental Affairs Act
LRS 30:1061
LRS 30:1201
LRS 36:201-209
LRS36:258D
LRS 36:358
LRS 36:359
LRS 36:601-610
LRS 38:216
LRS 40:4-5
LRS 47:646.4
LRS 56:1840-1856
Mississippi
Regulatory Agencies & Programs

•     Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The Mississippi
      Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is responsible for most
      environmental programs in Mississippi.  Permitting, monitoring,
      enforcement, emergency response, and pollution prevention for various
      programs, including air, surface water, and ground water are all
      responsibilities of MDEQ.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          135

-------
Foe/era/ & State Framework.
Appendix A
      Monttortng. There are 61 established sampling stations in the state's
      monitoring program, of which 11 are located along the Mississippi coast.
      Water samples are analyzed for conventional water quality parameters and
      metals.  Coastal waters are evaluated biologically using fish diversity, health,
      and assessment, as well as algal biomass population and diversity. MDEQ
      biologists hope to begin work standardizing rapid bioassessment for estuarine
      waters in the near future. A number of special studies have been and are
      being conducted by MDEQ to evaluate coastal waters.

      Mississippi Forestry Commission. Since the inception of Mississippi's
      Silvicultural Best Management Practices under Section 319 of the Water
      Quality Act, the Mississippi Forestry Commission, in coordination with the
      Cooperative Extension Service and the Mississippi Forestry Association, has
      been heavily involved with the educational and training aspects of this
      program. The Forestry Commission provides technical assistance to
      landowners, loggers, and company foresters, as well as assists MDEQ in
      determining the efforts needed to correct silvicultural problems.

      Mississippi has sponsored over 20 workshops across the state, attended
      primarily by professional foresters. Beginning in early fall 1993, there will be
      jformal presentations made to various landowner associations across the state.
      All public agency foresters have received formal instructions in actual field  .
      situations as to  the implementation of the Water Quality  Program in all
      incentive programs and management plans done for private non-industrial
      landowners.  The 1,500+ individuals instructed through this program have
      either direct supervision or management  responsibilities for 1,031,857
      hectares (2,549,683 acres) of timberland in Mississippi.

      The Mississippi Forestry Commission recently published  a manual detailing
      silvicultural BMP guidelines for maintaining and improving water quality.
      The Commission met with the Mississippi Forestry Association and
      Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service to plan a statewide training
      program for loggers, foresters, and landowners on using BMPs to control
      silvicultural nonpoint source pollution.  In addition, Forestry Commission
      management staff have been directly involved in assisting various  forest
      industries in incorporating approved BMPs into their company policies.  In
      cooperation with the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, a BMP video
      is being developed to demonstrate pre-planning activities such as harvesting,
      site preparation, and regeneration, as well as information on forest activities
      detrimental to water quality. The forest industry in Mississippi has donated
      land, equipment, and resources for the production of the video and for the
      location of a future demonstration site.

      The Forestry Commission has completed an implementation evaluation
      consisting of grading silvicultural activities on randomly selected sites.  This
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           136

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      preliminary evaluation showed that better than 60 percent of the sites
      inspected were in compliance with silvicultural BMPs.

      Bureau of Pollution Control (BPC). Mississippi's Bureau of Pollution Control
      (BPC) drafted the statewide Erosion and Sediment Control  Law. This law
      provides a useful tool to reduce nonpoint source .impacts from construction
      activities.

      Mississippi Slate Department of Health. The Mississippi wastewater
      regulations and policy do not have any specifically declared regulatory
      authority dealing with nutrients in sewage effluent. The present regulations
      were designed in an attempt to ensure water quality from the standpoint of
      pathogens. In view of the stringent nature of the present wastewater laws,
      the Mississippi State Department of Health believes that in most cases
      nutrients are adequately removed. Nitrogen is the only nutrient that may
      pose a potential problem.                                ,
Statutes
      Mississippi State Drinking Water Act, Section 41-26-1 through Section 41-
      26-23, Mississippi Code of 1972, Annotated.  The regulation of
      nitrate/nitrite in drinking water is provided for through the Mississippi State
      Board of Health Environmental Regulations (Division 300 - Part 301, Public
      Water Systems Primary Drinking Water Regulations).  Part 301.7 of the above
      regulation specifies that all inorganic chemical maximum contaminant levels
      shall  apply to community and non-transient non-community public water
      systems as stipulated in the National Primary  Drinking Water Regulations
      published under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 141.13 or any
      subsequent revisions thereto.
Texas
Regulatory Agencies & Programs

      Texas Natural Resource Conseivation Commission (TNRCC). The Texas
      Natural Resource Conservation Commission has the responsibility of
      protecting surface and groundwater quality. The Commission issues
      wastewater treatment plant operator certificates, regulates water well drilling
      and petroleum storage tanks, and sets water rates for certain privately owned
      public water /wastewater systems. The Commission also has jurisdiction over
      water quality monitoring and management, abandoned waste site cleanup,
      and oil and hazardous material spill response coordination. In addition to
      these responsibilities, the Commission oversees surface water rights
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          137

-------
Fadoral & State Framework
Appendix A
      administration, dam safety management, the National Flood Insurance
      Program and flood control improvement project administration, injection
      well program administration, waste minimization initiatives, and water
      district supervision.

      Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB). The Texas State
      Soil & Water Conservation Board has the responsibility to plan, implement,
      and manage programs and practices for abating agricultural and silvicultural
      nonpoint pollution.  The State Board also administers a voluntary
      conservation program with and through 212 local soil and water
      conservation districts which encompass over 99 percent of the surface acres of
      Texas. With the voluntary program, conservation practices are being applied
      by over 215,000 cooperating landowners on more than 48.6 million hectares
      (120 million acres).

      Texas General Land Office (GLO) and School Land Board (SLB). The Texas
      General Land Office, in conjunction with the School Land Board, manages
      the state's coastal public lands. The Board may grant leases to certain
      governmental bodies for public purposes; leases for mineral exploration and
      development; easements to littoral landowners; channel easements to  surface
      or mineral interest holders; leases to  educational, scientific, or conservation
      interests; and permits for limited use of previously unauthorized structures.
      The commissioner  of GLO may issue  permits for geological, geophysical, and
      other investigations within the tidewater limits of the state.  The
      commissioner may also grant easements or leases for right-of-way across state
      lands for pipelines and other transmission lines. In addition, he is
      responsible for technical assistance and compliance under the Dune
      Protection Act and implementation of the Texas Coastal Preserve Program.

      GLO has developed a coastal management plan for Texas beaches and the
      state-owned submerged land underlying the Gulf of Mexico. The Governor
      of Texas has given notice to the U.S. Department of Commerce that Texas will
      submit a coastal management plan for approval under the federal Coastal
      Zone Management Act.

      Texas Agricultural Extension Service (TAEX). The Texas Agricultural
      Extension Service (TAEX), a state agency affiliated with the Texas A&M
      University System, provides technical and educational leadership  for
      training, informing, and educating farmers, ranchers, homeowners,
      commercial pest control specialists, agribusiness, suppliers, and others  about a
      number of issues,  including water quality management and protection.
      TAEX water quality programs in agriculture include proper use of nutrients,
      pesticides, and other chemicals;  contamination of rural wells; irrigation water
      management, including salinity  control; and reduction of runoff and leaching
      of water containing pesticides, nutrients, and animal wastes.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           138

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
•     Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). The Texas Department of
      Agriculture (TDA) has programs in regulation, marketing, producer outreach,
      agricultural resource protection, agricultural research, and economic analysis.
      The primary responsibility of TDA regarding water quality lies in pesticide
      registration and labeling, and certification and training of applicator activities.

•     Texas Forest Service.  The Texas Forest Service is responsible for the Texas
      Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Project, a cooperative project designed to
      reduce nonpoint source water pollution from forestry activities by
      encouraging widespread adoption of voluntary Silvicultural Best
      Management Practices in Texas.  The Project was funded by a Section 319
      grant from USEPA. The Project embodies the following six objectives:
      1) education of the forestry community using a variety of media;
      2) integration of BMPs into all relevant state forestry management programs;
      3) demonstration of various BMPs using two demonstration areas developed
      for use as an educational tool; 4) cooperation between agencies and the
      forestry community to ensure a coordinated, effective program; 5) evaluation
      of program and implementation of revisions as needed; and 6) monitoring
      BMP  compliance  and effectiveness through a program of on-site inspections
      of Silvicultural activities.  Educational efforts have reached an approximate
      audience of over  20,000 individual landowners, foresters, loggers,
      Silvicultural contractors, and the general public.

      A successful start has been made in encouraging the widespread  adoption of  '
      voluntary forestry BMPs in East Texas. It is estimated that stream
      sedimentation has already been reduced by 40 percent over a "no BMP" level.
      The initial results are encouraging, but also point out the need for a
      sustained, cooperative educational effort. This should be supported by
      additional cycles  of compliance monitoring to document continued
      improvement and to  focus continued attention on reducing nonpoint source
      pollution.

      Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). The Texas Parks & Wildlife
      Department operates the state parks system and wildlife refuges.  A permit
      must be obtained from the Department for the disturbance or dredging of
      sand, shell, or marl in public waters not authorized by other state or federal
      agencies.  Public waters are defined as all the salt and fresh waters underlying
      the beds of navigable streams under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Wildlife
      Commission.  The Department is responsible for reviewing and commenting
      on state and federal permits affecting Texas wildlife resources.

 Nonregulatory Programs

      .Clean Texas 2OOO. On April 7,1992, the Texas Water Commission (now the
      Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) kicked off its Clean Texas
      2000 campaign. This campaign includes programs that, if fully implemented,
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          139

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      will result in reduced nonpoint source pollution.  These include expanding
      the citizens monitoring program  (Texas Watch), providing technical
      assistance and funding to help cities establish household chemical collection
      programs, and funding and sponsorship of annual agricultural pesticide
      container collection days. Clean Texas 2000 contains a public education
      component which encourages reduction in the creation of household
      hazardous wastes and exchange of environmental education.  Excellent
      environmental accomplishments will be recognized through an awards and
      recognition program.

      State Education Program. Technology transfer and general education-are
      components of all 319 federal grant funded nonpoint source demonstration
      projects.  Projects examining the effectiveness of construction
      erosion/sedimentation controls, roadway runoff water quality controls, urban
      wetponds, and animal waste management techniques  will report the results
      of the studies in a manner such that others will benefit from  the information.

      State Wellhead Protection Program. Congress amended the Safe Drinking
      Water Act in 1986 to provide for USEPA approved state wellhead protection
      programs. These programs, to obtain USEPA approval, have to establish
      means for designation of public water supply wellhead protection areas and
      have to include contingency plans for public water supply in the event of
      groundwater contamination. The amendment did not explicitly direct that
      approved programs encompass nonpoint source pollution prevention.  The
      federal inducement for states to adopt wellhead protection programs is the
      authorization of funding for grants with which to operate the programs;
      unfortunately, due to budget constraints, federal appropriation levels for the
      grants have been low.
State Laws
      Texas Water Code Section 26.177. Section 26.177 requires cities with
      populations of 5000 or more to develop and have approved by the Texas
      Natural Resource Conservation Commission water pollution abatement
      programs.  The programs may address nonpoint source pollution, which the
      statute specifically notes to include urban runoff from rainwater. The cities
      may extend the controls of their water pollution abatement programs into
      their extraterritorial jurisdictions.  The Texas Water Commission assesses fees
      to recover the costs of administering Section 26.177.  About 300 Texas cities
      have populations in excess of 5000. Section 26.177 does not contain deadlines
      for implementation.  The Texas Water Commission has not adopted rules to
      implement Section 26.177.

      Texas Agriculture Code, Section 2O1.026. Section 201.026 gives the Texas
      State Soil & Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB)  the responsibility for
      planning, implementing, and managing programs and practices for abating
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          14O

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
      agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint source pollution. TSSWCB drafted
      and obtained USEPA approval of the agricultural and silvicultural
      components of the nonpoint source management program developed
      pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Although under funded,
      TSSWCB is in the process of implementing the program through, and in
      cooperation with, Texas soil and water conservation districts.

      Senate Bill 818: The Clean Rivers Act. The Clean Rivers Act, passed in 1991,
      directs the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to ensure a
      comprehensive regional assessment of water quality in each watershed and
      river basin in Texas. The purpose of the Act is to provide sufficient
      information to regulatory entities in order to take necessary corrective action
      to maintain and improve water quality in Texas.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          141

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS

There are numerous private organizations that focus their efforts on nutrient
enrichment from point and nonpoint sources. Descriptions of a few of these
organizations follow:

•     National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS - NRC).
      The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating
      society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering
      research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
      use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by
      Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the
      federal government on scientific and technical matters.

      The National Research Council was established by the  National Academy of
      Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
      with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the
      federal government.  The Council operates in accordance with general
      policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its Congressional
      charter. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both  the
      National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
      the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific
      and engineering communities.

•     National Council of  the Paper Industry for Air & Stream Improvement,  Inc.
      (NCASl). The National Council of the Paper Industry for Air & Stream
      Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) was founded in 1943, with the charge of
      conducting research  on technical issues of importance to the environmental
      quality protection needs of the forest products industry. NCASI is a non-
      profit organization and is supported primarily on the basis of dues paid by
      member companies.  These member companies are responsible for the
      production of greater than 90 percent of the pulp and paper manufactured in
      the U.S.  There are six regional laboratories/experimental stations operated by
      NCASI, most of which are either located on the campuses of, or are affiliated
      with, universities in  Corvallis, OR, Anacortes, WA, Kalamazoo, MI, Medford,
      MA, New Bern, NC, and Gainesville, FL.  The professional staff of NCASI is
      composed of engineers, chemists, biologists, hydrologists, soil hygienists, and
      modeling experts. The results of the investigations which NCASI conducts or
      manages are distributed to member company representatives, academic
      institutions, and USEPA, and are a matter of public record.

•     Mississippi River Basin Alliance. The Mississippi River Basin Alliance  is in
      the formative  stages, and is conceived as a loose network of private
      organizations  working together to protect the Mississippi River Basin. The
      Sierra Club Field Office in Madison, Wisconsin, is leading the effort to form
      this alliance.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          142

-------
Fee/era I & State Framework
Appendix A
      McKnight Foundation. The McKnight Foundation is a private charitable
      foundation with primary interests in assisting poor and disadvantaged
      people, strengthening the communities and community organizations,
      enriching peoples' lives through the arts, and encouraging preservation of
      the natural environment.  In 1991, the foundation committed to providing $9
      million in grants relating to the Mississippi River over a five-year period.

      Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC). The Upper
      Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC)  was established in 1943
      to promote the preservation and wise use of the natural and recreational
      resources of the upper Mississippi River and to formulate policies, plans, and
      programs for conducting cooperative studies. Although the state fish and
      wildlife agencies of the five upper Mississippi River states comprise the,
      UMRCC, four of the state water quality agencies are affiliated with the
      UMRCC as cooperating agencies.

      Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC). The Missouri River
      Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC) was organized in 1989 to promote
      and ensure the good stewardship of the Missouri River. The MRNRC is
      comprised of the fish and wildlife agencies within the Missouri River basin.

      Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC). The Lower
      Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC)  is currently being
      formed.  The purpose of the LMRCC is to promote the protection, restoration,
      enhancement, understanding, awareness, and wise use of the natural  ; ':
      resources of the lower Mississippi River, through coordinated and
      cooperative efforts involving research,  planning,. management, information
      sharing, public education, and advocacy. LMRCC is comprised of both the
      fish and wildlife and water quality agencies along the lower Mississippi River.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
           143

-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix B
   ADCNR       Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
   ADEM        Alabama Department of Environmental Management
   AL           Alabama
   ANICA       Atmospheric Nutrient Input to Coastal Areas
   ASCS         Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service
   ASD          Alabama State Docks Department
   BLM          Bureau of Land Management
   BMP          Best Management Practices
   BNR          Biological Nutrient Removal
   BOD          Biochemical Oxygen Demand
   BPC          Bureau of Pollution  Control—Mississippi
   CAA          Clean Air Act
   CAC          Citizens Advisory Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
   CCMP        Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan
   CES          Cooperative Extension Service
   CMD          Coastal Management Division
   COP          Coastal Ocean Program
   CWA         Clean Water Act
   CZMA        Coastal Zone Management Act
   CZARA       Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
   DHH          Department of Health & Hospitals—Louisiana
   DIN          Dissolved Inorganic  Nitrogen
   DMR         Discharge Monitoring Report
   DNR          Department of Natural Resources—Louisiana
   DO           Dissolved Oxygen
   DODT        Department of Transportation & Development—Louisiana
   EDA          Estuarine Drainage Area
   EDF          Environmental Defense Fund
   EIS           Environmental Impact Statement
   EMAP        Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program
   FmHA        Farmers  Home Administration
   FIFRA        Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act
   FL           Florida
   FWCA        Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act
   GLO          General Land Office-Texas
   GMP          Gulf of Mexico Program
   HSC          Houston Ship Channel
   LA           Louisiana
   LADEQ       Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
   LCRP         Louisiana Coastal Resources Program
   LMRCC       Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
   LSU          Louisiana State University
   M            Mole
   MC          Management Committee—Gulf of Mexico Program
   MDEQ        Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
   MMS         Minerals Management Service
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          144

-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix B
   MRNRC       Missouri River Natural Resources Committee
   MS            Mississippi
   MSD           Marine Sanitation Device
   MWTP        Municipal  Wastewater Treatment Plant
   N              Nitrogen
   NAS           National Academy of Sciences
   NASA         National Aeronautics and Space Administration
   NCASI        National Council of the Paper Industry for Air & Stream Improvement
   NCPDI        National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory
   NECOP        Nutrient-Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity
   NEP           National Estuary Program
   NEPA         National Environmental Policy Act
   NMFS         National Marine Fisheries Service
   NOAA        National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
   NPDES        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
   NFS           Nonpoint Source
   NRC           National Research Council
   OCS           Outer Continental Shelf
   OSDS          On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems
   OWR          Office of Water Resources (Louisiana)
   P              Phosphorus
   POTW         Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
   PRB           Policy Review Board—Gulf of Mexico Program
   QA/AC        Quality Assurance/Quality Control
   RCRA         Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
   SARPC        South Alabama  Regional Planning Commission
   SAV           Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
   SCS           Soil Conservation Service
   SDWA        Safe Drinking Water Act
   SEA           Strategic Environmental Assessments
   Si              Silicate
   SLB           School Land Board—Texas
   SNC           Significant Noncompliance
   SWIM         Surface Water Improvement Management Program
   TAC           Technical Advisory Committee—Gulf of Mexico Program
   TAEX          Texas Agricultural Extension Service
   TDA           Texas Department of Agriculture
   TKN           Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
   TNRCC        Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
   TOC           Total Organic Carbon
   TP             Total Phosphorus
   TPWD         Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
   TSSWCB       Texas State Soil  & Water Conservation Board
   TV A           Tennessee  Valley Authority
   TX             Texas
   UIC           Underground Injection  Control
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
          145

-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix B
   UMRCC       Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee
   USAGE        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   USCG         U.S. Coast Guard
   USDA        U.S. Department of Agriculture
   USDOC       U.S. Department of Commerce
   USDOD       U.S. Department of Defense
   USDOE       U.S. Department of Energy
   USDOI        U.S. Department of the Interior
   USDOTD      Department of Transportation & Development
   USEPA        U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   USFDA       U.S. Food & Drug Administration
   USFS         U.S. Forest Service
   USFWS       U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
   USGS         U.S. Geological Survey
   WWTP       Waste Water Treatment Plant
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                       146

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
aerobic
algae
algal blooms
alternative
technologies

ambient
anaerobic

anoxia

anoxia
volume-day

anthropogenic

atmospheric
deposition
benthic

benthos
best
management
practices (BMPs)
biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD)

biological
nutrient
removal (BNR)

biota

biotic
community
Presence of free oxygen (oxygen gas).

Any of a group of aquatic plants, including phytoplankton and seaweeds,
ranging from microscopic to several meters in size.

Sudden spurs of algal growth,, which can affect water quality adversely.
Often, excessive blooms indicate nutrient enrichment. Some species cause
potentially hazardous changes in local water chemistry.

Technological improvements utilizing physical or biochemical means of
increasing oxygen in addition or in lieu of nitrogen source controls.

Referring to average concentrations of substances in the surrounding media
(water, air, or  sediment).

Absence of free oxygen (oxygen gas).

Absence of dissolved oxygen in water (<0.1 mg oxygen/L).

A unit that represents a cubic meter of water which has a daily mean dissolved
oxygen concentration less than 1.0 mg/L.

Relating to, or resulting from, the influence of human beings on nature.

The accretion of chemicals including nitrogen and phosphorus, attached to dust
materials during dry weather or as part of raindrops, sleet, snow, hail, etc.
during wet weather, which are deposited onto the land or water surfaces from
the air.

Of or pertaining to the bottom or near bottom of a stream, lake, or ocean.

All marine organisms (plant and animal) living on or near the bottom of a
stream, lake, or ocean.

Pollution control techniques developed by farmers, scientists, and
administrators for managing nonpoint source nutrient discharges. BMPs
cover two broad areas of management: 1) constructing facilities to contain
nutrients, and 2) employing farming practices that decrease the use and/or
runoff of fertilizers and manure.

A measure of the quantity of dissolved oxygen removed from water by the
metabolism of microorganisms. Excessive BOD results in oxygen-poor water.
Wastewater treatment processes that: 1) create specific biological
environments which enhance phosphorus removal; and 2) utilize chemical
energy drawn from the wastewater itself to remove nitrogen.

Plants and animals inhabiting a given region.

A naturally-occurring assemblage of plants and animals that live
in the same environment and are mutually sustaining and interdependent.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    147

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
bloom


brackish


characterization


chelate


chlorophyll



coastal runoff

coastal zone
combined sewer
overflows  ,
compliance

conservation
tillage
control program
controllable
conventional
pollutants
criteria
cumulative
impacts
Excessive growth of plankton in concentrations sufficiently dense to cause
discoloration of water and reduced light penetration.

Salty, but not as salty as sea water. Brackish water occurs in estuaries, creeks,
and deep wells.

The process of bringing together a number of information sources to synthesize
overall patterns or make a statement of current conditions.

Relating to, or having a ring structure, that usually contains a metal ion held by
coordination bonds.

Green pigment in plants that is essential for photosynthesis.  One type of the
pigment (chlorophyll a) is commonly used as a measure of phytoplankton
abundance.

Storm water and the materials it carries from land surrounding a coastal area.

Lands and waters adjacent to the coast that exert an influence on the uses of the
sea and its ecology, or inversely, whose uses and ecology are affected by the sea.
Legally, the definition varies from state to state.

Discharges from a sewer system that carry both sewage and storm water runoff.
Normally, its entire flow goes to a wastewater treatment plant but, during a
heavy storm, the storm water volume may be so great as to cause overflows.
When this happens, untreated mixtures of storm water and sewage may flow
into receiving waters. Storm water runoff may also carry toxic chemicals from
industrial areas or streets into the  sewer system.

Conformance to the rules and regulations regarding wastewater discharges.

In agriculture, the utilization of a tillage system appropriate for the soil
properties, climate, and farming system that is  also compatible  with the goals
of reduced soil erosion and effective nutrient application.

The methods used to reduce nutrient releases from both point sources and
nonpoint sources.

Those sources of nutrients that arise or result from the impact of human
activities and are not attributable to background loads. "Controllable" does not
imply that these loads are scheduled  for control or that they can all be
managed, only that they can be controlled given the technologies available.

Pollutants typically discharged by municipal sewage treatment  plants and a
number of industries. The category includes wastes with a high  biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, grease, and
oil.

Acceptable limits in various media (e.g., water, sediments) for pollutants
derived by USEPA.  When issued by USEPA, the criteria provide guidance to
the states on how to establish their standards.

Combined effects resulting from more than one action.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    148

-------
Glossary
                                                         Appendix C
cyanobacteria


decomposition



demersal

denitrification
diatoms
direct discharger
dissolved oxygen
(DO)
drainage basin

dry weather
overflows
ecological impact


ecosystem


effluent


emission



enrichment



epifauna


estuary
Blue-green algae, which occurs in fresh and salt water (planktonic and
benthic), in soils, and as nitrogen-fixing symbionts.

The breakdown of matter by bacteria and fungi. It changes the chemical make-
up and physical appearance of materials being broken down and may cause
changes in the environment as well.

Living near, deposited on, or sinking to the bottom of the sea.

A biochemical process in which specific bacteria extract oxygen bound up in
molecules of nitrate, resulting in the release of harmless nitrogen gas into the
atmosphere. This process occurs naturally in salt marshes and wetlands and can
be established in wastewater treatment plants to remove nitrogen from
wastewater.

Any of various tiny planktonic algae of the class Bacillariophyceae, with
siliceous cell walls consisting of two overlapping symmetrical parts.

A municipal or industrial facility that introduces pollution through a defined
conveyance or system; a point source.

Concentration of oxygen in water, commonly employed as a measure of water
quality.  Low levels adversely affect aquatic life. Most finfish cannot survive
when DO falls below 3 mg/L for a sustained period of time.  SEE ANOXIA
AND HYPOXIA

The land area drained  by a river or stream and its tributaries.

Illegal discharges of untreated wastewater from combined sewer overflows
and storm drains unrelated to rainfall events. During rainstorms such
discharges are referred to as "wet weather overflows."

The effect that a human or natural activity  has on living organisms and their
non-living (abiotic) environment.

An ecological community consisting of living organisms and their physical and
chemical environment.

Discharge or emission of a liquid or gas, usually from a point source (e.g., pipe or
stack), into the environment.

Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and
surface areas-of commercial or  industrial facilities; from residential chimneys;
and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts.

The addition of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon compounds) from
sewage effluent, runoff, or atmospheric deposition to surface water. This
process greatly increases the growth potential  for algae and aquatic plants.

Benthic fauna living on the substrate (as a hard sea floor) or on other
organisms.

A semi-enclosed body of water, connected to the open sea, in which sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water from inland sources.
 Gulf of Mexico Program  Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                     149

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
fall line



fertilizer



freshwater


ground water


habitat


hypoxia

indirect discharge


infauna

land use
light
attenuation
limiting
nutrient
living resources

loading


marine

marine
sanitation
device (MSD)

mesohaline

meteorological
conditions
Area in a tributary where tidal waters meet free-flowing fresh water, often
called the "head of tide."  This is a transition zone at which water quality is
most easily related to the rate of river flow.

Materials such as nitrogen and phosphorus that provide nutrients for cultured
plants.  Commercially sold fertilizers may contain other chemicals  or may be in
the form of processed sewage sludge.

Water that generally contains less than 1,000 milligrams-per-liter of dissolved
solids.

Subsurface water saturating soil or porous rock which often returns, with its
nitrogen loads, to surface streams during dry periods.

The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism)
lives and its surroundings, both living and non-living.

Low levels of dissolved oxygen in water, defined as less than 2 mg/L.

Introduction of pollutants from commercial and industrial facilities into a
sewage treatment plant.

Benthic fauna living in the substrate, especially in a soft sea bottom.

Refers to the ways in which a community or area makes use of its natural
resources.

A measure of how quickly light disappears with increasing depth  in the water.
Low light attenuation means increased levels of light penetrate further down in
the water column. SEE WATER CLARITY

A nutrient (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) that limits  the growth of a population
(e.g., plants) or determines the carrying capacity of the environment by its
scarcity.

Plant and animal life.

Quantity of contaminants, nutrients, or other substances introduced into a
waterbody.

Pertaining to the ocean or sea.

Any equipment installed on board a vessel  to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
sewage and any process to treat sewage.
Water of medium salinity-5-18 parts/thousand. SEE SALINITY

Atmospheric phenomena, such as precipitation, wind, and temperature,
which ultimately drive the surface and groundwater flow of water and
nutrients.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    150

-------
Glossary-
microgram
atomic weight
model
modeling
mole
(M)
monitoring
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System (NPDES)

nitrate
nitrification
nitrogen
nonpoint source
pollution
NPDES permits
Microgram atomic weight of a chemical element is the amount of the element
with the weight equal to its atomic weight measured in micrograms. For
example, the atomic weight of nitrogen is 14, thus 14 ug of nitrogen is 1
microgram atom. A solution containing 14 ug of nitrogen in 1 liter of water
would produce a concentration of 1 (ig atom of nitrogen/liter.

A simplified mathematical representation of reality.  Water quality  modeling
is used to study Gulf of Mexico processes and project effects of varying
environmental conditions or management actions.

An investigative technique using a mathematical or physical representation of
a system or theory, usually on a computer, which accounts for all or some of its
known properties. Models are often used to test the effect of changes of system
components on the overall performance of the system.

The gram-molecular weight of a substance. It is the amount of the substance
having a weight equal to the molecular weight of the substance in grams. A
micromole (uM) is 1 one-millionth of a mole.

Observing, tracking, or measuring some aspect of the environment to establish
base line conditions and short or long-term trends.

A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the U.S. unless a special permit is issued by USEPA, state, or (where
delegated) a tribal government on an Indian reservation.
A compound containing nitrogen and oxygen (NO3> that can exist in the
atmosphere or as a dissolved gas in water and that can have harmful effects on
humans and animals. For example, high concentrations of nitrates in drinking
water can cause severe illness in infants.

The biochemical process in which specific bacteria convert ammonia and
organic nitrogen to nitrate. In wastewater treatment plants, ammonia and
organic nitrogen come from human wastes and dead plant and animal matter.
The nitrifying bacteria are cultured .for use at the plants to convert ammonia to
nitrite and nitrate.  Nitrification occurs naturally in ecosystems such as
saltmarsh and wetlands and can be established in wastewater treatment plants
to remove ammonia and nitrogen from wastewater.

A nutrient essential for  life. May be organic or inorganic (ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite). Elemental nitrogen constitutes 78 percent of the atmosphere by volume.

Toxicants, other contaminants, nutrients, or soil entering a waterbody from
sources other than discrete discharges, such as pipes.  Includes pollution on the
land which originates as atmospheric deposition, as well as farm and urban
runoff.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits to discharge treated
wastewaters to the waters of the U.S. issued by either USEPA or the state.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    151

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
nutrients
nutrient
enrichment
nutrient flux


oligohaline

organic


organic matter


organism

outfall

oxygen demand

pelagic

periphytic


permit
phosphorus

phylogenetic

phytoplankton

point source
pollution

pollutant


pollution
polyhaline
Chemicals required for growth and reproduction of plants.  Excessive levels of
the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to excessive algae growth.

Nutrient enrichment increases primary productivity in a waterbody,
eventually resulting in depletion of dissolved oxygen essential to aquatic life
(also called eutrophication).

The rate of transfer of nutrients across a surface, usually the sediment/water
column interface.

Water of low salinity~0.5 to 5.0 parts/thousand.

(1) Referring to or derived from living organisms. (2) In chemistry, any
compound containing carbon.

Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from
domestic or industrial sources.

Any living thing.

The place where an effluent is discharged into receiving waters.

Consumption of oxygen by bacteria to oxidize organic matter.

Of or relating to the open ocean.

Of or relating to  organisms (as some algae) that live attached to underwater
surfaces.

An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by USEPA or an
approved state agency to implement the requirements of an environmental
regulation, e.g., permit to discharge from a wastewater treatment plant or to
operate a facility that may generate harmful emissions.

A nutrient essential for life found in both organic and inorganic forms.

Based on natural evolutionary relationships.

Microscopic plants that live in water such as algae.

Contamination from waste effluent discharged into a waterbody through pipes
or conduits.

Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely
affects the health of plants and animals, or the usefulness of a resource.

Generally, the presence of matter or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired environmental effects. Under the Clean Water Act, for
example, the term is defined as the man-made or man-induced alteration of the
physical, biological, and radiological integrity of the water.

Water  with a salinity of 18 to 30 parts/thousand.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    152

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
pretreatment
primary waste
treatment
priority pollutant

productivity
publicly-owned
treatment works

qualitative

quality assurance/
quality control
(QA/QC)
quantitative

receiving waters


residual




restoration


resuspension


riparian zone

runoff


salinity


sanitary sewers
Processes used to reduce, eliminate, or alter the nature of wastewater pollutants
from non-domestic sources before they are discharged into publicly-owned
treatment works.

First steps in wastewater treatment. Screens and sedimentation tanks are used
to remove most materials that float or will settle. Primary treatment results in
the removal of about 30 percent of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
from domestic sewage.

A pollutant that  is listed by USEPA as a pollutant of concern.

Process by which plants remove dissolved carbon dioxide and micro-nutrients
from the water and, using solar energy, convert them to complex organic
compounds of high potential energy.              :

A waste-treatment works owned by a state, unit of local government, or Indian
tribe, usually designed to treat sewage and other domestic wastewaters.

Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment of a parameter.

A system of procedures, checks, audits, and corrective actions to ensure that
research design and performance, environmental monitoring and sampling,
and other technical  and reporting activities are of the highest achievable
quality.

Pertaining to the numerical assessment of a parameter.

A river, lake, ocean, stream, or other watercourse into which wastewater or
treated effluent is discharged.

Amount of a pollutant remaining in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g., the sludge remaining after initial
wastewater treatment or particulates  remaining in air after the air passes
through a scrubbing or other pollutant removal process.

The act of returning something such as habitat or water quality to its condition
prior to human disturbance. Measure taken to return a site to natural conditions.

Lifting of in-place bottom sediments into the  water column by waves, bottom
currents, or other mechanical disturbance.

Areas adjacent to rivers and streams.

Drainage of precipitation over the soil or a non-porous surface (e.g., asphalt) to
a stream, river, or other receiving body of water.

Amount, by weight, of dissolved salts in 1,000 units of water (reported as
parts/thousand).

Underground pipes that carry only domestic or industrial waste, not storm
water.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    153

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
secondary
treatment
sediments
septic tank
sewage
sewer
side treatment
significant
noncompliance
(SNC)
standards




stoichiometric




storm sewer


storm water

stratification


stream
The second step in most sewage treatment plants in which bacteria consume the
organic parts of the waste. It is accomplished by bringing together waste,
bacteria, and oxygen in trickling filters or in an activated sludge process.  This
treatment removes floating and settleable solids and about 90 percent of the
oxygen-demanding substances and suspended solids.  Disinfection is the final
stage of secondary treatment.

The loose solids, (e.g., soil from erosion or runoff) that settle to the bottom of a
waterbody or its tributaries which can be sources of nitrogen and phosphorus.

An underground storage and  treatment tank for wastes from homes having no
sewer line to a treatment plant. The waste goes directly from the home to the
tank, where the organic waste is decomposed by bacteria and the sludge settles
to the bottom.  The effluent flows out of the tank into the ground through
drains; the sludge is pumped out periodically.

The waste and wastewater produced by residential and commercial
establishments and discharged into sewers.

A channel or conduit that carries wastewater and storm water runoff from the
source to a treatment plant or receiving stream.  Sanitary sewers carry
household, industrial, and commercial waste. Storm sewers carry runoff from
rain or snow. Combined sewers are used for both purposes.

Treatment of wastewater or its by-products physically separate from secondary
treatment plant processes.

Includes  instances of NPDES permit violations (e.g., monthly average permit
limits) or violation of administrative or judicial orders that meet certain
screening criteria for frequency and duration. Permit holders on SNC lists are
targeted first for enforcement actions.

Prescriptive norms that govern action and actual limits on the amount of
pollutants or emissions produced. USEPA, under most of its responsibilities,
establishes minimum standards. States can issue stricter standards if they
choose.

1) Of or relating to the quantitative relationship between two constituents in a
chemical substance. 2) Of or relating to the quantitative relationship between
two or more substances, especially in processes involving chemical or physical
changes.

A system of pipes (separate from sanitary sewers) that carries only water
runoff from building and land surfaces.

Runoff caused by precipitation.

The layering of fresh water over salt water due to differences in relative
density and temperature.

A body of water, including brooks and creeks, that moves in a definite channel
in the ground driven by a hydraulic gradient.
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    154

-------
Glossary
                                                        Appendix C
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
(SAV)

surface water
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)

total maximum
daily load
toxic

tributary

trophic level




turbidity


wastewater
wastewater
treatment

wastewater
treatment plant

water clarity
water column
water quality
water quality
standards
watershed
Vegetation that grows underwater along the fringes and in shallow water.
All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams,
impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.); also refers to springs, wells, or other
collectors that are directly influenced by surface water.

Forms of nitrogen quantified in a Kjeldahl test; usually the sum of total
ammonia-N and organic N, excluding nitrate-N and nitrite-N.

The maximum amount of a substance, such as metals or nutrients, that can be
discharged in a day by permitted wastewater treatment plants, industries, or
nonpoint sources and continue to meet water quality standards.

Harmful to living organisms.

A stream, creek, or river that flows into a larger stream, creek or river.

A successive stage of nourishment as represented by links in the food chain.
Primary producers (phytoplankton) constitute the first trophic level,
herbivorous zooplankton the second trophic level, and carnivorous organisms
the third and higher trophic level.

Reduction of water clarity caused by suspended sediments and organics in the
water.

The spent or used water that contains dissolved or suspended matter from
individual homes, a community, a farm, or an industry.

Processes to remove pollutants, commonly categorized as primary, secondary,
and advanced (tertiary) levels of treatment.

A facility containing a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other processes by
which pollutants are removed from water.

A general term which describes the transparency of water in an aquatic system.
Water clarity is reduced with increased amounts of particulate materials (e.g.,
suspended  sediments) in the water column. SEE LIGHT ATTENUATION

A vertical extent of water reaching from the surface to  the bottom substrate of a
waterbody.

Status or condition of a waterbody in terms of defined variables characterizing
the "health" of the water.

State-adopted and USEPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies.
The standards cover the use of the water body and the water quality criteria
that must be met to protect the designated use or uses (e.g., drinking, swimming,
fishing).

Land area from which precipitation drains into a given body of water.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                    155

-------
Glossary
                                                      Appendix C
wetlands
zooplankton
An area that is regularly saturated by surface or ground water and subsequently
is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in the
soil conditions. Examples include: swamps, bogs, fens, and marshes. Often
defined based on soil characteristics.

Animal plankton of widely varying size that drift or swim weakly in the
water.  They consume the primary producers and are a second link in the food
chain or food web.
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                                  156

-------
Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process
                                           Appendix D
The Nutrient Enrich i
tnt Committee
Co-Chairs:

Mr. Pete Heard
Mr. Dugan Sabins

Members:

Ms. Jan Boydstun
Dr. Fred Bryan
Mr. Charles Demas
Dr. Mark Dortch
Mr. Mike Dowgiallo
Mr. Daniel Farrow*
Dr. Robert Fisher
Dr. David Flemer*
Mr. James Fogarty
Mr. Tim Forester*
Mr. Johnny French
Mr. Douglas Fruge'
Dr. Eddie Funderburg
Mr. Brian Grantham*
Dr. Churchill Grimes
Mr. Vince Guillory
Mr. Doug Jacobson
Dr. Peter Kuch
Mr. Ira Linville
Dr. Stephen Lovejoy
Mr. Gale Martin*
Mr. David Moffitt
Mr. James Moore*
Mr. James Patek
Dr. Nancy Rabalais
Mr. Dale Rapin
Dr. Alan Shiller
Dr. Bob Thompson, Jr.*
Mr. Lloyd Woosley P.E.
Dr. Terry  Whitledge
      Soil Conservation Service
      Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
      Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
      Louisiana State University
      U.S. Geological Survey
      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Citizens Advisory Committee
      Alabama Department of Environmental Management
      U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
      U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
      Louisiana State University
      Citizens Advisory Committee
      National Marine Fisheries Service
      Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 4
      Purdue University
      Mississippi Soil & Water Conservation Commission
      Soil Conservation Service
      Texas Soil & Water Conservation Board
      Lower Colorado River Authority
      Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
      U.S. Forest Service
      University of Southern Mississippi
      Potash & Phosphate Institute—Midsouth
      U.S. Geological Survey
      The University of Texas at Austin
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Coordinator:

Ken Blan*                 Soil Conservation Service/Gulf of Mexico Program

*Steering Committee Member
 Gulf of Mexleo Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                                     1ST

-------
Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process
                                    Appendix D
Additional Participants in Action Agenda Workshop •• September 2 • 3. 1992
Mark Alderson
Al Ballard
Ken Blan
John deMond
David Donovan
Quay Dortch
Beverly Ethridge
Sam Feagley
Tom Foster
Roland Geddes
Irene Hess
Bill Holland
Nancy Holland
Bob Hutson
Dewayne Imsand
Doug Jacobson
Fred Kopfler
Amy Leaberry
Doug Lipka
Chip Morgan
Roberta Parry
Dean Pennington
Dirk Peterson
Drew Puffer
Ann Robinson
Dr. Frank Shipley
Haskell Simon
Dave Smith
William  Wiseman
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Louisiana State University
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chesapeake Bay Program (consultant)
Louisiana State University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Delta  Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
YMD  Water District
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Izaak  Walton League
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
Matagorda County Water Council
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Louisiana State University
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                              1S8

-------
Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process
                                     Appendix D
Written Comments on Strawmam Received From the Following:
Ken Blan
Jan Boydstun
Mike Dowgiallo
Quay Dortch
Daniel Farrow
David  Flemer
Tom Foster
Doug Fruge'
Eddie Funderburg
Churchill Grimes
Doug Jacobson
Amy Leaberry
Jerry Lemunyon
David  Moffitt
James  Moore
Earl Norton
Roberta Parry
Edward Pullen
Nancy Rabalais
Dale Rapin
Ann Robinson
Dugan Sabins
Haskell Simon
Bob Thompson, Jr.
Ernest Todd
Soil Conservation Service
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency      ••;.-.-
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Louisiana State University
National Marine Fisheries Service       ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service                     .
Soil Conservation Service
Texas Soil & Water Conservation Board
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
U.S. Forest Service
Izaak Walton League
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Matagorda County Water Council
Potash & Phosphate Institute—Midsouth
Soil Conservation Service
 Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                               159

-------
Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process
                                    Appendix D
Comments on Working Draft Received From the Following;
Everard Baker
Ken Blan
Mike Dowgiallo
Daniel Farrow
Don Feduccia
Bob Fisher
David  Flemer
Tim Forester
Tom Foster
Brian Grantham
Bill Holland
Tom Kilpatrick
Fred Kopfler
Herb Kumpf
Doug Jacobson
Paul Larson
Roger Lord
Brandt Mannchen
Gale Martin
James  Moore
Drew Puffer
Edward Pullen
Nancy Rabalais
Dale Rapin
Ann Robinson
Dugan Sabins
Paul Sammarco
Bob Thompson, Jr.
Mississippi Forestry Commission
Soil Conservation Service
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Tennessee Valley Authority
Citizen's Advisory Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mississippi State Department of Health
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries  Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Soil Conservation Service
Texas Forest Service
Sierra Club
Mississippi Soil & Water Conservation Commission
Texas Soil & Water Conservation Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
U.S. Forest Service
Izaak Walton League
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
Potash & Phosphate Institute—Midsouth
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                              16O

-------
Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process
                                     Appendix D
Comments on Draft f3.1l Received From the Following:
Ken Blan
Jan Boydstun
Eugene Buglewicz
Don Burdette
John Carlton
Mike Dowgiallo
Daniel Farrow
Bob Fisher
David  Flemer
Tim Forester
Tom Foster
Doug Fruge'
Daniel Furlong
Pete Heard
Doug Jacobson
James Jones
Jerry Lemunyon
Roy Lewis
David  Moffitt
Warren Olds
Roberta Parry
Drew Puffer
Dale Rapin
Dugan Sabins
Alan Shiller
Dave Smith
Peter Tidd
Bob Thompson, Jr.
John Woeste
Soil Conservation Service
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alabama Forestry Commission
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Soil Conservation Service
Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
University of Southern Mississippi
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Soil Conservation Service
Potash &  Phosphate Institute—Midsouth
Gulf of Mexico Program Nutrient Enrichment Action Agenda (3.2)
                                               161

-------

-------