"America's Sea at Risk"
First Progress Report
on the
Gulf of Mexico Program
JULY 1990
-------
"America's Sea at Risk"
First Progress Report
on the
Gulf of Maxico Program
below are the logos from the various agencies with membership on
the Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board or who are actively
participating in the Program committee structure.
Their contributions and assistance to the Gulf Program effort have been
outstanding and speak for the spirit of interagency cooperation and
commitment which has nwrte the Gulf Program work.
8
\
US Army Corps
of Engineers
ton
un
-------
NASA
U.S. HSH AND WILDLIFE
US.
FISH* WILDLIFE
SERVICE
In addition/ the Gulf Program also gratefully acknowledges the important
contribution and support received from the following agencies and organizations:
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Alabama Geological Survey,
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, Mississippi Bureau of Geology, Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources,
Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, Northwest Florida Water Management
District, Louisiana Litter Control and Recycling Commission, Louisiana Geological
Survey, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Gulfwide), Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi Forestry Commission, Texas Department of
Health, Louisiana Office of Public Health, Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, Alabama Department of Public Health, Mississippi
Department of Health, University of South Alabama, University of New Orleans,
Louisiana State University, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, University of Texas,
Port of Corpus Christi, Gulf Ports Association, Texas A&M University, Sea Grant
(Gulfwide), Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, Audubon Society, Sierra
Club, Louisiana University Marine Consortium, Mote Marine Laboratory, Hausel &
Associates, Inc., American Petroleum Institute, Mobil Oil, Inc., Amoco Oil, Inc.,
Center for Marine Conservation, University of South Mississippi, Purdue
University, Alabama Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Tulane University, Nichols State
University, University of Alabama, University of Florida, and the University of
Mississippi.
-------
PREFACE
. This report covers activities conducted within the Gulf of Mexico Program from
its initiation in August of 1988 through December/ 1989. The purpose of this
progress report is to present the status of various activities within the
Program up to that time and does not include activities occurring after
January, 1990.
Future progress of the Gulf of Mexico Program will be presented in subsequent
annual and periodic status reports.
-------
FIRST PROGRESS REPORT
FOR THE
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
Prepared for
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 1103, Room 202
John C. Stennis Space Center
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi 39529
Prepared by
Thomas W. Duke, Ph.D.
Technical Resources, Inc.
Bicroonitoring Services Laboratory
6601 East Bay Boulevard
Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561
and
Eulalie E. Sullivan
Technical Resources, Inc.
3202 Tower Oaks Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20852
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
STRATEGY 1
ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM OFFICE AND COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 4
Program Office 5
Policy Review Board 5
Citizens Advisory Coranittee 6
Technical Steering Gannittee 7
Presentation of Subccmnittees 9
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION 10
Habitat Degradation 10
Marine Debris 12
Nutrient Enrichment 14
Toxic Substances and Pesticides 16
Freshwater Inflow 18
Data and Information Transfer 20
Public Education and Outreach 22
Public Health 23
Coastal Erosion Task Force (Subconnittee) 25
FUTURE CHALLENGES 26
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1988, Regions 4 and 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
initiated the development of a Gulf of Mexico Program. The major purpose
for the program is to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect and
enhance the environmental quality of the Gulf of Mexico. This
intergovernmental initiative is a geographical approach to resolving major
environmental issues. The program advocates:
o a systemwide approach to address emerging environmental issues;
o development of interjurisdictional solutions for resolving
environmental problems;
o working to address environmental issues before the damage is too
costly to repair; and
o serves as a model for public policy development through greater
public involvement in the decision-making process.
It would be difficult for the United States or the five-state Gulf
region to assess the social and economic value of the Gulf of Mexico
unless it was lost to the effects of pollution. In the past, the warm
waters of the Gulf have provided an impressive wealth of resources for the
taking. However, recent trends and information have indicated that we
risk serious long-term environmental damage to this vast and unique marine
system if we do not begin comprehensively planning today.
The Gulf of Mexico Program was created as an intergovernmental
response to signs of increasing environmental degradation, that are now
pervasive throughout the Gulf system. These problems include:
o Up to 3,000 square miles of oxygen deficient (hypoxia) bottom
waters known as the "dead zone" have been documented off the
Louisiana and Texas coast.
o Fish kills and toxic "red tides" were an increasing phenomenon in
the Gulf during the 1980's.
o Four of the top five states in the nation in total surface water
discharges of toxic release inventory chemicals are found in the
Gulf region (Alabama, Mississippi, Loin'si ana, and Texas).
o Almost two tons per mile of marine trash covered the shores of
Texas beaches alone in 1988.
o 3.4 minim acres (57%) of the shellfish-growing areas along the
Gulf Coast are permanently or conditionally closed. Such closures
will increase unless environmental conditions are improved, e.g.,
increased toxic chemicals and growth of waste concentrations.
-------
o Louisiana continues to lose valuable coastal marsh habitat at the
rate of 50-60 square miles per year. Such losses could threaten
the natural productive cycles of commercial shrimp and fishery
resources in the Gulf.
The Gulf of Mexico Program has identified key issues which are
pervasive in the Gulf and which threaten the future long-term viability of
the Gulf of Msxico system. The tremendous wealth of economic and social
values contributed by the Gulf benefit the United States and Gulf Coast
region. In order to protect this valuable resource there is a need to
make the future management and protection of the long-term environmental
quality of the Gulf a national priority. A recent editorial in the New
Orleans Times-Picayune stated, "The Gulf coastal wetlands are a common
asset we must work in common to protect.. .The advocacy of a united Gulf
South can be a powerful asset to take to Washington, whose financial help
will be decisive in a wetlands defense operation of the required scope."
This report has been developed for the purpose of reporting on the
progress achieved during the first year of the Program and raising
recommendations to improve future Program development.
Accomplishments
Through the efforts made during the first year of the Gulf of Mexico
Program, consensus is now beginning to emerge on the priority issues which
should be addressed to protect the long-term health and productivity of
the Gulf. Those issues deemed most pervasive at this point in the program
effort are:
1) Habitat loss - to include coastal wetlands, seagrass beds, and dimes.
2) Toxic substances and pesticides contamination - from industrial and
agriculturally-based sources, both point and nonpoint.
3) Nutrient enrichment - from industrial and agriculturally-based
sources, both point and nonpoint.
4) Marine debris - from both land-based sources and shipping/boating
activity in the Gulf.
5) Freshwater diversions away from coastal estuaries for purposes of
flood control, navigation, recreation and support to growing coastal
populations.
6) Public health threats - from water contact or contaminated seafood
products.
7) Coastal and shoreline erosion - from natural and manmade causes.
In addition, the program established a Gulfwide committee framework
and infrastructure to initiate communication and information exchange
among multiple levels of government, the public, and multiple Gulf user
groups. This structure currently consists of three main committees and
nine technical subcommittees.
ii
-------
Other program activities and accomplishments during the first
calendar year include:
o Program Office established and opened - August 22, 1988.
o Program Office staffed through a combination of EPA, SCS, OOE and
NQAA staff.
o Established a five-year framework to guide the planning and
development of a Gulf of Mexico comprehensive plan.
o A technical background paper supporting special area designation
of the Gulf of Mexico under MARPOL Annex V was drafted and
released for public comment. This paper will serve as technical
justification and support for applying the special area criteria
of the MARPOL treaty to the Gulf under Annex V.
o A Coastal and Shoreline Erosion Subcommittee was created for the
purpose of evaluating and highlighting this issue as pervasive in
the Gulf.
o A federal/state program coordination workshop was convened in
July, 1989 to improve information exchange and planning of
research and management information needs. Plans are already
being made to make this workshop an annual event.
o Procurements were initiated by all Gulf of Mexico Program
subcommittees in an effort to gather and assess existing
information on key Gulf issues and begin the process for
developing environmental characterization studies.
o Multiple communication efforts were initiated to promote the
program. Some examples include publishing a bimonthly newsletter
called "Gulfwatch, " production of a fact sheet, distribution of
video tapes on the program, supporting the "Take Pride Gulfwide"
beach cleanup effort with 100,000 brochures and 20,000 bumper
stickers, and supporting the convening of a Gulf conference in
Galveston, Texas (November 1988).
Fut|rre
The future direction of the program will be determined through
consensus of program participants. For the immediate future, however, the
program will focus on completion of the steps identified in the five-year
planning strategy: 1) prepare environmental characterization reports, 2)
prepare environmental assessments, 3) develop an interactive data
management system, 4) prepare predictive assessments, 5) development of an
environmental management plan, and 6) develop an environmental monitoring
-------
plan. After working with the committee structure and program in actual
practice during the previous year, a number of recommendations have cone
forth that will improve the effectiveness of a comprehensive Gulfwide
environmental effort. Among those key recommendations are:
a. Planning must begin on intergovernmental structure needed for
implementation of the framework for action.
b. The Gulf of Mexico Program should be given a mechanism to allow for
interagency budget planning. This would not only elevate the status
of the Program, but would provide for receiving the transfer of funds
from other Federal agencies. Also, it would allow the budget process
to recognize and address the critical needs of the cooperative
Program.
c. Cooperating agencies should highlight the Gulf of Mexico Program in
their FY91 and 92 budget requests as it relates to priority issues.
d. Collocation of Federal and State personnel at the Gulf of Mexico
Program Office should be encouraged and continued.
e. Additional funds should be identified to provide travel funds for
certain State personnel and private citizens associated with the
Program to attend specific Program meetings. This travel is critical
for the operation of the committees and subcommittees, and thus is
critical for the success of the Program.
f . T.inga of communication should be established with various emergency
response teams in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as with NQAA's Coast
Watch Program, so the Gulf of Mexico Program can be aware of
emergency environmental situations as they develop. Establishing
these lines of communication and advance agreements could foster
improved coordination of high tech equipment and information in the
event of a future environmental problem in the Gulf of Mexico.
Other recommendations are also listed in the final section of the report
entitled, "Future Challenges."
iv
-------
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
In January 1811, Dr. Flood, a duly designated representative of
President James Madison, reported, "I am greatly impressed with the beauty
and value of this coast. The high sandy lands, heavily timbered with
pine, and the lovely bays and rivers, from Pearl River to Mobile, will
furnish New Orleans with a rich canraerce and with a delightful Summer
resort."
Since those early years, however, troubling environmental trends have
been observed in the Gulf of Mexico which concern many people throughout
the Gulf Coast region. For example, the occurrence of up to 3,000 square
miles of hypoxic bottom waters known as the "dead zone" have been
documented off the Louisiana and Texas coasts; of the five states leading
the nation in total surface water discharges of toxic release inventory
chemicals, four are found in the Gulf region (Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas); and almost two tons per mile of marine trash covered
the shores of Texas beaches in 1988 alone. In addition, at any given
time, 3.4 mill Inn acres (57%) of the shellfish-growing areas along the
Gulf coast are permanently or conditionally closed. Such closure areas
are growing as a result of inadequate sewage treatment and growing
populations in coastal areas.
The critical need for the multi-agency Gulf of Mexico Program is
found in a quote from Lee Thomas, former Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): "The Gulf is a large water body
and a great source of abundance. But it is not without limit in its
capacity to absorb the increasing pressures to which it is being
subjected. Clearly, the ecological integrity of the Gulf of Mexico is at
risk." Support from the EPA Administrator and Regions IV and VI
Administrators Greer Tidwell and Robert Layton, enabled the Program to
begin officially in August 1988. Since then, considerable progress has
been made toward implementing the Program.
Although the EPA has provided seed-money and leadership to initiate
the Gulf Program, the long-term goals will not be achieved without active
participation of the many State and Federal agencies involved in the
Program. Because of overall budget constraints, this approach is a
logical way of maximizing limited resources to maintain the environmental
integrity of the Gulf before the damage is irreversible or too costly to
repair. This approach is a proactive planning effort and is in step with
the Agency's philosophy of pollution prevention. This report has been
developed for the purpose of reporting on the progress achieved during the
first year of the program and raising recommendations to improve future
program development.
STRATEGY
A primary purpose of the Gulf of Mexico Program is to provide a
broad-based forum for defining and addressing environmental problems that
face the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Program is designed to coordinate the
collaborative efforts of the many different organizations that carry out
programs affecting the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Program is not intended
to be another layer of bureaucracy.
-------
A committee infrastructure has been developed which includes all
appropriate Federal agencies, the Gulf States, academia, and user groups
to provide the mechanism for dealing with the many complex environmental
issues that affect the Gulf. Over time, a framework for action will be
developed to mitigate pollution and restore the Gulf's former
environment. The Gulf Program will direct its available resources toward
issues meeting the following general criteria:
o The problems are cross-jurisdictional and pervasive.
o The problems result in a threat to beneficial uses of the Gulf's
resources.
o A reasonable prospect exists for a solution to the problem.
The Gulf is approached from a broad geographical perspective because
it provides ccmnercial and recreational activities to many people as well
as supplies seafood to consumers throughout the Nation. In short, the
Gulf of Mexico offers a wealth of resources to the United States and thus
confers great responsibilities on the Nation. Therefore, the continued
health and productivity of the Gulf must become a national priority.
The evaluations of iiopacts on living resources in the Gulf have been
approached by the Gulf Program in a holistic or systemwide manner and it
is anticipated that the Gulf Program, with time, will have international
dimensions. Because the environmental problems of the Gulf of Mexico are
the result of multistate and international activities, effective solutions
will require Gulfwide coordination and cooperation. Over the past three
years, numerous experts have identified and developed a consensus on major
problems facing the Gulf that fall into the following categories — the
presence of toxic substances and pesticides, habitat degradation, nutrient
enrichment, public health, marine debris, freshwater diversion, and
coastal erosion. While the effects of such environmental threats to the
Gulf may be seen locally, overall these problems result from sources and
activities that are regional in nature.
There are numerous Federal, State, and local agencies working on their own
legislative directives that are generally independent of each other.
These agencies, recognizing the need for coordination, support development
of the Gulf of Mexico Program to prevent further degradation of the Gulf.
The Gulf Program will improve communication among affected Gulf users,
build coalitions, and work toward consensus on technical solutions to
achieve more effective protection of these valuable coastal resources.
The long-term strategies of the Gulf Program are: 1) to protect,
restore, and maintain the integrity of Gulf waters; 2) to protect human
health and sustain living resources; 3) to take actions to further control
pollution of these waters; and 4) to ensure that uses and economic growth
are managed in an environmental 1 y sound manner. These efforts will be
guided by the following principles:
-2-
-------
o The Gulf of Mexico Program will be oriented towards protecting and
restoring uses.
o The Gulf of Mexico will be treated as a system, taking into
account systemwide concerns and cumulative effects.
o Site-specific problems and issues will be viewed within the
context of Gulfwide priorities.
Early in this first year the Gulf of Mexico Program published its
Five-Year Strategy for 1988 to 1992 / in which five-year programmatic goals
and objectives were presented. The two principal goals and their
objectives are as follows:
Goal I. Establish an effective infrastructure for resolving complex
environmental problems associated with roan's use of the Gulf of
Mexico.
Objective 1: Establish and provide support to a Gulf of Mexico
Program Office.
Objective 2: Establish and Implement a Gulf of Mexico Program
committee structure.
Objective 3: Establish a public education network that includes
information transfer/ educational outreach/ and
participation activities.
Goal II: Establish a framework-for-action for implementing management
options for pollution controls/ for remedial and restoration
measures for environmental losses, and for research direction
and environmental monitoring protocols.
Objective 1: Prepare environmental characterizations to
determine actual system problems and develop
historic status and trends.
Objective 2: Prepare environmental assessments to determine the
extent of environmental damage and measurable
baseline information.
Objective 3: Develop an interactive data management system for
use in providing a range of possible technical
solutions and improve information management and
application to environmental problem solving.
Objective 4: Develop predictive assessments to determine the
course and effect of proposed solutions.
Objective 5: Develop and implement plans for a Gulf of Mexico
Monitoring Plan to assure the long-term
environmental health and quality of the Gulf and
determine the impacts of changes made.
-3-
-------
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During this first year of the Gulf Program, a significant effort was
focused on establishing an effective infrastructure by holding
coordination meetings and informing participants about their potential
roles and responsibilities in the Gulf of Mexico Program. The Gulf of
Mexico Program Office was officially established August 22, 1988, and the
three working conmittees making up the principal program infrastructure
were all convened by December, 1988. Additionally, a public education
work plan is being developed and information transfer, educational
outreach, and participation activities have been initiated. The
organization of the Gulf Program and the roles and functions of the
various EPA offices are summarized in Figure 1. The highlights of
accomplishments made during the first year of operation are shown in
Table 1 and will be discussed in more detail in this report.
Many agencies (Federal, State, and local) currently have technical
and management responsibilities in marine and estuarine waters and
adjacent ^coastal areas around the Gulf of Mexico. The establishment of
interagency relations through memoranda of understanding and agreements
will help improve cooperation, minimize duplication of effort, and provide
consistency in data acquisition and analysis procedures. This will result
in the maximum application of limited resources to the most significant
environmental problems. The establishment of these formal agreements of
mutual cooperation is the standard procedure for fostering interagency
cooperation. Because these agencies have various and occasionally
divergent interests and responsibilities, it is essential that they be
kept apprised of the Gulf Program Office activities and be allowed to
provide input to program planning as early as possible. To facilitate
this close coordination and collaboration between Federal and State
programs administering the protection and regulation of Gulf of Maxico
resources, collocation of agency personnel at the Program Office will be
established when possible. To date, an Interagency Agreement has been
established between EPA and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and
discussions have been held with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.
Army COE) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NQAA).
It is anticipated that more permanent and formal arrangements will be
finalized with NQAA and AOOE in the coming year.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM OFFICE AND CCMMnTEE STRUCTURE
During the first year of the Gulf Program, a significant effort was
made to staff the Gulf of Mexico Program Office, establish its committee
structure (Policy Review Board, Technical Steering Committee, and Citizens
Advisory Committee), convene committee meetings, and establish and direct
subcommittee activities. This institutional structure is intended to
provide a regional focus to propose solutions that are on the same scale
as the identified problems.
-4-
-------
EPA HEADQUARTERS
Policy guidance
Program review
Resource allocation
EPA REGION IV
Administrative support
Executive direction
Overview of Interaction with
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida
Congressional Liaison
EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
Approve functional statement
Approve selection of
Program Director
Approve long-range plan
Approve annual workplan
REGION IV
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Ualson with regional
programs
Technical support
for regional work-
shops, mtgs., etc.
REGION VI
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Ualson with regional
programs
Tech. support for
regional workshops,
meetings, etc.
EPA REGION VI
Overview of Interaction with
Texas and Louisiana
Lead for International
coordination of programmatic
activities
GULP OF MEXICO
PROGRAM OFFICE
Program development
Program Implementation
Program communication
Interagency coordination
Database development
and management
Technical support to regional
policymakers
POLICY
REVIEW
BOARD
TECHNICAL
STEERING
COMMITTEE
CITIZENS
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Figure i.
Gulf of Mexico Program Elements
Roles and Functions
-------
1988/89 GULF PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Program Office Established - August '88
• Program Office Staffed - EPA/SCS/NOAA/COE
• Committee Structure Established and Functional
• Identified Major/Pervasive Gulf Environmental Issues
Through Technical Consensus
• Five Year Program Strategy Completed
• Multiple Information/Communication Efforts
• Special Area Designation Paper Drafted
• Coastal Erosion Task Force Initiated
• Environmental Characterization Studies Initiated
• Federal/State Program Coordination Workshop
Table 1
-------
Task force or subcommittee structures and schedules will be developed to
address specific priorities identified by their respective committees.
Each subcommittee will be guided and directed by the parent conmittee and
the Gulf of Mexico Program Office. The first step for each subcommittee
was to gather existing information on Gulf problems for the environmental
characterization.
Program Office
The Gulf of Mexico Program Office was established in August 1988, and
overall responsibility for the Program was assigned to the Program
Director, Dr. Douglas A. Lipka. The Program Director executes program
management functions within the authority granted by the Memorandum of
Understanding between Regional Administrators of EPA Regions IV and VI,
and is supported by a staff of both EPA personnel (Mr. William R. Whitson,
Assistant Director, and Dr. Frederick C. Kbpfler, Chief Scientist) and
other Federal personnel collocated at the Program Office at the Stennis
Space Center in Mississippi. During the past year, the Gulf of Mexico
Program Office was staffed to reflect the interagency nature of the
Program; the agencies represented in the staff include EPA, SCS, NOAA, and
the COE. Recent additions to the Gulf of Mexico Program Office include
Kenneth Blan (SCS), Dr. Herb Kumpf (NOAA), and Tom R. Campbell (COE).
Lloyd Wise and Russell Putt serve as liaisons from EPA Region IV and
Region VI respectively.
Policy Review Board
The Policy Review Board for the Gulf Program consists of senior-level
representatives from State and Federal agencies, including the two EPA
Regional Administrators, and representatives from the technical and
citizens committees. This Board is chaired by the Regional Administrator
of EPA, Greer Tidwell (Region 4) and co-chaired by Robert layton, EPA
Regional Administrator (Region 6). The overall function of the Board is
to guide and review activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program. The Board
approves program goals and objectives, and establishes program priorities
and directions. The Board will make recommendations, weighing the
realities of tine and resource constraints with environmental benefits and
public opinion. The Policy Review Board provides broad-based support for
the program in all policy matters. Differences concerning program
recaunenrintiona that arise in the Technical Steering Committee, Citizens
Advisory Committee, or other committees will be addressed by the Policy
Review Board. Although the Board guides, reviews, and evaluates the
program, it leaves the operational duties to the other working committees
and the Program Office. It is anticipated that the Policy Review Board
will meet at least annually.
At the first Policy Review Board meeting held in December 1988, the
Board concurred with recommendations of the Technical Steering Committee
to designate subcommittees to evaluate in more detail the highest priority
problems designated by the Technical Steering Committee. The
subcommittees are co-chaired by a Federal and a State representative.
Also, the FY89 resource allocation for the Gulf Program was approved at
this meeting.
-5-
-------
The second meeting of the Board was held in July 1989. A charter for
the Board was formally adopted under the Federal Advisory Conmittee Act
(FACA) and a conmittee designated to prepare bylaws. The Board also
approved the adoption of the Citizens Advisory Committee's bylaws. After
reviewing the FY90 budget for the Gulf of Mexico Program, the Program
Office staff emphasized that the $1 million budgeted for the Program was
"seed" money and that the Program is dependent upon support from other
Federal and State agencies. The Board approved the concept of forming a
Cnnstal Erosion Subcommittee if the Technical Steering Committee requests
such action.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Citizens Advisory Committee consists of representatives of five
sectors (environment, agriculture, business/industry, development/tourism,
and fisheries) from each of the five Gulf Coast States. The Citizens
Advisory Committee members are appointed by the Governor of their
respective states. This committee usually elects its own chairman and
provides a mechanism for structured citizen input into the Gulf Program
from each of the Gulf Coast States, and for dissemination of information
relevant to the goals and results of the program. The committee is active
in public outreach, consensus building and implementation of program
strategies. The Citizens Advisory Committee ensures representation of
program strategies and public concerns while options are fluid, rather
than after data have been collected, analyses have been completed, and
decisions have been made. Public support for the implementation of
program strategies is more likely if the public has been involved
throughout the program.
The Citizens Advisory Committee held its first meeting in December
1988. At this meeting each State delegation — Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas — elected a State delegation chairman.
The chairmen formed the membership of a Citizens Advisory Committee
Executive Committee. The Executive Committee met and elected Joseph Dial
(Texas) as chairman, Walter Chandler (Alabama) as vice-chairman, and
Michael Evans (Louisiana) as Secretary of the Citizens Advisory
Committee. A second election was held at the Advisory Committee's second
meeting in May 1989. Members of the Executive Committee were reelected
and two additions were made to represent business/industry and to
represent the environment. The Citizens Advisory Committee prepared and
approved bylaws that were subsequently approved by the Policy Review
Board.
Examples of actions taken by the Citizens Advisory Committee are as
follows:
o Establishment of an Agricultural Forum, the purposes of which
include encouragement of agricultural organizations to focus on
the irtpact of selected legislation on their members and to
initiate mechanisms for improved communication and cooperation
between agricultural organizations and Federal and State agencies;
organizations present represented approximately 100,000
agricultural producers in Texas.
-6-
-------
o Meetings with senior state officials, CAC members, and the
Director of the Gulf of Mexico Program in four of the five Gulf
states.
o The involvement of the Gulf of Mexico Program in designing a
curriculum for the Palacios Marine Production Vocational Program
in Texas.
o Organized a meeting with and distributed a questionnaire to
representatives of the major environmental groups in Florida.
o Grassroots efforts have been organized to involve people in the
Citizens.Advisory Ccmnittee in five Texas counties.
During the first year of the Program, Mr. Dial, Chairman of the
Citizens Advisory Ccmnittee, made from 30 to 40 presentations on the Gulf
Program and reported that the public response was positive and
enthusiastic. According to Mr. Dial, public opinion is in favor of the
Gulf Program; the citizens of the Gulf Coast States are very supportive
and want to know what they can do to make the program work.
The Technical Steering Ccmnittee consists of representatives of State
and Federal agencies, academia, and private and public sectors as
appointed by State governors or approved by the Policy Review Board. The
Director of the Gulf of Mexico Program is chairman of the Technical
Steering Ccmnittee. The Technical Steering Committee's principal
responsibility is to provide technical support to the Policy Review Board
in the form of development and evaluation of environmental issues and
regulatory strategies, and development of program options. The Committee
provides advice and guidance related to research, data management,
modeling, and sampling and monitoring efforts that affect the scientific
adequacy of the program. The committee conducts peer review of studies,
reports on the status and trends in the Gulf, and alerts the Policy Review
Board to emerging environmental problems. The Committee has
responsibility for scientific rigor and quality, including oversight of
issue-specific subcommittees. •
The Technical Steering Committee held its first meeting in October
1988. The Committee accomplished three main tasks: (1) identified
priority issues by determining the major physical and biological processes
that contribute to the deteriorating environmental quality of the Gulf of
Mexico; (2) ranked the priorities that committee members placed on the
issues; and (3) formed eight subcommittees to more explicitly address the
issues and assigned tasks to these subcommittees.
The discussion leaders at the committee meeting presented information
on five priority problems (habitat degradation, nutrient enrichment, toxic
substances and pesticides, freshwater diversion, and public health)
previously identified by experts throughout the Gulf States.
-7-
-------
Subissues were listed under each category and were ranked by
participants as either pervasive (Gulfwide) or local in the area affected;
and as major, moderate, or minor in intensity of their impact. The
additional issues of improved collaboration/ marine debris and public
education also were presented and discussed.
Habitat degradation was considered to be the central theme of the
problem issues presented by the discussion leaders. Unless habitat
degradation is halted, the environmental quality and living resources of
the Gulf of Mexico will continue to decline. The interrelationship of the
priority problem areas (issues) are shown in Figure 2. Each of the other
problem areas can affect habitats and the declining trend in productive
habitats such as wetlands is probably due to the resulting impacts to a
variety of environments along the coast. Subissues discussed by
participants included the physical loss of wetlands due to modifications
such as dredge and fill, sea-level rise, and other human and natural
causes. The loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and other benthic
habitats also was discussed. For example, Tampa Bay has lost up to 80% of
original (SAV) habitat and coastal Louis tana is currently experiencing
losses of vital coastal marsh habitat at a rate of up to 60 square miles
per year.
Nutrient Enrichment
The large number of agriculture activities in the Gulf Coast States
and the increasing population along the Gulf Coast have caused nitrogen
and phosphorus runoff that could lead to increased problems in the Gulf of
Mexico. The increase in nutrients leads to more algal blooms, which can
cause dissolved oxygen problems, possible increases in toxins (red tide),
and adverse impacts to SAV. The "dead zone" which results from low
dissolved oxygen concentrations is probably related to high nutrient
loadings from the Atchafalaya and Mississippi River Basin. The Committee
identified possible sources for the increase in nutrients to the Gulf and
rated agricultural and riverine sources as major and pervasive. Other
sources discussed included urban, forest, commercial, atmospheric, and
marine sediments.
Toxic Substances and Pesticide
Increases in population and agricultural or industrial activities can
have an adverse impact on the Gulf by increasing the amount of toxic
substance and/or pesticide runoff into the Gulf. Growing populations will
subsequently increase the quantities of wastewater effluents, and pest
control activities (domestic and agricultural) can increase the inflow of
toxic chemicals into the Gulf. Presently, industrial activity in the
coastal areas and tributaries of the Gulf is significant. EPA information
recorded in the toxic release inventory shows four of the top five states
in the nation in total surface water discharges are found in the Gulf
(Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas). Subissues discussed by
participants included the impact of toxics and pesticides on coastal and
marine systems, toxic sediments, monitoring activities, and the need to
improve risk assessment techniques.
-8-
-------
Interrelationship of the Gulf of Mexico's
Priority Problem Areas
NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMENT,
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND
PESTICIDES
I
HABITAT DEGRADATION
.FRESHWATER
DIVERSION
PUBLIC HEALTH
Figure 2.
-------
Diversion
The Gulf of Mexico presently receives two-thirds of the continental
United States' drainage and one-half of the runoff. Increases in the U.S.
population along the Gulf Coast will increase the demand for freshwater
for human use and, consequently, decrease the amount of freshwater flow to
the Gulf. In addition, flood control measures along the Mississippi River
have resulted in a lack of water to freshwater marshes . In other
instances, freshwater diversion has led to less flushing in the Gulf's
estuaries, increases in salinity and seawater encroachment, and habitat
loss. Issues concerning freshwater diversion that were identified
included reduction of the volume of freshwater inflow into estuaries,
modification of seasonal flow regimes, reduction of water quality, and
impacts to fish and wildlife.
The Technical Steering Committee reached consensus that the problems
associated with freshwater diversion are Gulfwide; however, in devising a
plan to solve these problems, the committee believes the Gulf should first
be segmented by hydrological units, not by States. Each unit should then
be characterized by regional inflow problems.
Reduced flushing of estuaries, increased population, increased toxic
chemicals and waste concentration translate into greater risks for public
well-being. Moreover, 57 percent of the Gulf's classified
shellfish-growing areas have been closed. It is believed that these
closures will increase unless these environmental conditions are
improved. The issues discussed included pathogen contamination,
biological toxins, manmade toxins, and risk assessment. The consensus of
the committee was that the public health issues associated with the
coastal environment of the Gulf of Mexico are major and pervasive;
however, the committee did not feel qualified to address the magnitude and
extent of specific public health issues in the Gulf of Mexico. Several
public health experts were nominated to sit on the Technical Steering
Committee.
Collaboration and Public Education
The goal of the collaboration and public education discussion was to
reduce duplication of efforts and to maximize the application of limited
resources. The Technical Steering Committee is interested in data
management and compatibility, public education, identification and
effective use of existing Gulf networks, environmental education support
materials, citizens monitoring network, and monitoring and segmentation
schemes for the Gulf.
Presentation of S'^xiutuLttees
The Technical Steering Committee agreed to form subcommittees to
further address the priority issues that were discussed, as well as a Data
and Information Transfer Subcommittee to assist in the organization and
transfer of resource data and other information. A Coastal Erosion Task
Force also was formed during the second meeting of the Technical Steering
Committee (March 1989). The subcommittees and their chairs listpd below
were recommended by the Technical Steering Committee at their first
meeting and approved by the Policy Review Board.
-9-
-------
o Habitat Degradation; Federal Co-Chair — Dr. William Kruczynski,
EPA Region IV; State Co-Chair — Dr. Donald Boesch, Loin'si ana
University Marine Consortium.
o Marine Debris: Federal Co-Chair — Villere Reggio, MMS/DOI; State
Co-Chair — Daniel Ruiz, Texas General land Office.
o Freshwater Inflow; Federal Co-Chair — Dr. Susan Rees, CQE/Mobile
District; State Co-Chair — James Kbwis, Texas Water Conmission.
o Nutrient Enrichment; Federal Co-Chair — James Mitchell, SCS/DCA;
State Co-Chair — Mark Chatry, Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries.
o Toxic Substances and Pesticides; Federal Co-Chair — Dr. Poster
Mayer, EPA/ORD; State Co-Chair — Roxane Dow, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation.
o Data and Information Transfer; Federal Co-Chair — Daniel Basta,
NQAA; State Co-Chair — George Collins (interim)
o Public EVfr«"?ation and Outreach; Federal Co-Chair — William
Whitson, EPA/Gulf of Mexico Program; State Co-Chair — Michael
Goff, Mississippi Governor's Office.
o Public Health; Federal Co-Chair -- Frederick Kbpfler, EPA/Gulf of
Mexico Program; State Co-Chair — Richard Thompson, Texas
Department of Health.
The Technical Steering Ccranittee met again twice, in March and
October 1989; at these meetings a representative fron each of the
subcommittees reported on progress toward goals and objectives. Because
the subcommittee efforts are primarily concerned with the framework for
action goal, their activities will be discussed under that heading.
A representation of the progress made by the program during the first
year and a 5-year schedule for completing tasks is presented in Figure 3.
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
The subcommittees formed by the Technical Steering Ccnmittee are an
integral part of the framework-for-action portion of the Gulf Program's
strategy. It is through these rather highly specialized work groups that
the action items approved by the Technical Steering Committee are
implemented. Highlights of the subcommittees' goals and objectives,
issues, and action items are summarized here.
HABITAT DEGRADATION
The Subcommittee on Habitat Degradation considers habitat degradation
to be the central thane of the problem issues identified by the Technical
Steering Committee. Unless this degradation of habitat is halted, the
-10-
-------
GOAL I: Establish infrastructure
• Establish Gulf of Mexico Program Office
• Establish Gulf of Mexico committee structure
• Establish public information network
• Convene "Status of the Gulf" Symposium I
• Convene "Status of the Gulf" Symposium II
GOAL II: Develop Framework for Action
• Prepare environmental characterization reports
• Prepare environmental assessments
• Develop an interactive data management system
• Prepare predictive assessments
• Develop environmental management plan
• Develop environmental monitoring plan
Figure j.
Gulf of Mexico Program
Planning Schedule
-------
environmental and living resources of the Gulf of Mexico will continue to
decline. The subcommittee has several areas of major concern, including
physical loss and modification of wetlands from human-induced dysfunctions
and natural phenomenon/ loss of SAV, and modification or loss of biogenic
and other consolidated habitats. In order to move forward with a more
complete environmental characterization of Gulf issues, problems, and
courses, the short-term goals of this subcommittee are to:
o Identify existing inventories of Gulf habitats.
o Identify and prioritize habitat degradation issues.
o Identify'additional survey work necessary to delineate resources.
o Prepare an assessment of the status of Gulf habitats.
The subcommittee's long-term goals are to:
o Develop a management plan for the Gulf of Mexico to control future
impacts on priority habitats.
o Determine what mitigation and restoration is needed.
o Develop a means to assess effectiveness of mitigation and
restoration of degraded habitats.
o Assess adequacy of laws, regulations, and programs to protect
priority resources.
o Propose legislation necessary to protect priority resources.
o Identify research needs.
The subcommittee will focus on two major activities during FY90. The
first is an analysis of existing management and protection programs in
force in the Gulf Coast area to determine the successes, failures, and
possible alternative ways to improve those programs. (This will be done
through a contractor.) Secondly, the subcommittee will serve as a focal
point for assembling technical information on wetland creation,
restoration, and enhancement techniques. This will be accomplished
initially through a workshop.
Currently, the subcommittee is preparing a report on the status and
trends of habitats along the Gulf Coast. This report is to be presented
at the Status of the Gulf Symposium in December 1990; it will include
historic data on habitat types, information on natural and anthropogenic
causes of habitat loss or degradation including information on dredging
and spoil disposal, and a presentation of critical habitats of endangered
or threatened species.
-11-
-------
MARINE DEBRIS
The Subcommittee on Marine Debris hag set two goals with objectives.
Several of the projects now underway or already completed are in support
of these goals. The first goal is to eliminate the illegal disposal and
careless loss of manmade solid waste in the marine and coastal
environments of the Gulf of Mexico. The objectives to reach this goal are
the following:
o Encourage compliance with Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations concerning the prevention of pollution by solid waste
in the marine environment, especially those directed at marine
vessel operators in the Gulf of Msxico region.
o Support efforts to designate the Gulf of Mexico as a Special Area
under MARPOL Annex V and thereby reduce the threat of marine
debris from shipping sources. MARPOL is an international treaty
which regulates the discharge of five categories of pollution from
ships. MARPOL Annex V H^aia specifically with garbage and
emphasizes plastics.
o Encourage and develop incentives for waste reduction and recycling
where practical.
o Encourage the voluntary use of reusable, recyclable, or
nonpersistent materials as a substitute for disposable styrofoam
drinking containers on offshore vessels and platforms.
o Encourage wider acceptance of MARPQL among the countries of the
Wider Caribbean Basin.
o Support pollution prevention through education (multilingual),
waste reduction, recycling, and special manufacturing processes.
In Texas, the Texas Shrimp Association, the General Land Office, and
Sea Grant have developed a pilot project geared toward commercial
fishermen. With a grant from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation and the cooperation of the port authorities, three
ports have been funded to build trash receptacle facilities to be used by
the fishermen for the disposal of debris that is caught in their nets.
Two of the facilities have already been built in Palacios and Aransas Pass
and are being used on a daily basis. An education campaign including
brochures, posters, and stickers is being developed by the General Land
Office for the fishermen to learn about the facilities and the MARPOL
regulations and benefits of the project.
Several voluntary efforts have been undertaken by user groups to ban
styrofoam cups on offshore oil rigs. The companies that have successfully
done this are Conoco, Amoco, and Louisiana Land and Exploration Company.
Other groups to be targeted are commercial fishermen and commercial
shipping and cruise lines.
-12-
-------
is the most important component of solving the marine
debris problem. Public awareness and educational campaigns have proven, to
be very effective and should be expanded. The subcommittee's second goal
is to foster pride and stewardship and increase understanding of the
marine and maat^i resources of the Gulf of Mexico (including harmful
effects of marine debris) among user groups of the Gulf region. The
objectives to reach this goal are the following:
o Facilitate the planning, organization, promotion, and coordination
of a volunteer Gulfwide fy^gfrai Clftarnip and Marine Debris
Monitoring Program each fall during National Public T rinds Cleanup
Month and National Coast Weeks.
o Encourage the establishment and subscription of beach adopting
programs in the five Gulf States.
o Encourage the designation of a National Coastal Cleanup and
Appreciation Day on the next to the last Saturday in September.
o Design and implement a standardized, five-state marine debris
monitoring program for the beaches and barrier islands of the Gulf
of Mexico, using trained observers and taking monthly samples.
The subcommittee has documented miles, tons, and pounds/mile of
debris that were collected as part of the Take Pride Gulfwide Beach
Cleanup held on Saturday, September 23, 1989. The pounds collected per
mile ranged from 1,800 in Texas to 240 in Alabama.
As a result of the subcommittee's actions and recommendations, the
Technical Steering Committee voted to endorse the Adopt-A-Beach program;
designation of National Coastal Cleanup and Appreciation Day; a proposed
Boater's Pledge; and promotion of Adopt-a-Beach in the Wider Caribbean
Program.
The subcommittee has designated two projects for its first year. The
first project is an inventory in the form of an annotated bibliography,
presenting all projects, programs, reports, data, legislation, educational
materials, and information (ongoing or proposed) on marine debris in the
Gulf of Mexico. This will also include any information on recycling,
especially the recycling of plastics. The subcommittee will analyze this
report and pinpoint any gaps or needs and use it as a guide to future
projects.
The second project is a video public service announcement (PSA) to be
used by all five States. The PSA will use humor to emphasize the negative
effects of marine debris on the "home" of the marine wildlife in the Gulf
of Mexico. The star of the 30-second PSA will be a dolphin.
-13-
-------
Special Area Designation
The Special Area Designation for the Gulf of Mexico under the MARPQL
Annex V Report was submitted to the members of the subcommittee for
technical review. The comments were considered and used where
appropriate. The report was released for public comment on December 1,
1989. It is anticipated that the final report will be ready for
transmission to the U.S. delegation sometime in January 1990.
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
The Subcommittee on Nutrient Enrichment has defined its long- and
short-term goals and objectives as follows:
Loncr-Term Goal and Objectives
The subcommittee's long-term goal is to manage nutrients entering the
Gulf of Mexico (including its bays and estuaries) for the long-term
benefit of society. Its objectives to accomplish this goal are the
following:
o Develop an overall plan to manage nutrient input into the Gulf of
Mexico (including its bays and estuaries) in order to protect (a)
the productivity and biological diversity of living resources; (b)
aesthetic and recreational values of the Gulf; (c) the public
health; and (d) other uses of the Gulf of Msxico that may be
valued by society (by 1995).
o Protect the waters of the Gulf and encourage sustained
productivity and biological diversity of the aquatic organisms
through education/ research, and other avenues (ongoing
indefinitely).
o Educate the public about the relationship between human activities
and the health of the Gulf of Msxico (ongoing).
Short-Term Objectives (1-2 years)
o Identify the major sources by specific areas of nutrient
enrichment, the impacts and effects of nutrient enrichment on the
Gulf, and determine options for management (there are existing
contracts on "Sources" and "Impacts" but an "Options" work
statement needs to be developed).
o Identify existing programs that address nutrient enrichment.
o Identify agencies involved in water quality activities.
o Identify and determine the relationships of sources of nutrient to
loadings and impacts (a work statement will be needed after
"Sources and Quantities," and "Impacts" work products are
finalized.)
-14-
-------
o Identify effects of other program policies on nutrient enrichment.
o Identify and demonstrate success stories; solicit Public Education
and Outreach Subconnittee participation.
o Develop demonstration projects such as the following:
—Tangipahoa River Water Quality Improvement (Mississippi and
Louisiana);
—Perdido Bay agricultural systems and industrial discharge
management;
—Evaluation of Constructed Wetland Animal Waste Disposal System
in Newton County, Mississippi; and
—Bottomland hardwood filter strips (Mississippi Delta).
The Nutrient Enrichment Subcommittee has two major efforts underway.
One project is intended to summarize existing literature and data bases to
identify the sources and quantities of nutrients entering the Gulf of
Mexico and its tributaries. Emphasis is on nitrogen and phosphorus from
United States sources but data on a total of several other water quality
parameters will be included. The other project is intended to assess the
impacts and effects of nutrients on the living resources, public health,
and recreational and aesthetic values of the Gulf of Mexico. Emphasis is
on noxious algae blooms, nitrogen (including nitrification/denitrification
within the Gulf, low oxygen conditions, chlorophyll, stratification,
organic carbon, phosphorus, and silicon. Subcommittee efforts to date
have been centered around nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon. Biological
oxygen demand (BOD) and organic carbon have now been recognized as
nutrients that will be addressed by the subcommittee.
Additional actions planned include an assessment that can tie the
"Sources and Quantities" study and the "Impacts and Effects" study
together. Because not all areas of the Gulf are equally affected by
nutrient enrichment, it is necessary to identify those sources that are
affecting specific bays, estuaries, or areas of the Gulf.
Another planned contract will be designed to explore optional ways of
accomplishing nutrient reduction including evaluations of how to get the
most benefit for the least cost. The subcommittee has discussed the
possibility of selecting a demonstration project that would center on
on-ground application of nutrient control practices, have high public
visibility, and have a high probability of success within a reasonable
time. One small project that will be pursued is to provide assistance in
long-term evaluation of the effectiveness of a newly constructed wetland
at the Southern Coastal Plains Agricultural Experiment Station in Newton
County, Mississippi. The efficiency of the wetland in removing nitrogen,
phosphorus, coliform bacteria, BOD, and organic carbon will be determined.
-15-
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND PESTICIDES
Tha Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and Pesticides has proposed
several goals for the short, middle, and long term. These goals are the
following:
Short-term Goals
o Compile existing data on selected biotic contaminants and evaluate
or analyze them for amounts, locations, and trends.
o Identify locations and sources of contaminants.
o Identify rfqfcq gaps and formulate plans to fill them.
o Compile frequency and types of water quality violations.
o Differentiate between fate of toxics/pesticides on shelf and inner
Gulf.
o Quantify toxics/pesticides inputs to Gulf and calculated wasteload
allocations.
o Develop human health assay.
Long—t^>rm Goals
o Suggest control mechanisms for mitigating pollutants.
o Quantify significance of Gulf pollution to global oceanic
environment.
These goals were established by the subcommittee in response to the
charge it was given from the Technical Steering Committee to define and
rank toxics/pesticide issues, determine monitoring needs, and improve risk
assessment techniques. Thus, the subcommittee will sponsor a workshop to
address one part of a descriptive Gulfwide risk assessment technique and
monitoring approach. The subcommittee is still considering its primary
long-term goal and the following goal is under discussion: eliminate
adverse ecological and human health impact from toxics and pesticides in
the Gulf of Mexico system. Possible objectives include:
o Data gathering, analysis for data gaps, and evaluation of data
(risk assessment) by 1992.
o Water quality-based controls on all point source discharges by
1995.
o Water quality-based controls on all nonpoint sources by 2000.
o Remediation of in-place pollutants resulting in human health or
ecological impact by 2010.
-16-
-------
The Otoxic Substances and Pesticide Subcommittee has defined toxic
substances (including pesticides) as materials synthesized by humans or
present in the Golf that are capable of producing an adverse effect on a
biological system. Major issues discussed by this Subcommittee include
the sources of toxic materials in the Gulf/ as well as the fate and
effects of these material a.
A knowledge of circulation and flow patterns in the Gulf is required
to assess pollutant sources. The data probably exist, but may require
assimilation and analysis. Linkages between freshwater systems and
estuaries/Gulf need to be made with wetland/shelf coupling of processes
(e.g., detritus/• sediment, contaminants). Care is required to clearly
distinguish between elements in a model which predicts the ultimate
accumulation of toxics from true point/nonpoint source discharges. There
are specific regulatory definitions for these terms in the Clean Water
Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act as amended. The sources of toxic
substances in the Gulf are:
o Drainage basins of rivers and streams that serve as an interface
as they flow into the Gulf and wetlands
o Land runoff from forests, agricultural areas, and urban areas
o Outfalls from sewage treatment plants, industries, and municipal
storm drains
o Atmospheric deposition
o Transportation of materials (bilges, spills, etc.)
o Ocean dumping
o Marinas
o Oil and gas exploration and production
o Groundwater (hazardous waste sites and landfills), and
o Contaminated sediments.
Fate and Effects of Toxic Material«
The subcommittee held a general discussion on the fate of toxic
substances and pesticides. A toxicant entering the marine environment can
move into the water, sediment, biota, or atmosphere. Members of the
subcommittee stated that several fate models are in existence that assist
in predicting the ultimate destination and accumulation of some toxicants
into the compartments mentioned above. These models need to be improved.
Instead of developing new models, the existing ones should be refined and
more information developed for coefficients of exchange between and among
compartments. The models also require validation.
-17-
-------
The subcommittee also discussed the effects of toxic substances and
pesticides. Toxicants entering the Gulf can adversely affect the biota —
from single species to populations, communities, and entire ecosystems.
Unfortunately, models for predicting the effects are not as available as
those for predicting the fate of toxic materials. For this reason, much
effects research is conducted as toxicity studies on single or multiple
species, and the results are extrapolated to other species and locations.
Current Activities
The subcommittee sponsored a workshop in November 1989, to begin an
evaluation of risk assessment techniques related to each State's Toxic
Assessment Program. Because evaluation of monitoring data is a part of
risk assessment, and this evaluation is important to each State, it was
decided that the goal for the workshop would be to provide a forum where
participants share expertise on methods to quantitatively evaluate
monitoring data on levels of toxic substances and pesticides in water,
sediment, and biota in relation to State standards, proposed standards,
guidelines, action levels, etc. This evaluation will provide a cohesion
of methods and approaches that is needed to protect and manage the living
resources of the Gulf of Mexico. The objectives are to foster
state-of-the-art quantitative approaches for analyzing/interpreting toxic
substances and pesticide monitoring data; to develop matrices that
identify alternative quantitative methods for addressing
regulatory/environmental questions about water, sediment, and biota; and
to provide data for impact assessment.
Matrices were prepared by participants at the workshop relating the
approaches that each State takes in evaluating toxics and pesticide
monitoring data in water, biota, and sediment in relation to regulatory
actions.
A product of the workshop will be a "consensus" matrix where the most
useful approaches for each question will be compiled and commonalities
among State approaches noted. There was some discussion of applying the
approaches selected by the participants to a specific environmental
evaluation (e.g., evaluation of a bay or estuary through water
quality-based toxic control). This could be considered a demonstration
project.
FRESHMAli'tlK INFLOW
The Freshwater Inflow Subcommittee's goal is to protect, preserve,
and where feasible enhance the quantity of freshwater inflow to the Gulf
of Mexico and the associated bays and estuaries for the purpose of
maintaining the ecological health and integrity of those systems. The
objectives that the subcommittee has identified in support of this goal
are as follows:
-18-
-------
o Inventory all available data relating to water quantity and
salinity in the five Gulf States.
o Assess trends of freshwater inflow to the Gulf of Mexico.
o Identify any possible causes of change in freshwater inflows
relative to volume and timing.
o Evaluate causes affecting freshwater inflow and relate them to any
changes.
o Draft a comprehensive plan to include recommendations for
proper freshwater inflows to the Gulf of Mexico.
o Draft a monitoring program that will assess the effectiveness of
the comprehensive plan.
o Improve cctnmunication between Gulf States on both a State and
Federal level.
The subcommittee has been working with a contractor of the U.S.
Geological Survey to develop a questionnaire for obtaining information
concerning the nature and availability of data on the quantity and
salinity of freshwater inflows to the Gulf. In addition/ the
questionnaire is designed to obtain information on the rules and
regulations in relation to freshwater inflow into the bays and estuaries
of the Gulf. The subcommittee solicited input on the design of the
questionnaire from several of the major groups or agencies that they
expect to obtain both data and information. This was done to ensure a
greater probability of return from these groups and to ensure that the
information requested would be of greater value to the subcommittee and
the Gulf of Mexico Program. The cover letter that will be sent with the
questionnaire will explain the purpose of the Gulf of Mexico Program. The
decision was made to limit this first round of questions to information on
freshwater inflow only from within the five Gulf states. The four major
categories of information requested through the questionnaire are!
o General information,
o Data on salinity of bays and estuaries,
o Stream flow and diversion data, and
o Rules and regulations.
The U.S. Geological Survey representative will coordinate the mailing
of the questionnaire to Federal agencies and service organizations. The
State representatives will provide assistance in soliciting the
information from the State agencies, research institutions and firms, and
universities .
-19-
-------
The subcommittee plans to conduct a workshop in FY90 to evaluate the
information gathered from the questionnaire and to plan activities to
determine data gaps, begin the assessment of trends in freshwater inflow,
and hopefully to identify the causes of change in freshwater inflows
relative to volume and timing. One of the major objectives of the
subcommittee is the development of a close working relationship among the
Gulf States on both a State and Federal level.
The questionnaires are due back by the end of November 1989. A draft
data inventory would be available in January 1990. The proposed workshop
is to be scheduled for late sunmer and will focus on the result of the
data inventory and address State policies on freshwater inflow and other
issues raised by the questionnaire.
The subcommittee also came to a consensus that it should be increased
by the addition of five new members.
DATA, AND INFORMATION TRANSFER
The Subcommittee on Data and Information Transfer proposed the
following three projects for FY89:
o Develop an electronic bulletin board as an integrating tool.
o Develop an information system catalog of data sources.
o Develop and undertake a demonstration project.
The first two items have been merged into one project and a contract
award made to develop an integrated information system. The electronic
bulletin board will provide a platform for dialogue and facilitate the
exchange of timely and accurate information among interested public,
Federal, State, and local coastal resource managers of the Gulf of
Mexico. The information transfer needs of the Gulf of Mexico Program
mandate the establishment of a mechanism such as an electronic bulletin
board that rapidly captures and disseminates information on program
activities and initiatives to a variety of interested parties. This could
also provide a useful dialogue between Federal, State, and local
managers. It is estimated that 300 to 500 individuals from State and
local governments, Federal agencies, the research community, industry,
environmental interest groups, and the general public will use this
service. The prototype data base management system will focus on a
specific coastal resource management problem for a limited area of the
Gulf of Mexico. Having various and disparate coastal resource data and
information needed for regulatory and management decisions compiled into a
single information system will improve a manager's ability to apply the
information towards problem solving in a more systematic, consistent, and
useful way. A prototype system could later be expanded to include broader
issues. The users of this data base could include Federal, State, and
local resource management agencies, depending on problem focus.
-20-
-------
The subcoimittee decided to address the cumulative effects of Section
404 permits on wetlands in Mobile Bay, Alabama, as the initial
demonstration project. The principal agencies identified were the EPA,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Army CQE, Alabama Department of
Economic and Community Affairs, with NQAA, SCS, and numerous other State
and local agencies providing data and oversight to the effort.
The objective of this effort is to develop and demonstrate a wetland
regulatory and resource management system for the Mobile Bay area that
utilizes automated wetland and permit inventories, enhances determination
of cumulative losses, and aids in identifying appropriate needs for
mitigation, restoration, and enhancement.
The project has three major tasks: (1) establish a Mobile Bay
wetland digital data base, (2) develop a regulatory (Section 404 permits)
data base for the Bay, and (3) develop a user-friendly geographic
information system (CIS) that will allow these two data bases to be
overlaid along with other data so that the cumulative impact of both man's
activities and natural processes on the wetlands in this area can be
better assessed. Features of the project include the development of a
comprehensive digital data base on wetlands for 1956, 1979, and 1988-89,
and Section 404 permits for use by numerous Federal and State agencies.
The primary CIS to be used will be the ARC/INFO system.
From the data bases, agencies will be able to determine wetland
losses occurring between the mid-1950s and late 1980s, locations and types
of losses, and assist in determining the causes and changes of loss as a
result of various man-induced activities and natural loss. Lastly,
because the cost to produce maps from aerial photography and digitization
of those maps into a CIS is costly and time-consuming, this effort will
explore the validity and cost-effectiveness of wetland geo-referenced data
from LANDSAT thematic mapper (TM) imagery. Recently acquired TM data will
be classified and compared with 1989 wetland maps to determine their
validity in use for regulatory decisions.
For the first year of the project, the emphasis will be on developing
an operational CIS to demonstrate the usefulness of the system to aid in
managing the wetland resources of Mobile Bay, such as reviewing Section
404 permits. The geographic area selected is the northern portion of the
bay, which includes a wide variety of wetland types and a high number of
permit actions.
In subsequent years, the effort will focus on completing the wetland
and regulatory digital data bases for the bay, analyzing the effectiveness
of TM data for wetland mapping, and establishing the GIS user system for
Federal, State, and local agencies.
Some of the ideas that the subcommittee has for FY90 are the
following:
o Additional Demonstration Projects — Identify specific products
that can be developed from each of the demonstration projects.
The subcommittee supports this idea as an excellent way to get
results to the Gulfwide user community.
-21-
-------
o Establish consistent Gulfwide digital files and formats for all
information generated and compiled through the Gulf of Mexico
initiative — This effort would ensure trans ferability across all
groups and States, but more importantly, would establish a single,
consistent framework that the Gulf of Mexico Program can implement
to begin to assess Gulfwide aspects, rather than only demonstrate
specific aspects in specific places.
o Incorporate the Gulf into the plans that EPA and NQAA are
developing this year for the initiation of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) — The subcommittee feels
that the gulf might be added to this year's budget and get started
on the same track as the effort being made in the Mid-Atlantic
States. The subcommittee will be looking at the question of how
and what it will take to establish a uniform digital framework for
the Gulf of Mexico.
Beyond FY90, there are more opportunities to relate more directly
with a number of NQAA information systems and data transfer activities
that are in various stages of development in the Gulf. There are plans to
begin experimental projects in Texas and probably in southwest Florida
that deal with how to transfer information to people and encourage them to
use it. If these efforts are successful, the Gulf of Mexico Program might
expand them to a wider area.
PUHT.TC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The Public Education and Outreach subcommittee is responsible for
formulating a Gulf Public Information Plan. Information included in the
plan focuses on the Gulf Program and its objectives, environmental issues
and resource values in the Gulf, priority target audiences and ways to
reach each audience, as well as sources and availability of existing
public information materials. Gulf Program Office staff and Citizens
Advisory Committee members will discuss the communications goals for the
Gulf Program in meetings and workshops and receive input on the
implementation of this plan in the caning year. A major symposium
entitled "America's Sea: A National Resource at Risk" will be convened as
a national biennial event involving scientists, managers, citizens, Gulf
user groups, and government representatives in December 1990. This event
will provide an opportunity for people with expertise in various areas of
science and management around the Gulf and the Nation to communicate and
centralize their knowledge. The program, under this objective, will also
support specific participation activities, such as the fostering and
development of Citizens Monitoring Programs. It is anticipated that the
Citizens Advisory Committee will play a large role in meeting this
objective in the future.
With respect to the Gulfwide Public Information Plan, the
subcommittee has requested that the major elements of the plan include:
identification of major audiences, themes and messages, available
communication methods, summary of activities (ongoing and planned), and
coordination and implementation.
-22-
-------
Tha following are highlights of two subcommittee activities:
o Fact Sheets — Guidance for developing Gulf of Mexico Program fact
sheets was developed by the Public Education and Outreach
Subcommittee and submitted to each of the other seven
subcommittees. This guidance explained what issues were to be
addressed in each subcommittee's fact sheet. It was emphasized
that the economic or environmental impacts caused by each issue
should be given, along with trends. Information on what actions
are being taken by the Gulf of Mexico Program Office and names of
contacts should be given. Production of consistent Gulf of Mexico
Program fact sheets for each major issue area will be completed
using the guidance just described.
o Video — $50,000 for a new Gulf Program video was given by EPA's
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection. This video should
include an explanation of Gulf problems, what the Gulf Program is
all about, and what opportunities exist for the public to get
involved.
Next year's planning efforts include ideas such as public service
announcements for television (a commercial or advertisement), and the
development of a Speakers Bureau.
The immediate goals of the subcommittee include completion of the
work initiated on the Fact Sheets and the Gulfwide Communication Plan.
Future plans include beginning work on Gulf Video II, planning a Speakers
Bureau in FY90-91, closely coordinating with the Marine Debris
Subcommittee, conducting a membership review, and convening a meeting in
Tallahassee, Florida in December 1989.
PUBLIC HEALTH
The Public Health Subcommittee addresses the nature and extent of
environmental risks to the health of the residents of the Gulf Coast and
explores approaches to reducing these risks. In its initial year the
subcommittee reviewed the known and perceived risks and reached consensus
on their relative importance. In reaching this consensus the subcommittee
took into consideration: 1) routes of exposure to the environmentally
derived agents, e.g., airborne, direct exposure through contact with
contaminated water or by consumption of contaminated seafoods, 2) the
origin of pathogenic microorganisms; naturally occurring pathogens, e.g.,
the Vibrio and human derived, e.g., the Norwalk virus, 3) the nature of
toxic substances, i.e., organic and inorganic, 4) different types of
marine biotoxins that can exist in the Gulf, e.g., neurotoxic shellfish
poison and ciguatera fish poison. After constructing a matrix which
included all combinations of the above agents and exposure routes, the
subcommittee developed the following ranking of environmentally related
public ,health problems that it would investigate.
-23-
-------
Ranking of Environmentally Related Public Health
Problems in the Gulf of Mexico
Agent Route
1. Pathogenic microorganisms Consuming raw molluscan shellfish
2. Marine Biotoxins Consuming contaminated seafoods
3. Toxic Substances Consuming contaminated seafoods
4. Pathogenic microorganisms By direct recreational and occupa-
tional exposure to contaminated
water
5. Risk Assessment and Communica-
tion
The subcommittee members agreed that the Gulf of Maxico Program
should ensure that the Public Health Agencies in the five Gulf states be
kept informed of the latest information on risk analysis and risk
communication and that the subcommittee should make that one of its goals.
The subcommittee sponsored a workshop on November 13-15, 1989, at the
Landmark Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. Workgroups were convened to
consider the following topics. 1) pathogen exposure via molluscan
shellfish, 2) human exposure to pathogens in seawater and 3) marine
biotoxins and associated public health risks in the Gulf of Maxico.
Experts from state, federal and academic agencies were charged with
dealing with these issues and given the following tasks:
* TO identify and rank the significance of human pathogens and
marine biotoxins as they relate to public health.
* To assess possible avenues of collaboration among the Gulf states
in order to work towards harmonization of goals and activities.
* To identify areas where the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program could serve
to help with the harmonization efforts as well as assist with risk
assessment and risk communication work throughout the Gulf area.
* To recommend uniform policies and procedures that can be used by
the Gulf states in dealing with public health problems and to
identify the political or economic constraints preventing
harmonization of procedures used by the states and to recommend
needed research to overcome these constraints.
Some of the recommendations of the three workgroups were:
* The EPA should take into consideration the proximity of shellfish
harvesting areas when writing discharge permits and in addition to
requirements that protect the environment require that the
effluents do not cause closure of these waters to the taking of
shellfish for public health reasons.
-24-
-------
The Gulf of Mexico Program should coordinate and sponsor
intra-state workshops with public health, shellfish, resource,
wildlife and water agencies and any other appropriate state
agencies to facilitate inter-state and interagency coordination of
policies and procedures related to public health and shellfish.
The Gulf of Mexico Program should initiate and coordinate a
region-wide field evaluation of the present indicator organisms
for ambient marine water quality and the indicator organisms
nded in the 1986 EPA proposed criteria. The Program Office
should explore Research and Development funds to be vised by the
Gulf states for this project.
* The Gulf of Mexico Program should keep abreast of developments in
the National Indicator Study for Shellfish which is being designed
to differentiate between the risk to human health from consumption
of raw shellfish harvested from waters containing microorganisms
from non-point sources as compared to those taken from waters in
which the microorganisms are from sewage treatment plant effluents
or other human sources.
* The Gulf of Mexico Program should support increased field studies
and surveillance including improvements of remote sensing
technologies for detecting algal bloons and red tides at early
stages of development, the use of conventional field sampling and
monitoring by sea-going vessels, and improvements and
standardization of methods for the detection and characterization
of motile populations and cyst beds.
In the future the subcommittee intends to pursue the following:
* Obtain information on the current levels of residues of toxic
substances and pesticides in Gulf Coast seafood.
* Determine the existence of historical data bases of information
relevant to public health and how they may be accessed.
* Evaluate the report now being developed by the Shellfish
Contamination Report of National Academy of Sciences.
* Attempt to determine the level of risk to human health posed by
the reported residues in seafood products from the Gulf of Mexico.
COASTAL EROSION TASK FORCE (SUBCOMMITTEE)
In response to an inquiry raised by the Citizens Advisory Committee,
an ad hoc Coastal Erosion Task Force was formed by the Technical Steering
Committee in March 1989 to evaluate the need to establish a subcoimittee
for addressing coastal erosion problems in the Gulf of Mexico area, to
evaluate the appropriateness of covering Gulf coastal erosion in the
Habitat Degradation Subcommittee, and to make a recommendation for
resolution of this issue.
-25-
-------
The task force prepared a report to the Technical Steering Comiittee
in which it pointed out that sane overlap of activities may be unavoidable
but this is appropriate to ensure that areas of concern are adequately
addressed, and that care should be taken to properly coordinate
subcommittee activities. If a Coastal Erosion Subcotnraittee was formed, it
should concentrate on studying physical processes and natural and human
impacts to coastlines, and should perform estimates and analyses of the
costs to the environment and social well-being that may result as the
shorelines continue to erode. All efforts should include the shorelines
of bays, estuaries, and sounds. The limits for consideration may include
contour line, vegetation, or dune lines, and in sane instances, arbitrary
lines may need to be agreed upon and drawn. Wetland and other habitat
loss as well as freshwater inflow are critical factors in the loss of
shorelines; these losses and their impacts will be assessed by other
subcommittees.
It was the finding of the task force that the issues and problems of
coastal and shoreline erosion are of such magnitude, severity, and
complexity that special and separate treatment is appropriate. Therefore,
the task force recommended establishing a Coastal Erosion Subcommittee.
This recommendation was based on the support of representatives of the
five Gulf States and the Federal agencies participating on the task
force. The recommendation was made with the knowledge that the Habitat
Degradation Subcommittee work plan includes coverage of coastal erosion
and shoreline erosion issues and problems; the task force concluded that
the new subcommittee is necessary to give shoreline erosion the necessary
analysis and visibility.
A general description of the coastal and shoreline problems for each
of the Gulf States has been prepared by the task force. This information
reflects the significant losses that are occurring and suggests that the
losses are accelerating.
The Technical Steering Committee agreed with the findings of the task
force, and pending approval of the Policy Review Board, established a
Coastal Erosion Subcommittee.
PiriURE CHALLENGES
The future of the Gulf of Mexico Program depends upon the following
three major items:
o Continued support and involvement from the many talented and
knowledgeable people from cooperating Federal, State, and local
agencies, academia, private industry, and Gulf user groups; and
continued support and input from the program's citizen
representatives.
o Continued administrative and fiscal support from EPA Regions IV
and VT and EPA Headquarters.
o Support from cooperating agencies through contributions of in-kind
resources or funding of cooperative projects developed from
priority issues identified by the Technical Steering Committee.
-26-
-------
Through the efforts of many individuals from cooperating agencies and
institutes, significant progress has been made toward attaining the
long-term goal of the Gulf Program: to protect, restore, and maintain the
Gulf waters; to protect human health and sustain living resources; to take
actions to further control pollution of these waters; and to ensure that
alternative uses and economic growth are managed in an environmentally
sound manner. It is fitting that results obtained during the first year
of operation are due to the cooperative efforts of many people. This is
indeed the philosophy of the program — to obtain program goals and
objectives through cooperative efforts with others involved in Gulf of
Mexico environmental issues and challenges. This approach ensures that
program activities do not result in another layer of bureaucracy, but
actually promote a more efficient use of government resources.
The Gulf of Mexico Program is in a unique position to address many of
the environmental challenges that could affect the Gulf in the future.
These challenges vary from those of a local nature such as marine debris
on local beaches, to those of regional dimensions such as the destruction
of valuable wetlands and other coastal habitats (and the mitigation of
this destruction), to the potential impacts of global trends such as
warming, the destruction of upper-layer ozone, sea-level rise, and
others. The program's unique position results from its capacity to take a
holistic view of the Gulf because its committees and subcommittees are
composed of technical experts and citizens representing various geographic
regions throughout the Gulf. They are knowledgeable of ongoing and
planned projects that pertain to the challenging issues. These committees
and subcommittees represent a great pool of expertise and administrative
ability. The program is also unique because of the high level of citizen
interest and concern about environmental issues of the Gulf. It is the
citizen members who, to a great extent, are responsible for informing the
public of the program's goals and activities and for generating special
support for the program. Perhaps most important of all, the citizens act
as catalysts for the development and implementation of new projects.
The subcommittees represent the cutting edge of the Gulf of Maxico
Program, and their activities will become even more important in the
future. In many instances, long-range management goals have been
developed by the subcommittees, and milestones for reaching them
established. Alternatives for solving the problem issues must be
developed as well as the critical pathways for implementation of these
alternatives. Thus, the subcommittees will be in the
"framework-for-action" mode, which includes the definition and
identification of specific environmental issues, characterization of these
issues, assessment of corrective actions, development of predictive
measures, and implementation and monitoring of corrective actions. It is
through the thoughtful planning and decisive action of the subcommittees
that the Gulf of Mexico Program will become anticipatory as opposed to
reactive, and will be able to identify pollution problems before they
become financially and ecologically prohibitive.
-27-
-------
The following recommendations, based on experiences gained during the
first year of operation of the Gulf of Mexico Program, are made to assist
the program as it meets the challenges of the future:
1. Planning must begin on intergovernmental structure needed for
implementation of the framework for action.
2. The Gulf of Mexico Program should be given a mechanism to allow
interagency budget planning. This would not only elevate the
status of the program, but would provide for receiving the
transfer of funds from other Federal agencies. Also, it would
allow the budget process to recognize and address the critical
needs of the cooperative program.
3. Cooperating agencies should highlight the Gulf of Mexico Program
in their FY91 and 92 budget requests as it relates to priority
issues.
4. Collocation of Federal and State personnel at the Gulf of Mexico
Program Office should be encouraged and continued.
5. Additional funds should be identified to provide travel funds for
certain State personnel and private citizens associated with the
program to attend specific program meetings . This travel is
critical for the operation of the committees and subcommittees,
and thus is critical for the success of the program.
6. The Gulf of Mexico Program should sponsor thematic workshops on
specific topics in order to foster focused efforts of planning and
information exchange between managers and the research cormunity.
7. The Program should provide a link between those requiring
information for regulatory purposes and researchers and others who
provide the information.
8. T.ineg of ccranunication should be established with various
emergency response teams in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as with
NCAA's Coastal Watch Program, so the Gulf of Mexico Program can be
aware of emergency environmental situations as they develop.
Establishing these lines of communication and advance agreements
could foster improved coordination of high tech equipment and
information in the event of a future environmental problem in the
Gulf of Mexico.
9. Additional demonstration projects should be carefully selected
that are cross-cutting in nature, such as projects on remote
sensing for monitoring purposes and on data and information
transfer.
10. Additional emphasis should be put on the citizen volunteer
monitoring efforts, including guidance to Gulf States for better
links between the volunteers' efforts and States regulatory needs
and networking and information exchange.
-------
11. Continued development of grassroots networks should occur at the
county/parish level to increase the involvement of local users of
the Gulf resources in the identification and communication of
program goals and recommendations at the local level.
12. Further development and clarification should be set forth
regarding the unique relationship and long-term opportunities
which exist between the Gulf of Mexico Program and the current
NEP's in the Gulf of Mexico.
In summary, the Gulf of Mexico Program has progressed significantly
during its first, year of operation toward establishing a functioning
infrastructure and short- and long-term action goals. Indeed/ the program
already has accomplished the majority of its short-term goals and made an
impact on constructive management of pollution activities in the Gulf of
Mexico. There is an evident technical need and a grassroots desire for
the program to be part of the future development of the Gulf of Mexico.
-29-
------- |