1
TOXIC SUBSTANCES & PESTICIDES
ACTION AGENDA (3.2)
FOR
THE GULF OF MEXICO
^£XIC0 ^
September 1993
<&<9

-------
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 of
Mexico. 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 Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee was charged with characterizing toxic
substance and pesticide contamination and devising ways to prevent or mitigate this
contamination. The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee has been meeting for
more than four 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 Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda which
specifies an initial set activities needed to reduce toxic substance and pesticide inputs
to Gulf waters. 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.
There are important linkages between the Gulf of Mexico Program Toxic Substances
& Pesticides Action Agenda and the Public Health Action Agenda. The Public
Health Action Agenda, which was endorsed by the Policy Review Board in
September 1992, addresses public health concerns from all contributing sources,
while the Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda focuses on the ecological
impacts from toxic substances and pesticides. The Toxic Substances & Pesticides
Action Agenda will provide an appropriate balance to the work of the Public Health
Committee.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 of the Toxic Substances & Pesticides 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 Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee (i.e., what is known about the current
status and trends of toxic substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico).
Chapter 3 describes the legal and institutional framework currently in place in the
Gulf of Mexico to address toxic substances and pesticides.
Chapter 4, The Unfinished Agenda, contains the goal, objectives, and specific
activities established by the Gulf of Mexico Program to address toxic substance and
pesticide contamination in the Gulf. The long-term goal established by the Issue
Committee is to:
~ Reduce and, where possible, eliminate adverse ecological impacts from
toxic substances and pesticides m the Gulf of Mexico system.
Forty-five action items have been developed to support the goal and these are
grouped under five types of activities and twelve objectives (see index of Toxic
Substances & Pesticides Objectives). The action items included in Chapter 4
have been screened by the Gulf of Mexico Program and represent those activities
that are currently 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 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. Each action
item is supported by one or more project descriptions. Some of the projects 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, through an integrated effort that complements
existing local, state, and federal programs, the Program has pledged efforts to obtain
the knowledge and resources to:
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &PesticJdes Action Agenda (3.2)

-------
Exeeutlw ummary
Index of Toxic Substances & Pesticides Objectives
Monitoring & Assessment
Objective: Determine the inputs and concentrations of point and nonpoint sources of toxic substances and
pesticides in Gulf of Mexico waters to establish baseline conditions and monitor changes over time
Objeetlve: Determine ecological effects in the Gulf of Mexico that can be associated with inputs of toxic
substances and pesticides
Objeetlve: Develop a coordinated Gulfwide monitonng strategy to maximize the effectiveness of efforts to
address toxic substance and pesticide issues
Research
Objective: Develop a coordinated Gulfwide research plan designed to address the need for knowledge,
interpretation, and evaluation of toxic substances and pesticides
Objeetlve: Monitor developments and technological advances and support research to determine the fate and
effects of toxic substances and pesticides in the Culf of Mexico
Planning & Standards
Objective: Implement and promote a coordinated Gulfwide toxic substances and pesticides management
strategy which addresses, in priority order, source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal
Objeetlve: Reduce and, where possible .eliminate the discharge of contaminants of concern into Gulf of
Mexico and Caribbean waters
Objeetlve: Expand nonpoint pollution control programs to reduce toxic substance and pesticide runoff to Gulf
of Mexico waters
Compliance & Enforcement
Objeetlve: Increase the effectiveness of permitting, compliance, and enforcement strategies to better address
the inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico
Public Education & Outreach
Objeetlve: Develop public information and education efforts to promote awareness of environmental
problems associated with improper use and disposal of toxic substances and pesticides
Objeetlve: Develop public information and education efforts to target specific actions for reducing toxic
substance and pesticide inputs to and effects on the Culf of Mexico
Objeetlve: Evaluate the effectiveness and results of all public education and outreach strategies for use in
developing future toxic substance and pesticide outreach strategies
Gulf ef Mexlee Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2]
Ei

-------
Executive Summary
~	Significantly reduce the rate of loss of coastal wetlands
~	Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass beds.
~	Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreational fisheries.
~	Protect the human health and food supply by reducing input of nutrients, toxic substances, and
pathogens to the Gulf
~	Increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe harvesting by ten percent.
~	Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for swimming and recreational uses.
~	Reduce by at least ten percent the amount of trash on beaches.
~	Improve and expand coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living
resources.
~	Expand public education/outreach tailored for each Gulf Coast county or parish.
~	Reduce critical coastal and shoreline erosion.
This Toxic Substances & Pesticides 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 toxic substance and
pesticide concerns. Second, it should communicate what actions are needed for
eliminating the adverse ecological effects of toxic substances and pesticides 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 Toxic
Substances & Pesticides Committee intends to periodically revise and update this
document.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
iv

-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables	vll
List of Figures	vill
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	 4
The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee	 0
2	TOXIC SUBSTANCES & PESTICIDES IN
THE GULF OF MEXICO	 11
introduction					 11
Consequences for Living Resources	 13
Gulf wide Comparison of Impacts			 16
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program.......		16
TS & P Committee Draft Inventory & Ratings		19
Sources of Toxic Substances & Pesticides		22
Point Sources...				22
Nonpolnt Sources.						23
Oil A Gas Drilling		26
Dredged Materials & Contaminated Sediments		27
Shipping												28
Atmospheric Deposition										29
Sources-A Broader Perspective				31
Consequences for Human Health		32
Assessing Ecological Risk.....		36
Draft Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment						36
State'By-State Overview		36
Alabama				38
Florida																41
Louisiana	 		43
Mississippi								61
Texas										68
Conclusion..										69
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)	V

-------
Table of Contents
3	FEDERAL & STATE FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING
TOXIC SUBSTANCES & PESTICIDES			 70
4	THE UNFINISHED AGENDA	 71
Coat			 71
Action Agenda Framework							 71
Monitoring & Assessment	 77
Research											 86
Planning & Standards					 94
Compliance & Enforcement									 103
Public Education & Outreach					 106
In Closing	 113
Bibliography	 114
APPENDIX A Federal & State Framework	 116
APPENDIX B Acronym Guide					 143
APPENDIX C Glossary	 146
APPENDIX D Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process	 165
APPENDIX E Toxlcologlcal Profiles of Top Ten Gulfwlde Releases	 169
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)	vl

-------
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1	Overview of the Contaminant Levels
Observed in Edible Flesh of Brown Shrimp
& White Shrimp	 16
Table 2.2	Overview of the Contaminant Levels
Observed In Edible Flesh of Atlantic
Croaker.	 18
Table 2.3	Overview of the Contaminant Levels
Observed In Edible Flesh of Catfish	 18
Table 2.4	Properties and Effects of Metals of Primary
Concern In Marine Environments	 34
Table 2.5	Louisiana Toxic Chemical Releases	 44
Table 2.6	Fish Advisories In Louisiana...	 46
Table 2.7	Fish Consumption Advisories In Mississippi.	 64
Table 2.8	Mississippi Fish Kills, 1990 - 1992	SB-SB
Table 2.9	Causes Contributing to Use Impairments
In Classified Streams, Rivers, Reservoirs,
Bays & Estuaries In Texas			 60
Table 2.10	Sources Contributing to Use Impairments
In Classified Streams, Rivers, Reservoirs,
Bays & Estuaries In Texas	 61
Table 2.11	Texas Estuary Toxics Bank	 62
Table 2.12	Texas Waterbodles Exceeding State Water
Quality Standards or Other Indicators
of Concern	 64
Table 2.13	Fishing Bans & Advisories In Texas	 65
Table 2.14	Toxic Substance-Related Fish Kills in Texas	 66
Gulf of Mexlee Texle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)	vil

-------
	List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1	Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per
Shoreline Mile	 3
Figure 1.2	Gulf Program Structured Partnership	 6
Figure 2.1	U.S. Agricultural Pesticide Use from
1966 to 1987	 24
Figure 2.2	Draft Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment	36
Figure 2.3	Toxic Chemical Releases In Louisiana	43
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)	viii

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
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, 1991a). 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 Great Lakes regions combined.
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
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
1

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
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, mackerel, 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, 1991a).
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 toxic substances and
pesticides because as the population increases, so does the potential for increased
inputs of toxic substances and pesticides.
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
2

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Flgur* 1.1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Population per Shoreline Mile
Niv >KS», "XVv
(Source: USDOC, 1990a)
The Gulf's resources and environmental quality are affected not only by the
millions living and working in the region, but also by activities occurring
throughout much of the nation. Two-thirds of the land area of the contiguous U.S.
drains into the Gulf, bringing with it potential environmental problems associated
with pesticides, fertilizer, toxic substances, and trash.
The Gulf of Mexico - A Resource At Risk
Increasing population pressures mean increased use and demands on Gulf of
Mexico resources. Until recently, the Gulf was considered too vast to be affected by
pollution and overuse. Recent trends indicate, however, serious long-term
environmental damage unless action is initiated today. Potential problems or
causes of degradation throughout the Gulf system include the following (USEPA,
1991a):
~ Fish kills and toxic "red tides," and "brown tides" were an increasing
phenomenon in Gulf waters during the 1980s.
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
3

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexleo
Chapter I
~	Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are among those states that
discharge the greatest amount of toxic chemicals into coastal waters.
~	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
~	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).
~	Louisiana is losing valuable coastal wetlands at the rate of
approximately 14-66 km2/year (5-25 mi2/year) (Dunbar, et ah, 1992).
~	Almost 1,800 kg/mi (2 tons/mi) of marine trash covered Texas beaches
in 1988.
~	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).
~	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."
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 (USACE), 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), U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (USFDA), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR).
Gulf of Mexleo Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
4

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Gulf of Mexico Program also works in coordination and cooperation with five
National Estuary Programs (NEPs) within the Gulf: Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,
Galveston Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuanne
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:
~	A mechanism for addressing complex problems that cross federal, state,
and international jurisdictional lines;
~	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;
~	A regional perspective to address research needs, which will result m
improved transfer of information and methods for supporting
effective management decisions; and
~	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.
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/tourism 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.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
S

-------
Ovorvtow of iho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
Figure 1.2
Gulf Program Structured Partnership
Policy Review Boa
| Cllii*fw Advisory |
I	ConmltlM	I
<5
J
Managvmwit Commit!
D
Tvehntoal Advta
Commit)
Ivtamy 1
Z-J
j C*-Chalf Rwlmrl
I c"mo" J
\
l«iiw C«aimlll»M
Hiatal Degradation
Public Health
Freshwater Irtky*
Maine Debre
Coastal & Shoreline Erosion
Nutaew Enrichment
Toxic Substances &
PeslKKjes
Living Aoualjc Resources
Program Opvritlona Support
/	
Gulf of Mexico
Program Offlc*
Public Education &
Outreach Operations
Data & information
Transler Operations
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances SPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
6

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
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:
.~ Habitat Degradation of such areas as coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,
and sand dunes;
~	Freshwater Inflow changes resulting from reservoir construction,
diversions for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and
modifications to watersheds with concomitant alteration of runoff
patterns;
~	Nutrient Enrichment resulting from such sources as municipal waste
water treatment plants, storm water, industries, and agriculture;
~	Toxic Substances & Pesticides contamination originating from
industrial and agriculturally based sources;
~	Coastal & Shoreline Erosion caused by natural and human-related
activities;
~	Public Health threats from swimming in and eating seafood products
coming from contaminated water;
~	Marine Debris from land-based and marine recreational and
commercial sources; and
~	Living Aquatic Resources.
Two cross-cutting technical operating committees support the public education and
information and resource management functions of the eight environmental Issue
Committees. These are:
~	Public Education & Outreach Operations
~	Data & Information Transfer Operations
The action planning process used by each Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committee
includes the following key activities:
~	Definition of environmental issues;
~	Characterization of identified problems, including sources, resources,
and impacts;
~	Establishment of goals and objectives;
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
7

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
~	Evaluation/assessment of corrective actions and control measures,
including cost/benefit analysis;
~	Selection of priority action items;
~	Establishment of measures of success;
~	Implementation of actions; and
~	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.
Gulf el Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
8

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee
The Co-Chairs and membership of the Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee are
as follows:
Co-Chairs:
Ray Wilhour	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Phil B. Bass	Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Members:
Ronnie Albritton
Robert Baker
William Benson
Kenneth Blan
Fred Bedsole
Michael Brim
Brian Burgess
Brian Cain
John Carlton
George Cason
Emelise Cormier
Philip Crocker
Phillip Dorn
Roxane Dow
David Engel
Joseph Ferrario
Robert Fisher
Catherine Fox
Valanne Glooschendo
Don Grothe
Lore Hantske
Matthew Keppinger
Richard Kiesling
Arnold King
Julia Lytle
Foster Mayer
Merrill McPhearson
Rick Medina
David Moore
Randy Palachek
Richard Pierce
Russell Ray
Pat Roscigno
William Schroeder
Terry Wade
Georgia-Pacific
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Mississippi
Soil Conservation Service—Gulf of Mexico Program
Scott Paper Company
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Gulf of Mexico Program—Citizens Advisory Committee
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Shell Development Company
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Monsanto Company
Texas General Land Office
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Texas Water Commission
Soil Conservation Service
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering Science, Inc.
Mote Marine Laboratory
Lower Colorado River Authority
Minerals Management Service
University of Alabama
Geochemical & Environmental Research Group
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
9

-------
Overview of the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 1
The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee developed the following long-term
goal for addressing toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico:
~ Reduce and, where possible, eliminate adverse ecological impacts from
toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico system.
The Gulf of Mexico Policy Review Board endorsed this goal on November 8, 1990.
In developing this Action Agenda, the Toxic Substances & Pesticides 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" was sponsored by the Toxic Substances & Pesticides
Committee in Hammond, LA, on November 16-18, 1992. Approximately 40
persons, comprising a mix of Program and non-Program participants, gathered to
review an early version of this Action Agenda. In addition to Gulf of Mexico
Program participants, representatives from the following agencies, organizations,
and industries attended the workshop: National Council on Air & Stream
Improvement, Southern University, Alabama Department of Public Health, Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana
Department of Agriculture & Forestry, Matagorda County Water Council, Texas
State Soil & Water Conservation Board, Exxon Biomedical Sciences, National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Environmental
Monitoring & Assessment Program, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Soil
Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This meeting generated a
significant number of comments that were addressed in the present document. (See
Appendix D: Participants in the Action Agenda Development Process.)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
10

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
2 TOXIC SUBSTANCES & PESTICIDES IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO*
"NOTE: Information in Chapter 2 is based on 1989 Toxic Release Inventory data
and the following DRAFT reports that have not been fully peer reviewed:
• "Impact of Toxic Substances & Pesticides cn Nearshore Gulf of Mexico: A
Preliminary Comparison (Toxicity Indices) of Twenty-Five Estuarlne Drainage
Systems Based en Releases of Toxics Front Industrial and Municipal Sites and
Pesticide Run-Off From Agricultural Operations In 19S9"; by Jerl Brecken-Folse
and Maureen G. Bablkow, Technical Resources, Inc., and Or. T.W. Duke,
Consultant, under contract to USEPA Gulf Breeze, FL.
"Evaluation of Gulf of Mexico Sediment Inventory"; by Jerl Brecken-Folse and
Maureen G. Bablkow, Technical Resources, Inc., and Dr. T.W. Duke, Consultant,
under eontract to USEPA Gulf Breeze, FL. Draft 1993.
"Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances and Characterization Report"; by John Brabeck
and Jerl Brecken-Folse. Draft 1993.
NOTE: Current TRI data is available on the Gulf of Mexico Program Electronic
Bulletin Board System.
Introduction
Although the Gulf of Mexico is viewed as one of the most healthy and productive of
U.S. coastal environments, during recent decades it has begun to show signs of
deteriorating environmental quality. The introduction of toxic substances and
pesticides within populated coastal counties is of increasing concern
Indicators of the declining environmental quality of the Gulf include species
extinction, the loss of resource use of certain areas (e.g., no swimming/skiing
because of toxicants, oil sheens) or the reduced value or aesthetics of an area,
increased incidence of diseases in aquatic organisms and wildlife (tumors, lesions,
etc.), impacts on health of humans who consume contaminated seafood (e.g.,
increased rate of cancer), and changes in population dynamics, communities, or
ecosystems.
Toxic substances (including pesticides) are materials either synthesized by humans
or present in Gulf of Mexico waters that are capable of producing an adverse effect in
a biological system, seriously injuring ecosystem structure or function, or causing
death. It should be noted that human and other pathogens were excluded from
consideration by the Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee because these issues
are being addressed by the Public Health Committee.
A pesticide, broadly defined, is any agent used to kill or control undesired insects,
weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms. Thus, the term "pesticides"
includes insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, nematicides, and
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ftPestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
11

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
arachnicides, as well as disinfectants, fumigants, and plant growth regulators. For
the purposes of this action agenda, the term "pesticide" refers to chemical agents
only; biological agents are not addressed as part of this Action Agenda.
Toxic substance and pesticide contamination can be a serious coastal environment
problem. However, historically, more visible problems like marine debris,
eutrophication, and coastal erosion captured the public attention and garnered
public support for action. Today, concerns about discharges of toxic substances in the
Gulf of Mexico are growing because of the increased concentration of industrial
activities. USEPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is a computerized data base
containing public information on the annual releases and transfers of
approximately 320 toxic chemicals reported by U.S. manufacturing facilities to
USEPA and the states. Since 1987, federal law has required facilities to report the
amount of both routine and accidental releases of the 320 listed chemicals to the air,
water, and soil, and the amount contained in wastes transferred off-site. Some 695
facilities report this data within the 68 counties that border the Gulf. According to
1989 TRI data, all five Gulf Coast States are listed in the top 20 states nationally for
total chemical emissions to the environment. Four Gulf States (Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas) were among the top five states with the largest
surface water discharges of chemicals Other, less identifiable, sources of pollutants
enter rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas from runoff. Many of these nonpoint
sources also contribute chemicals and pesticides, as well as other material to the
receiving waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Comparable data are not currently available to address the fate and effects of these
discharges on the aquatic environment. A toxicant entering the marine
environment may move into the water, sediment, biota, or atmosphere. Several
models exist that assist in predicting fate; however, these models need to be refined
and validated to incorporate parameters such as flushing time. Models for
predicting effects are not as available. Yet, it is clear that toxic contamination can
cause a slow, subtle poisoning of water, soil, and aquatic resources that is fairly
invisible to beach users, boaters, or casual observers of Gulf waters
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
12

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Consequences for Living Resources
The toxic effects of chemical contaminants to aquatic organisms are dependent on
several factors, such as the bioavailability and persistence of specific contaminants,
and the interference of contaminants with metabolic processes (Capuzzo and Moore,
1986). The responses of organisms to toxic chemicals can be exhibited at four levels
of biological organization: 1) biochemical and cellular; 2) organismal, including the
integration of physiological, biochemical and behavioral responses; 3) population,
including alterations in population dynamics; and 4) community, resulting in
alterations in community structure and dynamics (Capuzzo and Moore, 1986). One
of the least understood problems is the effect of sub-lethal concentrations of toxic
materials on ecosystem function.
Signs of increasing degradation and contamination from toxic substances and
pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico include the following examples:
~	In a USEPA study of three Gulf Coast estuaries, sampling stations near
heavily industrialized sites yielded larger numbers of diseased fish and
oysters when compared to more distant sampling stations (USEPA,
1990b)
~	Biscayne Bay, Mississippi Sound, and Galveston Bay have been
reported (Overstreet, 1986) to contain striped mullet with
mesenchymal neoplasms; sciaenid and other fishes with lymphocystis;
fish with ulcers, red sores, fin erosion, and granulomata; crustaceans
with shell disease; and other "pollution-associated" diseases.
~	According to NOAA National Status and Trends Mussel Watch data,
mercury is generally enriched in Florida sites, where 12 of 25 of the
sites sampled are well above average. The oysters from Old Tampa Bay
and Lavaca Bay are especially high in mercury (USDOC, 1987).
~	In some locations in Texas, where oysters are known to be
contaminated with mercury, harvesting has been limited because of
the potential of a human health threat.
~	The brown pelican became locally extinct in the northern Gulf because
the presence of the pesticide DDT in large quantities inhibited the
pelican's ability to reproduce (USEPA, 1991c; USEPA, 1990b).
Regulatory controls have supported the recovery of this species in
many areas; however, the brown pelican remains endangered in Texas.
Gulf of Mexico Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
13

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
~	Total DDT is the most abundant chlorinated pesticide found in Gulf
oysters. The regional distribution of total DDT shows that four of the
five highest concentrations are associated with major river outfalls
including the Brazos, Mississippi, Mobile, and Choctawatchee rivers.
There are also relatively high total DDT concentrations at St. Andrew's
Bay and Panama City, although there are no major rivers nearby.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also highest in these
regions. Possible sources of contaminants may be nearby oil-storage
tanks and a paper/pulp mill. DDTs associated with soils may be
transported downstream and collect in estuaries. This process provides
a plausible explanation of the higher total DDT associated with major
river outfalls. There are somewhat higher concentrations near areas of
higher population density (i.e., Galveston Bay, Mobile Bay, etc.) (Wade
et al, 1991).
~	PCBs have been detected in all oyster samples analyzed in NOAA's
National Status & Trends Program. The highest regional
concentration is from St. Andrew's Bay.
~	Moderately elevated concentrations of sediment pesticides and PCBs
appear along the central Louisiana coast (possibly associated with
Mississippi River discharge) and at isolated stations in Matagorda Bay
and Galveston Bay High concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons
are observed along the Mississippi-northern Florida coast and at
sampling stations in Tampa Bay. The most abundant chlorinated
hydrocarbons in Gulf of Mexico oysters are PCBs, DDTs, chlordanes,
and dieldrin. Overall, the geographical trends in organochlorine
contaminant load in oysters follow those observed m sediments.
(Texas A & M Research Foundation, 1989).
Gulf el Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
14

-------
Toxlo Substances St Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Gulf wide Comparison of Impacts
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program-Estuaries (EMAP-E)
The following data Is from the first annual statistical summary for the
Loulslanlan Province of the Estuaries component of USEPA'e Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This summary represents data
from a single year of field operations (July-August, 1991). Because the
probability-based scientific design used by EMAP necessitates multiple
years of sampling, there may be significant levels cf uncertainty associated
with some of these data. This uncertainty will decrease as the full power of
the approach Is realized by the collection of data over several years.
Similarly, temporal changes and trends cannot be reported, as these require
multiple years of observation. Appropriate precautions should be exercised
when using the Information for policy, regulatory, or legislative purposes.
The following section has been excerpted from Summers ef a/., 1993.
EMAP is a national program to evaluate the status and trends of the ecological
resources of the U.S. The Louisianian Province represents a single biogeographic
area of the country corresponding to the Gulf of Mexico area. One hundred and
eighty-three sites between Anclote Anchorage, FL, and the Rio Grande, TX, were
sampled from July-August 1991. A series of indicators that are representative of the
overall condition of estuarine resources was measured at each site. These indicators
were designed to address three major attributes of concern: 1) estuarine biotic
integrity, 2) aesthetics representing societal values related to public use of estuarine
resources, and 3) pollutant exposure or the conditions under which biota live. Only
information related to toxic and pesticide contaminant levels are provided in this
Action Agenda.
In general, contaminant concentrations in fish and shellfish were low with the
exception of some heavy metals (arsenic, chromium, mercury, and zinc) (See Tables
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Concentrations of pesticides and PCBs measured in brown and
white shrimp tissue did not exceed existing USFDA and international criteria
(USFDA, 1984,1982; Nauen, 1983). However, certain heavy metals were
characterized by concentrations exceeding criteria in small portions of the sampled
populations of shrimp (see Table 2.1). Arsenic concentrations exceeding 2 ppm
were found in three percent of the croaker population. Eight percent of catfish
contained elevated levels of arsenic, exceeding 2 ppm. Zinc concentrations exceeded
60 ppm in two percent of the catfish populations. Mercury exceeded 1 ppm in one
percent of the catfish populations.
Overall, the number of contaminants seen in fish and shellfish exceeding the
USFDA action limits was low. However, a few contaminants (selected heavy
metals) occurred in high enough concentrations to exceed USFDA action limits in
small portions of the populations examined. These contaminants were arsenic,
zinc, mercury, and chromium. Because of the paucity of information concerning
U.S. standards for heavy metals other than mercury in fish, the criteria levels used
for metals in Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 (i.e., World Health Organization guidelines)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
15

-------
Toxic Substances £ Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.1	Overview of the Contaminant Levels Observed
In Edible Flesh of Brown Shrimp & White
Shrimp (N*370)
Contaminant
Observed
Criterion1
Proportion

Range

Exceeding



Criterion
Pesticides (ng/g wwt)



DDD
0-4 9
5000
0%
DDE
0-17
5000
0%
DDT
0-740
5000
0%
Aldnn
0-1.6
300
0%
Chlordane
0-1.9
300
0%
Dieldnn
0-1.6
300
0%
Endosulfan
0-00
NA2
0%
Endnn
0-128
300
0%
Heptachlor
04)0
300
0%
Heptachlor Epoxide
0-39
300
0%
Hexadilorobenzene
0-2.5
200
0%
Lindane
00 0
200
0%
Mirex
0-435
100
0%
Toxaphene
04)0
5000
0%
Trans-Nonachlor
0-13
NA
u3
PCBS (ng/g wwt)



21 Congeners
0-161
500
0%
Total PCBs
0-303
2000
0%
Heaw Metals (ng/g wwll



Aluminum
0-785
NA
u
Arsenic
0-39
2
4%
Cadmium
003
05
0%
Chromium
0-61
1
4%
Copper
0-9.6
15
0%
Lead
04)3
0.5
0%
Mercury
04)3
1
0%
Nickel
0-90
NA
u
Selenium
0-03
1
0%
Silver
04)3
NA
u
Tin
0-11
NA
u
Zinc
1-188
60
0%
1 Criteria were selected from FDA established limits for pesticides
and PCBs (USFDA1982,1984) except hexachlorobenzene and
lindane which are based on Swedish limits (Nauen 1963), no FDA
limits exist for metals other than mercury.
metals criteria reflect
mean of international limits (Nauen 1983)


^NA = Not Available



= Unknown because no criterion level available

(Source: Statistical Summary, EMAP-E Louislanlan Province -1991)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
16

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
may not be acceptable. However, the contaminant data are available to be compared
to any criteria and can be used to track potential trends in contaminant
concentrations in flesh for the croaker, catfish, and shrimp populations in the
Louisianian Province.
Laboratory bioassays were conducted to determine if the sediments in the
Louisianian Province were toxic to representative estuarine organisms, using an
amphipod and a common mysid. Based upon the results of these tests, seven
percent of the Province contained sediments that were toxic to estuarine organisms.
Elevated levels of metals in sediments were observed in 33 percent of the Province
These metals were primarily mercury, nickel, chromium, and zinc.
In the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration, 25 pesticides and derivations were
examined. For this summary, total pesticides, total DDT, and total chlordane are
reported. National sediment quality criteria have not yet been completed by USEPA,
and suggested criteria are only available for nine of the 25 pesticides examined.
Long and Morgan (1990) report the following criteria concentrations for DDT, DDD,
DDE, chlordane, dieldnn, and endrin. 7 ppb, 20 ppb, 15 ppb, 0.5 ppb, 0.02 ppb, and
0.02 ppb, respectively. Long and Morgan values are derived from an Apparent
Effects Threshold (AET) method for developing sediment criteria and represent
concentrations at which effects to estuarine organisms could result.
The DDT criteria value of 7 ppb was exceeded for less than one percent of the
sediments in the Louisianian Province. Total chlordane showed concentrations
greater than 0.5 ppb in two percent of the sediments of the Louisianian Province
with some individual sediment samples exceeding 5 ppb.
Total pesticides were evaluated by examining each individual pesticide and
computing the number of sediment samples in which at least one criterion was
exceeded. Based on this approach, 24 percent of the Louisianian Province sediments
exceeded these pesticide concentrations. This exceedance was primarily related to
high concentrations of DDT, dieldrin, and chlordane. Tributyltin was measured at
sediment concentrations greater than 1 ppb in 13 percent and 75 ppb in four percent
of the sediments of the Louisianian Province. Of the 31 percent of Gulf sediments
that had poor benthic communities, 75 percent were related to elevated levels of
toxics and pesticides.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
17

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.2 Overview of the
Contaminant Levels Observed In
Edible Flesh of Atlantic Croaker
(N-580, NA-Nol Available, U-Unknown,
no criterion level Is available)
Table 2.3 Overview of the
Contaminant Levels Observed
In Edible Flesh of Catfish
(Nb1 130, NA-Nol Available, U-Utiknown,
no criterion level Is available)
Contaminant
Observed
Criterion'
Proportion

Range

Exceeding



Criterion
Pesticides (np/p wwtl



DDD
0-160
5000
0%
DDE
0-3.5
5000
0%
DDT
0-24.2
5000
0%
Aidnn
0-3.2
300
0%
Chlordane
M2
300
0%
Dieldnn
0-26.2
300
0%
Endosulfan
0-17
NA
u
Endnn
0-22 5
300
0%
Heptachlor
as 7
300
0%
Heptachlor Epoxide
0-167
300
0%
Hexachlorobenzene
0-774
200
2%
Lindane
0-00
200
0%
Mi rex
0-88 5
100
0%
Toxaphene
0-1800
5000
0%
Trans-Nonach lor
0-1.3
NA
u
PCBS (ng/g wwt)



21 Congeners
0-406
500
0%
Total PCBs
0-62 5
2000
0%
Hcaw Metals 
-------
Toxic Substances St Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee Draft Inventory
A Ratings
The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee has developed a draft inventory and
ratings of Gulf estuarine drainage systems with respect to potential toxicity as a first
step in an overall assessment of adverse impact. The focus of the initial assessment
is on municipal and industrial discharges, agricultural pesticide use, and produced
water discharges. Contamination from sources such as atmospheric deposition,
urban runoff, "upstream" contamination, and others are not included in this initial
assessment.
The Issue Committee evaluated the short-term impact of the contaminants by:
1)	listing sites that cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain water quality
standards or assure protection of public health or protection of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife in Gulf coastal waters in accordance with §304(1) of the Clean Water Act;
2)	identifying areas where fish and shellfish were contaminated to the extent that
they constituted a potential threat to human health and welfare and, therefore, were
closed to harvest (State Fisheries Advisories); and 3) locating other contaminated
sites known to members of the Issue Committee Twenty-nine such sites were
identified.
A more detailed Gulfwide approach was also taken whereby the impact from three
sources of toxic substances and pesticides data were evaluated: 1) USEPA's Toxic
Release Inventory of the Gulf and Permit Compliance System; 2) pesticides that are
applied to cultivated fields and could drain into the Gulf; and 3) discharges from
nearshore oil and gas platforms.
Inventory and pesticide application data were also used to calculate a "rating"
whereby the potential contamination and impact of these chemicals on the
estuarine drainage systems could be compared. The comparison considered toxicity
and amounts of the chemicals applied and the volume of the receiving drainage
basin. The pesticide data and the inventory were not integrated because they were
collected in different years.
Metals and organics released in "produced waters" from oil and gas platforms into
nearshore waters of the Gulf add to the load of toxic contaminants entering
nearshore areas. Produced water is water brought up from hydrocarbon-bearing
strata with the produced oil and gas. A preliminary listing of the amounts of these
chemicals released in 1991 off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas were summarized.
Findings include the following: Relatively large amounts, approximately 13 million
pounds per year, of toxic substances were discharged from industrial and municipal
sites and reached the estuarine drainage areas of the Gulf of Mexico in 1989. Other
contaminants include pesticides from agricultural fields and produced waters from
nearshore oil and gas platforms. These sources have contributed to elevated levels
of these contaminants in nearshore waters of the Gulf.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
19

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In tho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
A simplified rating system (toxicity, amounts of the chemicals, and volume of the
receiving drainage system) used to compare potential impact and contamination
among Gulf estuarine drainage systems showed Calcasieu Lake to be the most
susceptible, followed in descending order by the Brazos River, Corpus Christi Bay,
Sabine Lake, Galveston Bay, Escambia Bay, Mobile Bay, Perdido Bay,
Atchafalaya/Vermillion Bay and San Antonio Bay
Approximately 43 million pounds of toxics were discharged into municipal
treatment systems from coastal counties, of which one million were released into
Gulf nearshore waters after treatment. Approximately 12 million pounds of toxics
were discharged into surface waters resulting in a total of 13 million pounds
reaching Gulf waters.
The ten most toxic chemicals released to the estuarine drainage systems ranked
highest to lowest according to a calculated toxicity index were: ammonium sulfate,
chlorine, ammonia, chromium, hydrazine, copper/copper compounds, zinc/zinc
compounds, cyanide/cyanide compounds, ethylbenzene, and sulfuric acid. (See
Appendix E: Toxleologleal Profiles of the Top Ten Gulfwide Releases.)
The frequency of occurrence of some of the most toxic chemicals discharged was:
ammonia appeared in 17 of 25 drainage systems, chlorine in 11, copper/copper
compounds in nine, and zinc/zinc compounds in nine systems.
Site specific, mostly short-term, adverse or potentially adverse effects have occurred
in coastal waters of the five states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. This is reflected in
numerous seafood advisories and reports under §304 (1) of the Clean Water Act.
Potential ecosystem effects are indicated Gulfwide when the kinds and amounts of
chemicals entering estuarine drainage basins of known volumes of water are
compared with concentrations known to cause toxic effects to indicator organisms.
Approximately 4.5 million kg (10 million pounds) of pesticides were applied to
agricultural fields in Gulf coastal counties in 1987, and 2.3 million kg (5.1 million
pounds) in 1990. According to a rating index developed by NOAA in 1987, potential
contamination of the Laguna Madre estuarine drainage system was the greatest,
followed by Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor. The index applied to the 1989 data
showed Laguna Madre to be the greatest followed by Atchafalaya/Vermillion Bay
and Matagorda Bay.
A preliminary report (Avanti) on produced water discharged in 1991 from oil and
gas platforms and coastal processing plants located in near coastal waters of
Louisiana and Texas showed the discharges contained approximately 12.7 million kg
(28 million pounds) of metals (minus calcium and magnesium) and 1.1 million kg
(2.5 million pounds) of organic pollution.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances a Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
20

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Based on this Committee assessment, toxic substances and pesticides are having an
adverse effect on living resources in the Gulf of Mexico. It appears that the effects
are localized and caused by high concentrations and/or acute events, but the exact
causes are not easily identified without case studies designed to identify cause.
These contaminants are continuously entering the estuarme drainage systems. The
variety and amount of the contaminants and the limited mixing capacity of the
system make it very likely that broad scale ecological effects are occurring Gulfwide;
but because of subtle, long-term changes, such effects can go unnoticed until systems
react. The dramatic loss of submerged aquatic vegetation in some parts of the Gulf is
an example of such a reaction
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
21

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Sources off Toxic Substances & Pesticides
The factors that may be affecting the water quality of an estuarine basin are many,
and determining specific sources or causes of water quality problems is a
complicated process. The economy of Gulf Coast States depends heavily on the
chemical, petroleum, and paper industries. These industries can contribute toxic
substances resulting from manufacturing operations and permitted effluent
discharges, as well as accidental releases. The waste water generated by the
operations of these industries, which can be carried to Gulf waters, contains such
toxics as mercury, dioxins, PCBs, carcinogenic hydrocarbons, and radionuclides (RA
226/228). The coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico have experienced rapid
population growth in recent years. Factors associated with such growth include
demands for additional sewage treatment (and associated discharges), new industrial
discharges, and increases in urban and suburban runoff. This runoff can contain
heavy metals, oil and grease, PAHs, and organic contaminants. In addition,
increased agricultural activities that accompany growth can have an adverse impact
with increased pesticide and organic contaminant runoff to Gulf waters. Finally,
large quantities of toxic pollutants are transported to the Gulf from other parts of the
country via the Mississippi River, which drains 40 percent of the continental U.S.
In some instances this pollution has caused elevated concentrations of toxic
substances and pesticides in the water, sediment, and biota of coastal systems.
Point Sources
Industrial. 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 half 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, 1991a). Only two of these
permittees discharge into coastal waters; the rest of these permits are for discharges
into Gulf estuaries.
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).
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
22

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. There are 1,293 permitted municipally-
owned wastewater treatment plants in Gulf of Mexico estuarine drainage areas
(USDOC, 1990b). 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). Most of these municipalities discharge into estuaries; only six discharge
into coastal waters.
Although the effectiveness of waste treatment has significantly improved over the
past thirty years, treated sewage effluent can contain heavy metals and toxic
household wastes, in addition to nutrients and pathogens. Based on population
projections, waste treatment loadings in Florida are expected to increase by more
than 300 percent by the year 2000 (Windsor, 1985); similar trends can be expected
elsewhere. Additional sewage outfalls into estuarine and coastal waters are
potentially one consequence of these population increases.
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 LA 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).
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).
Urban. Urban nonpoint pollution sources include runoff from cities, industrial
sites, air pollutants (carried by precipitation), underground transport through
aquifers, and other releases of pollutants, such as the leaching of tributyltin from
ship hulls. Urban nonpoint source pollution can also originate from septic tank
systems and from overflows of municipal storm sewers. Urban runoff can
contribute substantial quantities of oil and grease, lead, and chromium into marine
waters.
Agricultural. Agricultural activity accounts for 30 percent of the land use in the Gulf
of Mexico estuarine watersheds (Pait et al, 1992). This land use includes the
.application of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Rainwater and irrigation can
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
23

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf et Mexico
Chapter 2
wash pesticides off vegetation and soil, into the nearest stream or river, and
ultimately into Gulf coastal waters. Pesticide contamination is a serious concern
because older pesticides persist in sediments, have higher toxicity, and tend to
bioaccumulate in biota.
The overall agricultural application of pesticide active ingredients in the U.S.
increased by approximately 170 percent between 1964 and 1982. This was due
primarily to an increase in herbicide use, from 95 million kg (210 million pounds)
in 1971 to more than 206 million kg (455 million pounds) in 1982 (see Figure 2.1).
Insecticide use nationwide peaked around 1976 at approximately 70 million kg (155
million pounds). Fungicide use has only slowly increased over the last 20 years.
Between 1982 and 1987, however, the USDA estimates that the nation's total
agricultural pesticide use declined by approximately 14 percent. This decline has
been attributed to land set-asides (e.g., erosion control) and to the introduction of
newer pesticides with lower application rates (Pait et ai, 1992).
Fl0ur* 2.1	U.S. Agricultural Pesticide Use from 1966 to 1987
soo
Heitncides
0
1968
1970
1975
1980
1985 86 87
Year
(Source: Palt ef ai., 1992)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
24

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
In 1987, application of commonly used pesticides to agricultural lands in the Gulf of
Mexico region was estimated at 4.5 million kg (10 million pounds)—the most among
all U.S. regions. The average application of pesticides was 61.8 kg/km2 (352
pounds/mi2). The South Ten Thousand Islands estuarine watershed had the
highest intensity of application of a group of 35 commonly applied pesticides in the
region [494 kg/km2 (2,819 pounds/mi2 of cropland)], followed by the
Choctawhatchee Bay estuarine watershed [252 kg/km2 (1,439 pounds/mi2 of
cropland)] (Pait et al., 1989).
Using a rating system that combines use with three other parameters (LC50,
bioconcentration factor and soil half life) that are important to the fate and aquatic
impacts of pesticides, estuarine watersheds such as South Ten Thousand Islands,
Rookery Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay rated highly in terms of the use of
the more aquatically hazardous compounds. Pesticides such as endosulfan,
chlorpyrifos, and chlorothalonil applied to crops such as tomatoes and citrus were
responsible for the high rating (Pait et al., 1989).
Progress has been made in reducing the aquatic impacts of agriculturally applied
pesticides over the last several decades One of the most significant of these has
been the changes in the pesticides themselves. Many currently used pesticides do
not remain active in the environment for a long period of time, so accumulation is
less likely to occur. Lower application rates of the more toxic pesticides mean there
will be less pesticide to enter the aquatic environment. When detections and/or
detectable impacts were found on 35 inventoried pesticides, the evidence indicated
that they tended to occur near the site of application and during the growing season
(Pait et al., 1992).
In addition to changes in the pesticides themselves, some agricultural practices have
also been developed to reduce the use and/or transport of pesticides into the aquatic
environment. Best Management Practices (BMPs), which have traditionally
addressed soil erosion problems, have also been developed to control water quality
problems caused by the input of agrochemicals. Examples of BMPs include no-till
and ridge-till agriculture, crop rotation, strip cropping, vegetated filter strips, and
grass waterways.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a strategy based on using pest control measures
when the cost of the impending damage that will be done by the pest exceeds the
cost of its control. IPM involves a number of practices including the scouting of
fields to determine current levels of pests and the optimum time to apply pesticides,
understanding and using naturally occurring predator/prey relationships, crop
rotations, and planting dates. IPM, where successful, usually reduces the volume of
pesticide use. There has been considerable discussion, however, regarding the use
and efficacy of these alternative systems to reduce pesticide use and maintain high
levels of production.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
25

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Oil & Gas Drilling
Offshore oil and gas development was introduced to the Gulf in the 1930s, and over
the years, it has generated a number of environmental concerns. According to the
Minerals Management Service, the federal agency charged with administering the
offshore oil program in federal waters, in the first 30 years of the program there were
106 incidents involving "significant pollution" [greater than 7,949 litres (2,100
gallons)] in the Gulf (Weber et al, 1992). During the same period, there were 145
well blowouts and 767 fires on offshore structures. Also, there were 31 pipeline
breaks and 224 major accidents (fires and explosions causing damage of over $1
million, spills greater than 31,794 litres (8,400 gallons), and fatalities and serious
injuries). Offshore oil platforms may also generate pollutants, including sewage,
galley wastes, drilling mud, well cuttings, and contaminated runoff.
Oil Spills. As demand for petroleum products increases, the risk of spills and their
consequences also increases (USEPA, 1990b) Gulf States are among three regions of
the U.S. that are most particularly at risk from spills (Southern States Energy Board,
1991).	It is estimated that 48 percent of the oil imported by the U.S. is offloaded in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Since 1976, there have been eight oil spills, releasing more than one million gallons
of oil each, in U.S. waters Five of these spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
(Southern States Energy Board, 1991). In 1986, there were 1,206 oil spills in the Gulf
of Mexico, totaling over 3.8 million litres (1 million gallons) of oil (Weber et al.,
1992).	Many of these were small accidental releases.
Historically, it has been unusual for more than 10-15 percent of oil to be recovered
from a large spill, where attempts have been made to recover it. According to the
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), even using the best technology available
and assuming a timely and coordinated response effort, it is not realistic to expect
that a significant amount of oil from a major offshore spill could be recovered,
except under the most ideal conditions (OTA, 1987).
Produced Water. There is another potential route for contamination from oil and
gas activities. Production of oil and gas in the Gulf results in "produced water" ~
water brought up from hydrocarbon-bearing strata with the produced oil and gas
that is discharged into inshore (wetlands, estuaries, coastal, and inner-continental
shelf) or offshore waters. Discharge of waste drilling mud and produced water into
bays and estuaries of the Gulf is allowed, and may be permitted, by both Texas and
Louisiana. USEPA has not yet issued NPDES permits for these discharges. In 1990,
the daily production of produced water in the Gulf of Mexico was 2.37 million
barrels. The production for individual discharges varies between less than 500 to
24,000 barrels per day. There are presently three discharges greater than 20,000
barrels, the largest of which is 44,592 barrels per day.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlddes Action Agenda (3.2)
26

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Produced water may contain substances that exert oxygen demand from 100 to 3000
mg/L, depending on the chemical composition of the effluent. Benzene and PAHs
are present in produced water and metals such as lead, copper, nickel, and mercury
may also be present. Produced water discharges in 1991 from oil and gas platforms
and coastal processing plants in the near coastal waters of Louisiana and Texas
showed that the discharge contained approximately 12.7 million kg (28 million
pounds) of metals (minus calcium and magnesium) and 1.1 million kg (2.5 million
pounds) of organic pollution (Brecken-Folse and Babikow, Draft 1993). Biocides can
also contribute to the toxicity of produced water (Mayer et al., date unknown).
Naturally occurring radioactive materials, such as radium, from oil-bearing
formations, may also be a potential problem in produced waters (St. Pe', 1991 and
Mayer et al., date unknown). However, a recent evaluation of radionuclide
discharges by Brookhaven National Laboratory concluded that these discharges
present a low ecological and health risk for coastal discharges to Louisiana and
offshore (Meinhold and Hamilton, 1992; Hamilton et al., 1992)
High concentrations of volatile and semivolatile hydrocarbons have also been
documented in produced waters. Studies indicate that these pollutants can
accumulate in sediments close to produced water discharge points. The possible
human health impacts of consuming seafood contaminated with polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene,
xylene, and toluene are under investigation (St. Pe, 1991).
Concern also exists about the biological effect of some inshore produced water
discharges on wetlands, both freshwater and saltwater. Receiving waters may be at
risk from the natural constituents (salt, metals, petroleum hydrocarbons from
naturally occurring seeps) as well as the added constituents (treatment chemicals) in
produced water. However, a study for MMS (Rabalais et al., 1991, 1992) identified
contamination by various chemicals, but not always a corresponding effect on the
biological communities. The cumulative impacts from permitted, accidental, and
natural releases are not known.
Dredged Materials & Contaminated Sediments
Dredged material accounts for about 80 to 90 percent by volume of the waste
material that is disposed nationally in the marine environment each year, mostly
into near shore waters. Over 90.7 metric tons (100 million tons) of sediment are
dredged from the Gulf each year, representing about 20 percent of the national total.
Under §404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps of Engineers regulates discharges of
dredged or fill material in these near shore waters, wetlands, and estuaries, using
guidelines developed jointly by USEPA and the Corps. Offshore, USEPA designates
acceptable dredged material disposal sites under the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act; the Corps permits disposal operations at these disposal sites.
Gulf of Mexleo Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
27

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Dredged materials sometimes are contaminated with toxic heavy metals, organic
chemicals, and other pollutants originating from municipal and industrial
discharges and nonpoint sources. Sediments near sewage or industrial outfalls,
sludge dump sites, or near the site of a spill, may have high levels of contaminants.
These sediments promote the degradation or complete elimination of sensitive
benthic species and may require remedial activities and or special considerations not
ordinarily required for sediments dredged for navigation.
The Committees' draft Contaminated Sediments Inventory (CSI) contains coastal
sediment chemistry and biological effects data collected by state and federal, as well
as academic sources for the last 13 years. The database, which contains almost 27,000
records, consists of detailed information on each sample collected as well as QA/QC
information when available. Data consist largely of bulk sediment chemistry
information, a large proportion of which utilize detection limits above many
threshold effects levels. Due to the nature of the CSI, Florida's draft sediment
quality guidelines were used to evaluate the data in order to identify both chemicals
and estuaries of concern. It should be noted that evaluation of bulk sediment
chemistry data on many chemicals, particularly pesticides, is difficult. In addition,
characterization of Florida's coastal sediment was more complete than much of the
rest of the Gulf Coast. Therefore, it is likely that many areas not listed also may be of
concern (Brecken-Folse and Babikow, Draft 1993).
Preliminary analysis of the CSI shows that Perdido Bay ranks highest in potential
ecological impact caused by contaminated sediments. Tampa Bay, Galveston Bay,
Escambia Bay, Choctawatchee Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, Calcasieu Lake, St.
Andrews Bay, Apalachicola Bay, and Mobile Bay also rank highly as potential areas
of concern based on historical sediment quality data. Gulfwide contaminants of
concern are chlordane, followed by dieldrin, pyrene, lead, mercury, chysene,
phenanthene, silver, fluoranthene and total PCBs (Brecken-Folse and Babikow,
Draft 1993).
Shipping
Major shipping centers are found in each of the Gulf States. There are more than
25,000 ships of over 907 gross registered metric tons (1,000 tons) in the world's
merchant fleet. About 5,500 of these are tankers, including 265 U.S. flag tankers.
Most of these vessels will call at a U.S. Gulf port at some time in their useful lives
(Weber et al., 1992).
In addition to the number of tankers, there are also numerous tank barges that use
Gulf ports. The exact number is not known, and is complicated by the fact that most
barges are confined to inland waters, including the Mississippi River system and the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Nevertheless, there are more than 30,000 barges under
U.S. flag, including over 4,200 tank barges, most of which operate in the Gulf area in
support of the extensive petroleum and petrochemical industries.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
28

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
In 1987, the most recent year for which complete data are available, tankers made
29,700 movements—either arriving or departing—at Gulf Coast ports, while tank
barges made 259,300 movements (Weber et al., 1992).
These vessels may be involved in accidents including sinkings, groundings, fires,
explosions, collisions, and damages. In 1986, the most recent year with complete
data, there were four total losses of tankers in U.S. waters, and two total losses of
barges. There were 250 other accidents involving tankers and 531 involving tank
barges (Weber et al, 1992)
In 1986, in addition to the 1,206 oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, there were 76
hazardous substance spills, involving almost 507,190 litres (134,000 gallons); and 120
spills of other substances, in which about 28,389 litres (7,500 gallons) were spilled.
All of these quantities were within the normal range of variation seen over the
previous ten years (Weber et al, 1992).
Ships and barges do not always use port facilities (or are unable to due to lack of
facilities) for disposal of bilge and tank washings and wastes. The thousands of ships
using the Gulf can contribute pollutants by dumping galley wastes, sewage, and
other pollutants in Gulf waters (Weber et al., 1992)
Another environmental issue related to the transport of oil through Gulf waters is
floating tar, which generally comes from tankers flushing out their ballast tanks
before entering port to take on new cargoes of petroleum. This problem is especially
prevalent in the areas of the Loop Current and the Straits of Florida (Weber et al.,
1992). About half the floating tar in the Gulf originates in the Gulf; the remainder
comes from the Caribbean via currents. Currents carry tar throughout the Gulf,
where it often washes up on beaches. Texas beaches, especially, are noted for heavy
concentrations of tar (Weber et al, 1992). Tar is not only a problem for recreational
beach users, but also for marine wildlife.
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.
Wet forms may be rain, snow, or fog; 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 Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
29

-------
Toxle Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico	Chapt6f 2
Based on patterns observed elsewhere around the country, atmospheric deposition
is likely to be a contributor to pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. For example,
nitrogen loadings in the Chesapeake Bay have been estimated at one-third of the
total loadings to the Bay and a significant number of toxics are contributed to the
Great Lakes from atmospheric deposition.
Gull of Mexlee Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
30

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Sources -- A Broader Perspective
The broader Caribbean region should also be considered when addressing the issue
of toxic substances in the Gulf of Mexico. Most Caribbean countries dispose of their
sewage directly into coastal or inland waters with little or no treatment. Industrial
waste waters in Caribbean countries include wastes from onshore refineries and
petrochemical plants; sugar-factories and rum distilleries; breweries, soft-drink
plants and canneries; abattoirs and meat canneries; tanneries; metal and
electroplating plants; textile dyeing industries; edible-oil production plants; cooling
and scale-removal activities at power plants; banana washing and packing activities;
wood and pulping operations; and fertilizer mining and processing. Industrial
activities are concentrated along the coast and major rivers that flow into the Gulf.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) controls the discharge of oil and oily substances and noxious liquid
substances, primarily derived from tank cleaning and deballasting from ships
capable of operating beyond the U.S territorial sea; however, not all countries
surrounding the Gulf have accepted this Convention.
Gulf of Mexico Texlc Substances fiPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
31

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Consequences for Human Health
The objectives and action items in this Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda
will develop information on bioaccumulation and residue levels as they relate to
the effects on coastal fish and wildlife. Such data may be useful to the Public Health
Committee in determining the effects of the residues on humans. Thus, there is a
substantial need for coordination between these two Gulf of Mexico Program Issue
Committees.
This section provides a brief summary of the potential consequences for human
health from toxic substance and pesticide contamination. The Gulf of Mexico
Program Public Health Action Agenda provides a more comprehensive description.
Quantifying the potential human health effects resulting from exposure to toxic
chemicals present in the marine environment is difficult since the effects may not
take the form of an obvious acute effect. Few studies have been able to actually
measure the impacts of exposure to toxic chemicals; however, this should not
necessarily imply that these effects do not occur. Exposure to toxic chemicals may
induce chronic effects such as an increased incidence of cancer which may not yet be
detectable in an epidemiological study of an exposed population.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1991), the levels of toxic
chemicals in seafood in certain areas are high enough to warrant additional control
measures. It is suspected, however, that the risks from toxic chemicals are not on
the order of magnitude of environmental health hazards associated with human
pathogens for the populations as a whole (NAS, 1991), although certain groups
within the populations may be at higher risk (e.g., recreational and subsistence
fishermen, children, and pregnant women).
Direct exposure to hazardous waste (where it occurs) is a problem in the Gulf of
Mexico (USEPA, 1992). However, little information is available about the frequency
of exposure in the Gulf States. Toxic chemicals can be classified by organic and
inorganic compounds. It is known that inorganic contaminants, such as mercury,
accumulate in both fish and shellfish consumed by humans. The potential for
exposure to organic toxic contaminants through bioaccumulation in the food chain
is well documented (Barron, 1990). Some toxic substances introduced into Gulf
Coast waters may bioaccumulate in the food chain and may cause illness at some
levels.
Toxic chemicals of primary concern (to human health at least) have the following
properties: high persistence in the aquatic environment; high bioaccumulation
potential; and high toxicity to humans. Chemicals with these properties that have
been found in fish tissue and the marine environment include dioxins and furans;
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls); PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) (e.g.,
benzo(a)pyrene); pesticides; and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and
selenium. In addition, a variety of potentially toxic chemicals is introduced into the
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
32

-------
Toxic Substances ft Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
marine environment from aquaculture. Chemotherapeutic drugs such as
sulfonamides and nitrofurans are the primary aquaculture chemicals of concern to
human health (NAS, 1991).
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification are important processes that largely
determine the potential for indirect human exposure to toxic metals and organic
chemicals. Marine organisms, especially benthic organisms, can bioaccumulate
metals by filtering water during feeding or swimming, ingesting particulate matter
onto which such substances are absorbed, or ingesting other contaminated
organisms (OTA, 1987). Biomagnification of a metal can result in an increase in an
organism's tissue concentration of several orders of magnitude or more, and hence
represents a major potential pathway for human exposure. Even when
bioaccumulation is not a factor, significant quantities of metals can concentrate in
the gut or gills of marine organisms without actual absorption into the tissues.
Inorganic Contaminants. Toxic metals are capable of inducing a variety of human
health effects—lethal and sublethal, acute, and chronic. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
mercury are particularly important contaminants because of their known or
potential toxicity to humans and their presence in relatively high concentrations in
wastes disposed of in estuaries and coastal waters. Metals of secondary concern
include chromium, copper, tin, and selenium. Other toxic metals are present in
much lower concentrations in both wastes and in regions of the marine
environment that are likely to lead to human exposure (OTA, 1987). In marine
environments, consumption of contaminated seafood is generally the major route
to human exposure to metals. Direct human exposure to metals is usually less
important because they are generally present in very low concentrations in the
water column (OTA, 1987). Some of the known properties and effects of exposure to
the metals of primary concern in marine environments are summarized in Table
2.4.
Organic Contaminants. Organic chemicals vary considerably with respect to their
behavior and toxicities in natural environments. Given this complexity, it is
essential to use some type of simplified classification if a health hazard evaluation is
to become manageable (OTA, 1987). One approach is to classify compounds
according to how they behave in the environment, thus concentrating on those
substances that have a potential to reach humans; information on human health
effects would then need to be developed for only this group.
As is the case for metals, the consumption of contaminated seafood is the primary
pathway for human exposure to most organic chemicals. Indeed, compounds such
as PCB and DDT have been shown to accumulate in humans through consumption
of contaminated seafood (OTA, 1987). The importance of bioaccumulation and
biomagnification varies greatly for different organic chemicals and for different
organisms, and there is relatively little information on the long-term fate and
behavior of most organic compounds in marine environments.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
33

-------
o
e
S
»
K
0
0
•*
0
x
0
If)
s
r
M
p»
II
3
0
9
M
P»
0
H
&
0
a
>
«
p»
0
3
>

-------
Toxic Substances S Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Assessing Ecological Risk (USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, 1991d
Draft)
Ecological risk assessment is defined as a process that evaluates the likelihood that
adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or
more stressors. Ecological risk assessments can help identify environmental
problems, establish priorities, and provide the scientific basis for regulatory actions.
The process can identify existing risks or forecast the risks of stressors not yet present
in the environment. However, while ecological risk assessments can play an
important role in identifying and resolving environmental problems, risk
assessments are not a solution for addressing all environmental problems, nor are
they always a prerequisite for environmental management. Many environmental
matters, such as the protection of habitats and endangered species, are compelling
enough that there may not be enough time or data to do a risk assessment. In such
cases, professional judgment and the mandates of a particular statute will be the
driving forces in making such decisions
Draft Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has produced a draft framework for
ecological risk assessment (see Figure 2.2). The first phase of the framework is
Problem Formulation Problem formulation includes a preliminary characterization
of exposure and effects, as well as examination of scientific data and data needs,
policy and regulatory issues, and site-specific factors, to define the feasibility, scope,
and objectives for the ecological risk assessment. The level of detail and the
information that will be needed to complete the assessment are also determined.
This systematic planning phase is proposed because ecological risk assessments often
address the risks of stressors to many species, as well as risks to communities and
ecosystems. In addition, there may be many ways a stressor can elicit adverse effects
(e.g., direct effects on mortality and growth and indirect effects, such as decreased
food supply). Problem formulation provides an early identification of key factors to
be considered, which in turn will produce a more scientifically sound risk
assessment.
The second phase of the framework is termed Analysis and consists of two
activities, Characterization of Exposure and Characterization of Ecological Effects.
The purpose of Characterization of Exposure is to predict or measure the spatial and
temporal distribution of a stressor and its co-occurrence or contact with the
ecological components of concern, while the purpose of Characterization of
Ecological Effects is to identify and quantify the adverse effects elicited by a stressor
and, to the extent possible, to evaluate cause and effect relationships.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
35

-------
Toxic Substances A Postteldos In (he Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Figure 2.2	Draft Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological Risk Assessment
Policy
V"
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Verification
and
Monitoring
Policy
Risk Management
Communication
with
Risk Manager
Characterization 1	Characterization
of '	ol
Exposure I	Ecological
I	Effects
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The third phase of the framework is Risk Characterization. Risk characterization
uses the results of the exposure and ecological effects analysis to evaluate the
likelihood of adverse ecological effects associated with exposure to a stressor. It
includes a summary of the assumptions used, the scientific uncertainties, and the
strengths and weaknesses of the analysis. In addition, the ecological significance of
the risks is discussed with consideration of the types and magnitudes of the effects,
their spatial and temporal patterns, and the likelihood of recovery. The purpose is
to provide a complete picture of the analysis and results.
In addition to the three phases of the framework, Figure 2.2 illustrates the roles of
Policy and Risk Management in the ecological risk assessment process. The
interface of policy, risk assessment, and risk management is crucial in all regulatory
programs. Social and economic values are reflected in the various laws enacted to
protect one or more components of the environment. Those values are important
to risk management decisions Therefore, it is important that these factors be
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
36

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
considered initially to ensure that the risk assessment will provide relevant
information to the risk manager charged with protecting societal values. In
addition, the breadth and scope of a particular assessment is likely to be influenced
not only by goals but also by the limitations of a particular statute.
Figure 2.2 also indicates a role for Verification and Monitoring in the framework.
Verification can include validation of the ecological risk assessment process, as well
as confirmation of specific predictions made during a risk assessment. Monitoring
can aid in the verification process and may identify additional topics for risk
assessment. Verification and monitoring can help determine the overall
effectiveness of the framework approach, provide necessary feedback concerning the
need for future modifications of the framework, help evaluate the effectiveness and
practicality of policy decisions, and point out the need for new or improved
scientific techniques.
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
37

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
State-By-State Overview of Indicators of Toxic Substances
& Pesticides
Alabama
Mobile Bay, the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta, Perdido Bay, the eastern end of
Mississippi Sound, and the tidally influenced smaller bays, adjacent lagoons and
marshes, and tributary bayous and small rivers comprise Alabama's estuarine
system. Portions of both the Mississippi Sound and Perdido Bay are shared with the
adjacent States of Mississippi and Florida, respectively.
Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances. Alabama's surface waters are
affected by point and nonpoint sources of contaminants from industrial, municipal,
urban, agricultural, and silvicultural sources Some of the contaminants from these
sources may be toxic. There are approximately 106 industrial, 15 municipal, and 29-
semi-public and private point source dischargers of treated wastewaters to
Alabama's coastal waters The total permitted, treated, point source wastewater
discharge to Mobile Bay is approximately 5.3 billion litres (1.4 billion gallons) daily
(USDOC, 1989). Nonpoint urban, agricultural, and silvicultural discharges are not
regulated to the same degree; however, new regulatory programs have been recently
instituted that will place a greater emphasis on regulating these sources.
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has in place a
number of programs to indicate the presence of toxic substances and pesticides and
to reduce their introduction into surface waters. Monthly water column
monitoring is conducted at sixteen ambient trend monitoring stations in Mobile
and Baldwin Counties (Alabama's coastal counties) for ammonia, at eighteen
stations for cyanide, and at four stations for volatile suspended solids. The ADEM
Water Division developed a Toxicity Control Strategy in 1989 that implemented
individual control strategies creating more stringent toxicity limits and
incorporating whole effluent toxicity biomonitoring requirements into point source
(NPDES) permits. The effectiveness of ADEM's source control program is reflected
by the percent change of toxic inputs to surface waters and publicly-owned treatment
works. For example, between 1989 and 1990, there was a 57 percent reduction in
toxic inputs to surface waters, ranking Alabama fifth amongst all states in percent
reductions. Bioassessments of wastewater effluents are conducted to assess potential
instream toxicity; as are unannounced compliance sampling inspections to monitor
a facility's compliance with the effluent limitations imposed by a Department
permit. ADEM has conducted special studies in Alabama's coastal areas to identify
methods for evaluating contamination in coastal water bottom sediments as well as
to apply these methodologies to sediments in and around waterfront shipyard
facilities. Also, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a survey of lower
Mobile River sediments in May 1990, to investigate the sources and extent of PCDD
(polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins) and PCDF (polychlorinated dibenzofurans)
sediment contamination. Of the five samples taken, there were no major
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
38

-------
Texle Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
concentration differences of PCDDs and PCDFs. As a result, it was determined that
the sediments have a fairly even distribution of contamination.
Toxicants In Fish Tissue. ADEM has conducted fish tissue monitoring for toxicants
in fresh waters and has conducted limited tissue work for mercury from fishes in the
Mobile-Tensaw River Delta. USEPA has conducted a limited fish tissue analysis from
samples taken in coastal Alabama as a part of its Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - Estuaries (EMAP-E).
Fish & Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Fishing Bans. Two limited
consumption advisories were issued for portions of 1991 and 1992 by the Alabama
Department of Public Health for portions of the Mobile River due to the presence of
dioxin. A limited consumption advisory states that women of reproductive age and
children less than fifteen years of age should avoid eating fish from specified areas.
In 1992, a no consumption advisory was issued for a portion of Cold Creek Swamp
adjacent to the Mobile River due to the presence of mercury. A no consumption
advisory recommends that everyone should avoid eating certain species of fish in
specific areas. A total of 14.5 km (9 mi) of the Mobile River was affected by the
limited and no consumption advisories.
Though there were shellfish restrictions and harvest closures that occurred in
Alabama coastal waters, none occurred due to toxics or pesticides contamination.
All restrictions and closures that did occur were attributed to the presence of bacteria
and pathogens.
Fish Kills. In the fiscal years 1989 through 1992, thirty-two fish kills were reported in
Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Of these thirty-two, none were attributed to toxics or
pesticides.
Closure of Surfaee Drinking Water Supplies. No surface drinking water supplies
have been dosed, nor have advisories been posted, for any systems in Alabama's
coastal counties.
Coastal Ambient Monitoring Activities. Much emphasis has been placed, and is
being given, to measuring water quality conditions and trends in Alabama's coastal
counties. Water quality at thirty-two stations is being monitored for an array of
parameters measured in-situ and in ADEM's laboratories. Specific parameters as
indicators of toxics and pesticides and the number of locations for which they are
monitored are discussed above in the section titled "Surface Waters Affected by
Toxic Substances".
Other federal programs currently monitoring for toxics and pesticides in coastal
Alabama include NOAA's National Status and Trends Program for Marine
Environmental Quality and USEPA's EMAP-E program. NOAA's Status and
Trends Program uses uniform techniques to monitor toxic chemical contamination
of bottom-feeding fish, mussels and oysters, and sediments at coastal and estuarine
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
39

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
sites, two of which are located in southwest Mobile Bay. The EMAP-E program is
designed to provide a quantitative assessment of the regional (Gulfwide) extent of
coastal environmental problems by measuring change in selected environmental
parameters, through a wide range of parameters. Sampling has been conducted in
coastal Alabama since 1991 and annually thereafter as funding permits. Many of the
program's indicators are toxicity based parameters.
ADEM is currently revamping its coastal monitoring program. It is anticipated that
a three-pronged monitoring approach will be adopted that includes watershed
surveys, long-term trend monitoring, and wetland and submerged aquatic
vegetation monitoring. With regard to toxics and pesticides, the first two
components of the revamped monitoring program will directly apply. The
watershed surveys will identify impairments to water quality and seek to identify
major factors contributing to the impairment. The long-term trend monitoring
component will be a probability based sampling scheme to identify trends by
measuring change in selected ecological indicators of known interpretability. It is
envisioned that ADEM's monitoring results will be compatible with the USEPA's
EMAP-E program, thereby providing benefit to both the state and federal
monitoring efforts by increasing the scale of coverage
Gulf of Mexleo Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
40

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In (he Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Florida
Florida has about 13,612 km (8,460 miles) of coastline and the fourth largest
population in the country. All of the state and large portions of Georgia drain into
its coastal waters. Toxics and pesticides reach Gulf of Mexico waters from land-based
activities such as use of anti-fouling paints and spills from vessels. There are
relatively few point source discharges due to the state's emphasis on water
conservation, but pulp and paper production and chemical manufacturing remain
sources of concern. Atmospheric deposition is increasingly becoming a source of
concern.
state Waters Affected by Texies. Water quality standards exceedances have been
commonly documented for mercury, lead, and copper in ambient water samples.
Sampling tends to be prioritized in areas of expected problems, and 49 percent of the
monitored estuarine area has shown exceedances at some point in time Sediment
sampling has been done for metals in most major estuaries in Florida with
enrichment of lead, mercury, and zinc found in many areas.
Texicants In Fish Tissue. Fish consumption advisories have been issued for most
freshwater systems in Florida due to elevated levels of mercury found in muscle
tissue of bass. Sampling in other animals indicates that mercury may be affecting all
trophic levels dependent on fish consumption, from raccoons and waterfowl to the
Florida panther, an endangered species. The highest levels of mercury occur in
parts of the Everglades drainage, but all but very eutrophic systems have fish tissue
concentrations at levels of concern.
Sampling for estuarine and marine fishes is not as extensive, but there is an
advisory on consumption of sharks.
Elevated levels of dioxin in fish below bleached kraft pulp mills have resulted in
consumption advisories for the Fenholloway River in Taylor County and
Elevenmile Creek in Escambia County. Improvements to the production and
treatment processes to the mill in Escambia County have reduced the tissue
concentration levels and the advisory may be lifted. The Fenholloway mill has
apparently also affected ground water, resulting in the abandonment of private
water wells.
Fish Kills. During 1990 and 1991,275 fish kills were recorded in the state. By far the
greatest numbers of fish were killed in estuarine and coastal waters, though from
relatively few events. Most of the species affected were menhaden, which float
because of their high oil content, which may make them more noticeable than other
species. Two of the kills were associated with sewage spills; the remainder are
attributed to low dissolved oxygen levels due to high temperatures, poor flushing,
and summer rains increasing nutrient loads.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
41

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Fish kills are a persistent problem in the Pensacola and Escambia bays in the
Panhandle of Florida.
Fish abnormalities and indications of disease have been a chronic problem in the St.
John's River estuary, and a periodic problem in other bays and estuaries of Florida.
Ulcerative Disease Syndrome (UDS) in Florida fish appears to be similar to that
reported among Atlantic menhaden in Chesapeake Bay. Biscayne Bay and Tampa
Bay periodically report outbreaks.
Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies. No surface water supplies have been
closed in Eorida due to toxicants or conventional pollutants.
Ambient Coastal Monitoring Activities. Various federal, state, regional, and local
governments conduct routine ambient water quality monitoring in Florida's coastal
and estuarine waters. Some citizen monitoring programs have been initiated as
well. Special monitoring projects are common among governmental entities, and
permit applicants and academic institutions sponsor activities as well. The state has
designated STORET as the official data base for all applicable water quality data
collected by entities supported by state funds.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Peitleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
42

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Louisiana
Overview. Overall, there was a 47.8 percent decrease of toxic releases into
Louisiana's environment during 1990 when compared to 1987 (see Figure 2.3). In
1990, a total of 200 million kg (441.6 million pounds) of toxic chemicals were
reported as having been released into Louisiana's environment. Of this amount,
approximately 24 percent were released into the air, 23 percent were released into
the water, 50 percent were deepwell injected, and less than one percent were
released to the land in one of the following ways: on-site landfill, land
treatment/application farming, surface impoundment, or other disposal methods.
Less than one percent were transferred to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs), and about three percent were transferred to off-site facilities for disposal,
treatment, or storage.
Figure 2.3	Toxic Chemical Releases in Louisiana
MILLIONS
OF
POUNDS
1000.
800.
600
400.
200.
846.7
743.3
474.4
1967-1990
47.fl% Decrease
1989-1990
6.9% Decrease
1987 1988 1989 1990
Delisted chemicals are excluded.
(Source: LADEQ, Louisiana Toxics Release Inventory, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances 8
-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.6
Louisiana Toxic Chemical Releases
(in pounds/year)
Air
Water
Injection
Land
POTW*
Transfers
Totals
1987 140,285,727
192,781,843
484,943,431
1,519,083
324,109
26,878,598
846,732,791
1988 132,832,148
159,302,320
423,616,398
2,205,546
3,535,016
21,820,704
743,312,132
1989 127,416,691
46,211,445
285,884,028
2,377,855
76,400
12,411,942
474,378,361
1990 105,721,329
99,310,577
219,836,672
1,450,959
215,325
15,105,920
441,640,782
Excludes chemicals delisted for 1988,1989,1990
LA DEQTRI 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990

"POTW =
Publicly Owned Treatment Work
(Source: LADEQ, Louisiana Toxics Release Inventory, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990)
The total amounts of reportable chemicals released into each medium, as well as
transfers to POTWs and other off-site locations, are shown in Table 2.5 for 1987
through 1990. The largest decrease in releases was in deepwell injections which fell
by 54.7 percent from 1987 to 1990. Other reductions from 1987 to 1990 included air
releases which decreased by 24.7 percent, releases to water by 48.5 percent, releases to
land by 6.7 percent, POTWs by 33.3 percent, and transfers by 43.8 percent.
Comparing reporting years 1990 to 1989, there were decreases in toxic
release/transfer amounts as follows: releases to air decreased by 17 percent, deepwell
injection by 23.1 percent, and land by 37.5 percent. The following increases in toxic
release/transfer amounts were observed from 1989 to 1990: releases to water, which
increased by 114.9 percent; POTWs by 181.8 percent; and transfers by 21.7 percent.
Releases to water increased approximately 24 million kg (53.1 million pounds) from
1989 to 1990. Two facilities in St. James Parish accounted for approximately 22.7
million kg (50 million pounds) of this increase A major source of the increase in
the releases to water can also be attributed to an increment in rainfall pattern in 1990
in comparison to the previous year. Many of the major facilities have the ability to
store excess storm water runoff for subsequent treatment. However, when this
storage capacity is surpassed, some of the contaminated storm water is discharged
prior to treatment.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances 8iPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
44

-------
Toxle Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Water Quality. Although an in-depth analysis of the long-term trends in water
quality of the Mississippi River has been completed (Turner and Rabalais, 1991), 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).
The largest, most severe, and most persistent zone of hypoxia (oxygen depletion) in
U.S. coastal waters [9,500 km2 (4,000 mi2)] is found in the northern Gulf of Mexico at
the terminus of the Mississippi River in Louisiana and amidst the nation's richest
and most extensive fishing grounds (Rabalais, 1992).
Calcasieu Fsmarv. In 1987, because of high levels of toxic and carcinogenic
hydrocarbons in the sediments and in certain marine organisms, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) and the Department of Health and
Hospitals (DHH) issued joint advisories against fishing and consumption of seafood
from the Calcasieu Estuary and against swimming, wading, and water sports in
Bayou D'Inde (see Table 2.6). Due to laboratory findings, LADEQ and DHH, in
February 1989, revised the existing advisory to specify a ban against the sale and
consumption of speckled and white trout from the Calcasieu Estuary. In 1991,
LADEQ and DHH again reviewed the available tissue data to further examine
concentrations of chlorinated organic chemicals in selected seafood species taken
from the Calcasieu Estuary. The overall trend of this study clearly demonstrated
that Bayou d'Inde and a specific chemical manufacturing facility are the sources of
hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) seafood contamination
and that relatively mobile species, such as blue catfish, red drum, spotted seatrout,
and sand seatrout, become contaminated while near Bayou d'Inde and then move
to other areas of the estuary Movement of contaminated fish poses a risk to
recreational and commercial fisheries throughout the Calcasieu Estuary.
A separate analysis of water samples from Calcasieu Estuary has shown a similar
pattern of contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Water samples
taken at 12 sites along Calcasieu River and analyzed for nine VOCs showed peak
concentrations of seven compounds at the confluence of Bayou d'Inde and the
Calcasieu Ship Channel.
Mean PCB concentrations by species were monitored in Calcasieu Estuary from
January 1987 through April 1991. Sand and spotted seatrout along with spotted gar
showed the highest accumulation of PCBs for species sampled; however, all species
except black drum, blue crab, eastern oyster, and white shrimp showed some PCB
contamination. Combined PCB concentration in tissues (all species combined)
varied widely throughout the estuary with no overall trends. High tissue
concentrations appeared on or near some bayous discharging into the
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
4S

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.6	Fish Advisories in Louisiana
Advisories/Dates Parish	Location	Rational/Pollutant Area
Fish Consumption
March 19,1992
St.
Tammany
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell
Cresote, PAH's,
Superfund site
7
Miles
Fish Consumption
Aug. 24, 1987
East Baton
Rouge
Capitol Lake
Baton Rouge
PCB's, Metals, and
banned pesticides
.12
sq.mi
Fish Consumption
Oct. 29,1987
East Baton
Rouge
Devil's Swamp
near Baton Rouge
HCB, HCPD, PCB's
Superfund site
.02
sq.mi
Informational fish
consumption
health advisory
April 23, 1992
Calcasieu
Calcasieu River
Estuary to the
Gulf. Includes
Prien Lake and
Lake Charles.
HCB, HCBD, PCB's
37
miles
Limited fish
consumption
advisories. Two
meals per month.
April 23, 1992
Calcasieu
Bayou d'lnde
Headwaters to the
mouth at junction
with Calcasieu
HCB, HCBD, PCB's
6
miles
i
Fish Consumption
Feb. 21, 1989
Natchitotches
Sibley Lake at
Natchitotches
PCB's
3.4
sq.mi
Fish Consumption
Nov. 23, 1987
Ouachita
Wham Brake near
Swartz
Dioxin
7.2
sq.mi
Pregnant woman
and children under
7 - No cons, bass,
2 meals per month
all other species
Everyone else 2
meals per month
bass, No limit on
other species
Aug. 21, 1992
Union,
Ouachita,
Caldwell,
Morehouse
Ouachita River
Arkansas state line
to Lock and Dam
#3 at Columbia
Mercury
102
miles
Informational fish
consumption
health advisory
Feb. 3, 1992
Tensas, East
Carroll,
Madison,
Franklin
Tensas River Hwy
581 to Bayou
Macon
DDT and its
metabolites,
Toxaphene
83.5
miles
(Souree: LADEQ, 1992)
Gulf of Mexico Texlc Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
46

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
mainstream of the Calcasieu River. PCB tissue concentrations for the main channel
of the river and lakes were lower than those near tributaries.
Based on the data reviewed, contamination of seafood species from Calcasieu
Estuary appears to be caused by extensive contamination of Bayou d'Inde and the
chemical facility's canal with organic compounds. This contamination has occurred
over a period of decades and continues to a lesser degree today. Data from the Toxics
Release Inventory suggest that the chemical facility may be responsible for most, if
not all, of the HCBD and HCB contamination At this time, the source(s) of PCB
contamination have not been identified; however, it is likely that some of the PCBs
are derived from agricultural or urban runoff. Some of the PCBs may also have
originated from chemical plants discharging into the estuary.
Despite efforts from USEPA, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,
and industry, there does not appear to be any reduction in the contamination of
seafood over the past five years. Louisiana continues efforts to monitor and
improve water quality in the Calcasieu Estuary. A Compliance Order (CO) was
issued to the chemical facility on March 7,1989, regarding the HCB/HCBD
contamination in the estuary. This CO was subsequently appealed and the state
entered into a Consent Decree with the facility on July 5,1989. As agreed, the facility
conducted studies to determine the transport, fate, and effect of HCB/HCBD in the
estuary, the source of HCB/HCBD in the effluent, and the extent of HCB/HCBD in
the estuary. The facility proposed to construct another section of the canal to by-pass
the most contaminated area and prevent additional contamination from reaching
the estuary. Construction has begun; however, in December 1991, a new hotspot of
hydrocarbon contamination was discovered. The facility is in the process of
evaluating this contamination before continuing the bypass canal construction.
Therefore, the facility is behind schedule in its plan to cease discharging, and a date
for closure of the most contaminated section of the canal is undetermined.
USEPA issued the facility a Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
permit on July 9,1990, and has since issued a Notice of Delinquency because of the
inadequacy of required documentation. A sampling plan has been submitted to
LADEQ's Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division concerning the newly found
hotspot. The plan will determine the horizontal extent of the sediment, as well as
groundwater and surface water contamination. From this study remediation
activities will be initiated Continued efforts by all parties are required in order to
make the Calcasieu Estuary safe for fish and wildlife propagation and public
recreation.
Bavou Bonfouca. USEPA and LADEQ are working to correct the contamination
problems at Bayou Bonfouca under the provisions of the Federal Superfund
Program. Bayou Bonfouca was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982
due to contamination by creosote, a commonly used wood preservative. In 1970,
several thousand cubic yards of creosote spilled into Bayou Bonfouca and onto
adjacent land areas following a fire and tank explosion at a creosote plant.
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
47

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf el Mexico
Chapter 2
Contamination of the area also occurred through a legacy of poor plant operating
procedures. The creosote plant had been operating for almost 100 years prior to its
closure after the fire. The contamination of Bayou Bonfouca has also been
categorized as a nonpoint source residual waste problem.
USEPA is the lead agency in charge of the investigation which is directed at the
source of contamination rather than Bayou Bonfouca. There is concern that
attempts to remediate the contamination in Bayou Bonfouca will stir up the
creosote and the overlying sediment. Therefore, DHH and LADEQ have issued an
advisory against swimming and consumption of fish from the bayou.
Alternative remediation methods for the contaminated site have been examined
and a feasibility study has been completed. The selected method includes
incineration of creosote waste piles and heavily contaminated bayou sediment;
capping the site; and pumping, treating, and monitoring contaminated ground
water.
Bavou Trepaomer. Bayou Trepagnier is located in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in
southeastern Louisiana, near Norco in St Charles Parish Since 1973, Bayou
Trepagnier has been designated a "natural and scenic stream" under Louisiana's
Natural and Scenic Rivers System
Through the years, the hydrology of the Bayou Trepagnier - Bayou Labranche system
has been altered by man's activities. During the construction of the Bonnet Carre'
Spillway in 1929, a segment of Bayou Trepagnier was filled in and all flow was
diverted. During the twenty year period from 1931 to 1951, there was little or no
flow in Bayou Trepagnier. From 1951 to 1966, Bayou Trepagnier received municipal
and industrial storm water and wastewater from various sources. Since 1966, the
only substantial source of dry-weather flow has been the treated wastewater and
storm water from an oil refinery and manufacturing complex. The bayou receives
some flow from the surrounding wetlands during rainfall events.
LADEQ conducted a survey on Bayou Trepagnier in July 1985, after receiving a
report concerning the presence of odorous black sludge deposits on the bayou
bottom. Preliminary analytical results of sediment samples collected during the
survey indicated relatively high concentrations of oil and grease, chromium, and
lead. Sulfide odors were noted during sediment sampling. Further monitoring and
additional sampling were conducted from May 1986 to March 1987.
Results of the Bayou Trepagnier study have been reviewed, and a report was
completed in early 1989. In general, the analytical water quality data showed very
low dissolved oxygen concentrations and elevated concentration of a few organic
compounds and certain metals Higher sediment concentrations of zinc and
chromium were observed upstream than downstream. Though there was a
Gulf el Mexlee Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
48

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
difference in chromium and lead concentrations in the water column, there is
insufficient data to show a statistically significant difference between upstream and
downstream concentrations Analyses for VOCs indicated the presence of five
compounds (chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, methyl chloride, toluene, and
methylene chloride) at very low levels.
Sediment core samples were analyzed at various depths for metals, phenols, oil and
grease. Analytical results showed elevated levels of chromium, lead, and zinc, with
the highest concentrations at two of the upstream stations. Metals concentrations
decreased with distance from the refinery outfall, and the concentrations increased
with depth from the surface. Oil and grease concentrations showed similar patterns,
with higher concentrations at the upstream stations and in the deeper layers of the
cores. These results indicate that there is a correlation with distance from the
refinery discharge and that the heaviest contamination occurred prior to 1980.
Biological assessments of Bayou Trepagnier conducted by LADEQ include
macroinvertebrate and fisheries surveys; ambient water, sediment and effluent
toxicity tests; and fish tissue analyses. The results of these assessments are all
indicative of a pollution problem within Bayou Trepagnier and all show the most
impact at the upstream stations closer to the refinery discharge.
Mississippi River. LADEQ is presently conducting a three year study (1991-1993) to
identify and quantify the extent and levels of organic and inorganic contaminants in
fish and shellfish from the Mississippi River in Louisiana. Other objectives of this
study are to establish a data base for future trend analysis; evaluate whether present
pollution abatement programs are adequate; and determine possible human health
risk from the consumption of Mississippi River fish and shellfish. The following
information presents data from the first year of sampling.
LADEQ Surveillance staff collected 72 samples of commercial and recreational fish
and shellfish from six stations on the Mississippi River. These composite samples
have been analyzed for selected herbicides and priority pollutants. Laboratory
results indicate that banned pesticides, such as DDT, are the principal contaminants
of fish and shellfish.
Very few acid extractables or base-neutral extractables were detected. Volatile
organic compounds were detected in 56 percent of the samples. There were no
elevated levels of metals detected. Mercury concentrations ranged from no
detection to 0.289 ppm.
Of the 72 composite samples analyzed, no USFDA action levels were exceeded. The
concentrations of contaminants found in these samples do not pose an immediate
health threat and will not cause acute toxic effect. Based on the Department of
Health and Hospitals' Guideline for Issuing Advisories/Bans on the Consumption
of Chemically Contaminated Fish, a fish consumption advisory was considered by
LADEQ for the Mississippi River However, LADEQ has determined that no fish
Gulf •( Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
49

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico	ChaptW 2
consumption advisory is warranted at this time since this data is from the first year
of a three year project. After additional data has been collected and assessed, LADEQ,
in consultation with DHH, will determine whether an advisory should be issued.
Gulf of Mexlee Toxie Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
60

-------
Tox/e Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Mississippi
Mississippi Sound, including small bays, marshes, bayous, and rivers along the
northern shore, dominates the estuarine system of the state. The hydrology and
physical and biological characteristics of Mississippi Sound cross state borders. The
Mississippi-Louisiana state line traverses Mississippi Sound between Cat Island to
the Pearl River which forms the landward border. The Alabama-Mississippi state
line runs directly north of the most easterly end of Petit Bois Island.
Significant water quality improvements along the Mississippi Gulf Coast have
accompanied the implementation of regional wastewater treatment plants. All
publicly-owned treatment works along the Gulf Coast have completed necessary
construction to comply with current water quality standards, including limits for
toxic constituents. Tidewater, Edwards, and Watts Bayous, as well as the lower
Jordan River, have demonstrated significant water quality improvements as new or
improved treatment facilities have been established In addition, several large areas
on the coast have installed sewers, thus eliminating discharges of wastewater from
malfunctioning septic tanks into nearby recreational and shellfish harvesting areas.
Since construction of the Gautier sewage collection project, Graveline Bayou has
been re-opened for shellfish harvesting—possibly the first such opening of any state
water body previously closed to shellfish harvesting. Similar projects in other areas
will increase the likelihood of re-opening other such areas along the coast.
Since the fall of 1986, the Office of Pollution Control (OPC) has been evaluating the
industrial permittees for probable toxicity, by the use of toxic screening procedures.
In 1991, this process was begun for municipal dischargers. The program now
evaluates application data on the basis of acute and chronic toxicity and human
health concerns for all 307(a) toxics plus ammonia and chlorine.
These screening procedures have resulted in toxicity requirements or toxics limits
for approximately 20 percent of the industrial permits, ranging from additive
prohibitions to chemical specific and whole effluent toxicity limits. As a direct
result of toxicity requirements, one major and one minor discharger will cease to
discharge directly by connecting to a POTW. The discharge points of others have
been relocated and, in some instances, major dischargers have eliminated process
lines and ceased to discharge. Still others are significantly upgrading waste
treatment procedures or facilities to reduce or eliminate discharges of toxic
constituents into the Gulf of Mexico.
In 1989, the Mississippi Cooperative Dioxin Study provided valuable information
regarding background conditions and impacts to streams as a result of dioxin
discharges which in turn led to fish consumption advisories for two streams. As a
result of this study and with funding provided by Georgia Pacific and International
Paper, extensive dioxin and water quality monitoring programs were begun in 1990
by OPC biologists All bleach kraft mills in the state have begun aggressive chlorine
substitution programs; results indicate significant reduction in dioxin in these
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
51

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
facilities' effluents. Three years of extensive monitoring have demonstrated that
tissue levels are dropping and advisories have been relaxed in 1991 and 1992.
The pretreatment program has devoted much effort toward compliance assurance
activities. These activities have resulted in penalty orders with several hundred
thousand dollars in fines for several users. At least two facilities will cease to
discharge directly to impaired surface waters and will become pretreatment facilities.
This action will result in almost immediate compliance with toxic water quality
standards.
The pretreatment program has identified a significant non-categorical group of
facilities that has caused significant overloading of municipal facilities in the state.
Specifically, facilities that stone or acid wash jeans were found to have high
volumes, organic loadings, and color discharges. At least six such facilities have
been issued pretreatment permits that require them to reduce the strength of their
waste to approximately that of domestic sewage [i.e., 50 to 75 percent reduction in
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)].
Toxic Release Inventory. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data for Mississippi
demonstrates recent improvements in some areas. Fugitive nonpoint air emissions
and stack or point source emissions are both down approximately 771,000 kg (1.7
million pounds) from 1990 to 1991. Discharges to surface waters are down 68,040 kg
(150,000 pounds) during the same period. Underground injection and releases to
land, however, are up 3.6 million kg (8 million pounds) and 181,440 kg (400,000
pounds), respectively.
Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances. Contamination from agricultural,
forestrial, industrial, and municipal sources has been documented in several areas
of Mississippi. Monitoring for surface water toxicants includes both fish tissue for
metals and organics and waste column metals. Sediment sampling is primarily
limited to special studies especially at hazardous waste sites. OPC performs
numerous bioassays on wastewater effluents to assess potential instream toxicity.
Toxicants In Fish Tissue. Numerous lakes and streams in Mississippi have been
impaired in the past due to toxicants in fish tissue. These waters were
predominantly in the Yazoo River Basin in the Mississippi Delta. Three Delta lakes
were closed to commercial fishing in 1973, due to levels of DDT and to toxaphene.
All three have since been reopened. Across the state, DDT and its derivatives
remain the primary agricultural contaminant and are detected in the majority of
fish sampled. Fish from the Delta region continue to have the highest levels of
DDT. However, it appears that the levels are declining. Dioxins, PCBs, and mercury
are current contaminants of concern. OPC has conducted extensive dioxin
monitoring below bleach kraft facilities since 1989.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
52

-------
Toxic Substances A Pesticides In tho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Of the 3,749 km (2,330 miles) of rivers monitored for toxicants, 1,141 km (709 miles)
were found to have elevated levels of pesticides, metals, PCBs, and/or dioxins.
Fish Consumption Advisories & Fishing Bans. At present, five fish consumption
advisories and two commercial fishing bans are in effect in Mississippi The
advisories and bans affect the Yockanookany River and Conehoma Creek near
Kosciusko, the Old Little Tallahatchie River and Lake Susie near Batesville, Country
Club Lake near Hattiesburg, the lower Leaf River near New Augusta, and the lower
Escatawpa River near Moss Point. A listing of each advisory and ban including date
of issuance, contaminant, contaminant source, size affected, and water body is
shown in Table 2.7.
Fish Kills. During the period of 1990 through 1991, OPC investigated 37 fish kills. A
listing of each kill, including date of occurrence, number of fish, affected area,
pollutant, and source is shown in Table 2.8 One of the most significant kills
occurred on the East Pearl River at the Walkiah Bluff Water Park north of Picayune.
The cause of the kill was the diversion of water to the West Pearl River in
Louisiana.
Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies. No surface water supplies have been
lost in Mississippi due to toxicants or conventional pollutants. Some temporary
closures have occurred due to spills. No permanent closures of surface water
supplies have been reported.
Ambient Coastal Monitoring Activities. Various state, academic, and federal
agencies conduct routine ambient water quality monitoring in Mississippi's coastal
and estuarine waters. Physical, chemical, bacteriological, toxicological, and biological
data from these programs are used in the overall assessment of the state's waters.
Sampling from NOAA's Status and Trends Program has revealed sediment
contamination from total PAH at a site in Biloxi Bay. USEPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program - Estuaries sampling in 1991 has indicated
potential low-level sediment toxicity at a few stations in Mississippi Sound.
Lytle and Lytle of the Gulf Coast Research Lab (GCRL) in Mississippi have done
extensive sediment monitoring along the Mississippi Coast. According to their
findings the greatest area of industrial development has occurred in the Pascagoula
River, Escatawpa River, and Bayou Casotte areas. Biloxi Bay has a moderate degree
of industrialization and St. Louis Bay and Heron Bay have little industrial
development. General results from the studies of Lytle and Lytle indicate highly
localized areas of contamination existing within the rivers and bays of the
Mississippi Sound region while there are much larger areas that have relatively low
pollution from hydrocarbons. Even in rivers emptying directly into the Sound (e.g.,
the Pascagoula River), there is little evidence that riverine pollutants have much
impact on Sound sediments (Lytle and Lytle, 1990). The movement of pollutants
related to a paper mill revealed that the only sediments which were
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
S3

-------
Toxic Subs tan cos A Pesticides In ffie Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.7	Fish Consumption Advisories In Mississippi
WATERBODY
LOCATION
CONTAMINANT
SIZE
AFFECTED
TYPE
RESTRICTION
START
DATE
COMMENT
Yockanookany River
near Kosausko
PCBs
12 Miles
Commeraal Fishing Ban
"No Consumption" Advisory
ALL SPECIES
1987
A
Conehoma Creek
near Kosausko
PCBs
03 Miles
Commeraal Fishing Ban
"No Consumption" Advisory
ALL SPECIES
1987
B
Old Little Tallahatchie
River and Lake Suae
near Bates ville
PCBs
8 Miles
Commeraal Fishing Ban
"No Consumption" Advisory
ALL SPECIES
1989
C
Country Club Lake
near Hamesbuig
PCP& DIOXDMS
46 Acres
"No Consumption" Advisory
ALL SPECIES
1990
D
Leaf River
near New Augusta
DIOX1N
45 Miles
"Limit Consumption" Advisory
ALL CATFISH > 10 LBS
1989
E
Escatawpa River
near Moss Point
DIOXIN
12 Miles
"Limit Consumption" Advisory
CATTISH & BUFFALO > 5 LBS
1990
F
COMMENTS
A.	From Highway 35 at Kosausko to Highway 429 near Thomastown
B	A tributary of the Yockanookany River
C	From Highway 6 near Bates ville to the south Panola County Line
D	An impoundment on Mineral Creek
E.	Lower Leaf River from Tallahala Creek to the Pascagoula River
F	Lower Escatawpa River from 1-10 to Pascagoula River
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
54

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.8	Mississippi Fish Kills, 1990 - 1992
WATERBODY | DATE
2,000
unknown
temperature
shock
N/A
Buelow Pond
Warren Co
13-Feb-90
113
<1 acre
unknown
N/A
Recon League Lake
Bolivar Co
22-Mar-90
>300
unknown
unknown
unknown
Long Lake
Bolivar Co
29-Mar-90
>50
unknown
oil
Janoush Bro
Manne
Brickyard Bayou
Harrison Co
17-Apr-90
>50
unknown
unknown
unknown
Private Pond
Hinds Co
19-Apr-90
"150
unknown
low DO
unknown
Ross Barnett Res
Hinds/Rank it Co
29-Apr-90
"250
unknown
spawning stress
natural
Gum Branch
Perry Co
18-Jun-90
>100
1 5 miles
sodium sulfite
G.P Mill
Lead Bayou
Bolivar Co
08-Jul-90
12
<025 acres
low DO
Cleveland WWTP
Lynch Creek
Hinds Co
16-Jul-90
-100
13 miles
low DO
Jackson WWTP
Deer Creek
Washington Co
25-Jul-90
>50
1.25 miles
low DO
nonpoint
Roosevelt Lake
Scott Co.
Q2-Aug-90
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Buck Haven Rest
Leflore Co
02-Aug-90
"500
unknown
low DO
natural
Greenbrook Subd
Desoto Co
17-Aug-90
>1,000
unknown
low DO
natural
Pearl River
Pearl River Co
24-Aug-90
"6,500
unknown
low DO
low flow
Cross gates Lake
Rankin Co
04-Sep-90
>5,000
unknown
low DO
natural
Bayou Pierre
Qai bourne Co
16-Sep-90
unknown
1 5 miles
unknown
unknown
Escatawpa River
Jackson Co
08-0ct-90
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Sunflower River
Coahoma Co
09-0ct-90
>35
unknown
unknown
unknown
Escatawpa River
Jackson Co
15-Qct-90
unknown
unknown
stress
natural
Tchoutacabouffa River
Harrison Co
16-Oct-90
<10
unknown
natural
unknown
Tchoutacabouffa River
Harrison Co
16-Oct-90
>200
~1 acre
unknown
unknown
Beaver Creek
Amite Co
20-Nov-90
-100
unknown
unknown
unknown
Pearl River
Pearl River Go
20-Apr-91
unknown
unknown
parasite
natural
Blue Lake
Leflore Co
23-May-91
unknown
unknown
low DO
natural
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
55

-------
Toxic Substances St Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.8	Mississippi Fish Kit is, 1990 - 1992
(eonflntJ*d)
WATERBODY
DATE
I ARPA
# FISH | AFFECTED
CAUSE
SOURCE . I

Old Pearl River
Hinds Co
14-Jun-91
unknown
unknown
drainage
flood control
Townsend Lake
Humphreys Co
14-Jun-91
>30
unknown
low DO
natural
Williams Lake
Rankin Co
14-Jun-9l
>100
"3 acres
ammonia
poultry farm
Six Mile Lake
Bolivar Co
20-Jun-91
<50
~2 miles
her biade
non point
Whitbngton Lake
Bolivar Co
24-Jun-91
>3,750
1 5 miles
unknown
unknown
Sardis Lake
Panola Co
30-Jun-91
>2.000
unknown
disease
natural
Little Copiah
Copiah Co
18-Jul-91
15
unknown
low DO
WWTP
Private Pond
Quitman Co
30-Jul-9l
"150
~0 5 acres
low DO
natural
Eagle Lake
Issaquena Co
05-Sep-91
-750
unknown
low IX)
draw down
Purple Creek
Hinds Co
05-Sep-91
unknown
unknown
municipal
runoff
nonpoint
Dabbs Creek
Rankin Co
03-Oct-91
<50
unknown
unknown
unknown
Big Canal
Scott Co
15-Oct-91
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Diamond Head
Hancock Co
28-Feb-92
242
Entire Lake
pesticide
runoff
Pearl River
Pearl River Co
29-May-92
unknown
Sm Lake
low DO
natural
Deer Creek
Sharkey Co
19-Jun-92
unknown
unknown
low DO
natural
Leaf River
Perry Co
24-Jul-92
117,929
"15 miles
solids
low DO
CP Mill
Coleman's Bayou
Jackson Co
Ol-Aug-92
unknown
unknown
low DO
natural
Deer Creek
Washington Co
10-Aug-92
>152.352
~12 miles
insectiade
agricultural
runoff
Airplane Lake
Warren Co
ll-Aug-92
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Bunker Hill Lake
Marion Co
2-Sep-92
>1.000
Entire Lake
low DO
natural
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances ftPestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
66

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
significantly enriched were in the immediate vicinity of the paper mill (in the
Escatawpa River). Tracing hydrocarbon pollutants from Bayou Casotte east of the
Pascagoula River also revealed minimal migration of these pollutants from this
heavily industrialized bayou into the Sound
The data for Mississippi in the NOAA Fish Kill Inventory data base are limited.
However, of the several fish kills in Mississippi estuarine waters in recent years,
only one has been documented to have been the result of a toxic substance or
pesticide; dissolved oxygen and temperature have been the major causes of
mortality in Mississippi coastal waters.
Only one of the current fish consumption advisories in Mississippi affects a coastal
area. Consumption of catfish and small mouth buffalo larger than 2.3 kg (5 pounds),
taken from the lower 16 km (10 miles) of the Escatawpa River, is currently limited to
one meal per month due to dioxin contamination. In addition, there are allegations
that some coastal zone property values have decreased as a result of contamination
of surrounding waters by dioxins (USEPA, 1990a).
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
57

-------
Toxle Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Texas
Overview. Texas is a water rich state with 307,686 km (191,228 miles) of streams and
rivers, nearly 5,180 km2 (2,000 mi2) of bays and estuaries, and 1,004 km (624 miles) of
coastline. Texas also has extensive groundwater resources.
Several different water pollution control programs are required to ensure protection
and restoration of the state's waters. Establishment of the Texas Surface Water
Quality Standards (TSWQS) is at the core of these programs. TSWQS recognize the
geologic and hydrologic diversity of Texas by dividing major river basins, reservoirs,
bays, and estuaries into defined segments (referred to as classified segments).
Segment specific desirable uses are assigned by the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC, formerly the Texas Water Commission) and
numerical water quality criteria are derived to ensure protection for some of the
assigned uses.
Ambient water quality data collected routinely at sites located strategically
throughout Texas, as part of its Statewide Monitoring Network (SMN), are utilized
to document existing conditions, establish trends, and determine compliance with
TSWQS.
Surface water quality standards have been established for most major estuarine and
marine waters. At present, Texas has established segment specific water quality
standards for 5,154 km2 (1,990 mi2) of bays and 10,047 km2 (3,879 mi2) of Gulf waters.
The last statewide assessment reported on a total of 44 bay segments and one Gulf of
Mexico segment. Information in this section covers all bay segments and the Gulf of
Mexico segment.
Overall, there was a 7.2 percent decrease of toxic releases into the Texas
environment from 1990 to 1991; this represents a 15 percent reduction from 1987
according to TRI data.
Toxic-Related Concerns. Pollution in Texas resulting from the introduction of
toxic chemicals into an aquatic environment is of growing concern. New programs,
studies, and evaluations have been initiated to characterize these inputs from point
and nonpoint sources. Currently, Texas has 342 designated segments covering
approximately 25,744 km (16,000 miles). In recent years, increased emphasis has
been placed on monitoring water, sediment, and fish tissue for toxic substances.
In addition, follow-up surveys to the 1984 priority pollutant studies have been
conducted. Estuarine areas sampled for the surveys were the Neches River tidal
(0601), Sabine River tidal (0501), Sabine River (0505), Sabine Lake (2412), Arroyo
Colorado tidal (2201), Corpus Christi Inner Harbor (2484), and Corpus Christi Bay.
The goals of these studies include an estimation of the sources and impacts of the
full spectrum of priority pollutants measured in water, sediment, and fish tissue.
Gulf of Mexleo Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
S8

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Populations of fish and bottom-dwelling invertebrates were collected in order to
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the biological conditions of these waters.
Due to the increased interest in toxicity biomonitoring, water samples were collected
from selected discharge effluents for toxicity evaluation
Water Quality Summary. Assessment of 44 classified bay segments indicates that
approximately 66 percent fully met their uses, eight percent partially met their uses,
and 26 percent did not support shellfish harvesting due to elevated fecal coliform
bacteria contamination. Approximately three percent of the bay waters (Sabine Pass
and Sabine lake) are closed to shellfish harvesting due to administrative reasons.
Offshore coastal waters met all of their aquatic life uses.
Bavs. Of the monitored Texas bays, 66.2 percent [3,414 km2 (1,318 mi2)] supported
their assigned uses; 7.5 percent partially supported their designated uses; 22.7 percent
were not supporting their assigned uses, and 3.6 percent were not attainable The
major causes of use impairments were identified as fecal coliform bacteria [1,388 km2
(536 mi2)] and toxics [including metals and priority organics, 62 km2 (24 mi2)] (see
Table 2.9). Major source pollutants contributing to non-attainment of uses were
municipal and industrial point sources [647.8 km2 (250 1 mi2)] (see Table 2.10).
Ocean Waters TNRCC monitors 10,047 km2 (3,879 mi2) of the Gulf of Mexico. All of
these waters were assessed as fully supporting designated uses.
Segment Ranking States are required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to
establish a priority ranking and develop total maximum daily loads for their waters
that do not achieve, or are not expected to achieve, water quality standards. The
system employed by TNRCC to rank bay segments includes modules for routine
water quality parameters, toxics [304(1) list], standards attainment, point sources,
nonpoint sources (319 list), aquatic life use designation, public water supply
designation, and fish kills.
Eighty of 365 classified segments in Texas (22 percent) are located in estuarine waters.
These segments include tidal portions of major rivers (10), tidal streams (18),
dredged canals and ship channels (13), primary bays (18), and secondary bays (21).
These estuarine segments were evaluated and ranked for toxics contamination.
These scores are based on fish tissue, sediment, biomonitoring, and potential toxic
substance loading. Scores range from 1000 for the worst sites to 100 for the best sites.
See Table 2.11 for the results of this ranking.
Wetlands Information. Texas has approximately 667,755 hectares (1,650,000 acres) of
coastal wetlands which interact with bays and estuaries. Major coastal wetland
ecosystems of Texas include salt marshes and tidal flats. Texas is one of 19 states
which have exhibited the most significant losses of wetland ecosystems.
Gulf of Mexleo Toxic Substanees & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
59

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.8 Causes Contributing to Use impairments In
Classified Streams, Rivers, Reservoirs, Bays &
Estuaries In Texas
Classified Streams
and Reservoirs

Cause Categories
Major Impact
(miles)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(miles)
Pesticides
71
63
Priority Organics
85
12
Metals
-0-
85
Nutrients
137
236
Organic Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen
300
361
Salinity/TDS/Chlorides
280
63
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (Pathogens)
1,563
790
Classified Reservoirs

Cause Category
Major Impact
(acres)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(acres)
Salinity/TDS/Chloride
35,366
116,508
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (Pathogens)
16,230
1,581
Classified Bays

Cause Category
Major Impact
(sg. miles)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(sq. miles)
Priority Organics
-0-
23.8
Metals
0.5
-0-
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (Pathogens)
173.5
362.1
Gulf of Mexico Texle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
60

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.10 Sources Contributing to Use Impairments In
Classified Streams, Rivers, Reservoirs, Bays &
Estuaries In Texas
Classified Streams and Rivers

Source Categories
Major Impact
(miles)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(miles)
Industrial Point Sources
95
12
Municipal Point Sources
1, 086
442
Irrigated Crop Production
-0-
63
Pasture Land
-0-
240
Range Land
121
30
Animal Hoiding/Management Acres
70
-0-
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
267
110
Natural
731
20
Other
-0-
143
Unknown
409
157
Classified
Reservoirs

Source Category
Major Impact
(acres)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(acres)
Municipal Point Sources
16,230
-0-
Natural
35,366
114,208
Unknown
-0-
3, 881
Classified Bays

Source Category
Major Impact
(sq. miles)
Moderate/Minor
Impact
(sq. miles)
Industrial Print Sources
0.5
23 .8
Municipal Point Sources
133 .7
92.1
Unknown
101.5
23 .7
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
61

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.11 Texas Estuary Toxics Rank
Segment
Name
Toxics Score
0601
Neches River Tidal
600
1006
Houston Ship Channel
600
2453
Lavaca Bay/Chocolate Bay
600
1007
Houston Ship Channel
600
2484
Corpus Chnsti Inner Harbor
400
1005
Houston Ship Channel
400
2481
Corpus Chnsti Bay
400
1201
Brazos River Tidal
400
2427
San Jacinto Bay
400
2437
Texas City Ship Channel
400
1001
San Jacinto River Tidal
400
0702
Intracoastal Waterway
400
0901
Cedar Bayou Tidal
300
1013
Buffalo Bayou Tidal
300
2454
Cox Bay
300
0501
Sabine River Tidal
300
2492
Baffin Bay
200
2421
Upper Galveston Bay
200
1401
Colorado River Tidal
200
2491
Laguna Madre
200
2494
Brownsville Ship Channel
200
2438
Bayport Channel
200
2431
Moses Lake
200
2439
Lower Galveston Bay
100
2201
Arroyo Colorado Tidal
100
2482
Nueces Bay
100
1701
Victoria Barge Channel
100
2483
Redfish Bay
100
0703
Sabine-Neches Canal
100
1101
Clear Creek Tidal
100
2485
Oso Bay
100
2422
Trinity Bay
100
Gulf el Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
€2

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns. The available data on toxic substances were
reviewed in order to estimate the extent of waters in Texas which are potentially
impacted. This review included sampling data for concentrations of toxic materials
in the water column and in edible fish tissue. The results of biomonitoring tests for
total toxicity for both instream water and effluents from treated wastewater
discharges were also considered. The statewide extent of waterbodies with
exceedances of the state water quality standards or other indicators of concern is
summarized in Table 2.12. Bodies of water which are under a fishing advisory or
ban by the Texas Department of Health due to excessive concentrations of toxic
substances in edible fish tissue are listed in Table 2.13. Fish kills which are
suspected or known to have been caused by toxic substances are listed in Table 2.14.
Fish Kills. The TNRCC fish kill reporting system contains records for 58 fish kills that
occurred from October 1, 1989-September 30,1991. During this two-year period an
estimated 1,400,936 fish were killed Twenty-eight percent of the kills were
attributed to dissolved oxygen depletion from various causes. Some examples are
excessive organic loading, excessive algal growth, nonpoint source runoff, and
anoxic releases from irrigation works Causes for 27 percent of the fish kills could
not be identified. Twenty-six percent of the kills were caused by toxic substances
(e.g., airplane de-icers, chemical spills, pesticide spraying, and chlorine). Nine
percent of the kills were caused by wastewater bypasses and the resulting low oxygen
and high concentration of metabolites. Seven percent of the kills were temperature-
related resulting from sudden winter temperature fluctuations. The remaining
three percent were due to runoff from intensive dairy operations and from culling
the bycatch in shrimp nets. The majority of estuarine fish kills were reported from
the San Jacinto River basin (16 percent) (See Table 2.14.)
Priorities & Concerns lor Toxic Substances. Expansion of the TNRCC Toxic
Control Program includes the following elements that affect bays and estuaries:
•	Biomonitoring requirements for larger permitted dischargers.
•	Revision of the fixed-station monitoring program, intensive survey
priorities, and the development of biological survey procedures to improve
surveillance of the occurrence and impact of toxic substances.
•	Establishment of a cooperative TOXNET program between TNRCC and
USEPA-Region 6. Ambient water is collected quarterly and sent to the
Region 6 laboratory in Houston where bioassays are performed to screen for
toxic substances.
•	Addition of most priority pollutants to routine parameter coverage for water,
sediment, and fish tissue samples collected at TNRCC SMN coastal sites.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
63

-------
Toxle Substances & Pesticides in tho Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Tabla 2.12	Texas Watorbodies Exceeding State Water Quality
Standards or Other Indicators of Concern
Waterbody Type/Units
Size Monitored
for Toxics
Size with Elevated
Levals of Toxics
Streams and Rivers/Miles
3, 802
309
Reservoirs/Acres
157,236
500
Bays and Estuaries/Square Miles
919.00
58
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
64

-------
Toxle Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Table 2.13	Fishing Bans & Advisories In Texas
Segment-W aterbody
Pollutant
Source
Size
Comments
0601-Neches River
Dioxin
Paper Mill
23 miles
All fish advisory
0805-Tnnity River
below Fort Worth
Chlordane
Urban Use
62 miles
Ban for all fish; chlordane
now prohibited
1005,1006,1007-
Houston Ship Channel
Dioxin
Paper Mill
32 miles
Catfish and blue crab
advisory
1201-Brazos River
Tidal
Dioxin
Chemical
Industry
23 miles
All fish advisory
1429-Town Lake in
Austin
Chlordane
Urban Use
500 acres
All fish advisory,
chlordane prohibited
2202-Arroyo Colorado
above Tidal
Chlordane
Toxaphene
DDT
Unknown
63 miles
All fish advisory
2453-Lavaca	Bay
2454-Cox	Bay
Mercury
Spillage at
docks
58 square
miles
Ban for all fish
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
65

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico	Chapter 2
Table 2.14	Toxic Substance-Related Fish Kills in Texas
Waterbody
Pollutant
Source
Size
Comments
Praine Dog Town Fork
of the Red River
ammonia
suspected
discharge
from WWTP
6.5 miles
WWTP effluent limits to
be reviewed
Sabine River Tidal
triphenyl
boron
chemical
manufacture
6 miles
discharge via outfall
canal, in alkaline solution
Adams Bayou Tidal
nonvolatile
resin
chemical
manufacture
1 mile
discharge via outfall canal
Lake Creek
methanol
train wreck
0.1 mile
spill and fire
Discharge Canal to
Brazos River Tidal
unknown
chemical
manufacture
0.5 mile
kill limited to canal
Discharge Canal to
Brazos River Tidal
unknown
chemical
manufacture
0.1 mile
kill limited to canal
suspected, pH problem
Discharge Canal to
Brazos River Tidal
unknown
chemical
manufacture
1 mile
kill limited to canal
dissolved oxygen very
low
Colorado River near
Sweetwater
corrosion
inhibitor
truck wreck
0.07 mile
spill partially contained
sediment removed
Nott Branch
herbicide
excessive
application
2 miles
water almost black, also
low dissolved oxygen
Gilleland Creek
chlorine
WWTP
1 mile
plant recently increased
its capacity
Callihan Farm Pond
ammonia
runoff from
hog
operations
1 mile
fish swimming erratically
Leon Creek
cleaning
Solution
aircraft
maintenance
1.1 mile
discharge of cleaning
solution from C-5
washrack
Water Supply Ditch
near Pharr
algicide
excessive
application
2 miles
G1SO2 crystals
undissolved, low flow
Bayport Ship Channel
vinyl Acetate
Barge spill
2 miles
barge at loading dock
San Fernando Creek
formaldehyde
chemical
manufacture
2 miles
spill of untreated
wastewater
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ftPestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
66

-------
Toxic Substances A Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
• Addition and implementation of 35 aquatic life toxic criteria and 61 human
health toxic criteria During the next two years, TNRCC will review and
revise the toxic-related portion of TSWQS
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. The Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program began on September 1, 1989, and will be a five-year effort to accomplish the
following goals: 1) identify environmental problems facing the bay; 2) establish a
data and information management system; 3) gather historical and new data to
address status and trends to identify and describe environmental problems; and
4) draft a comprehensive conservation and management plan.
Slto-Speclfie Problem Areas. Parts of the Texas coast are heavily urbanized and
industrialized. These centers of point source discharges are located in the Sabine
estuary, the Galveston estuary, and the Corpus Christi estuary. Economically
important species such as shrimp are being affected by insecticides used for mosquito
control (USEPA, 1991c).
Copper, dioxin, and dieldrin are contaminants of concern in the Neches River tidal
area of the state Texas has issued a fish consumption advisory based on elevated
dioxin/furan levels in fish tissue (USEPA, 1990a)
A fish consumption advisory has been issued for the Houston Ship Channel and
contiguous waters due to the presence of dioxin at concentrations greater than EPA's
1 x 10 level of concern. The Arroyo Colorado has a fish consumption advisory in
effect for chlordane, toxaphene, and DDT (USEPA, 1990a).
One site infamous for its serious levels of pesticides and PCB contamination is
southern Laguna Madre (Mearns, 1986).
There are approximately 1,800 oil and chemical spills in Texas per year and about
1,000 include oil, crude oil, and partially refined products (O'Neal, 1991).
Lavaca Bav. The State of Texas has issued a ban for portions of Lavaca Bay/Chocolate
Bay and Cox Bay for consumption of fish and crabs due to high mercury
concentrations in edible tissue. Contamination is still being discharged into the bay
complex via storm water and ground water.
Routine monthly monitoring of total mercury concentrations in storm water
outfalls since 1984 suggests that drainage from a mercury cell chlorine-caustic plant,
as well as recirculation of process waste waters to and from mercury-laden sludge
disposal lakes, still contribute to mercury loading in the bay. Various transport
pathways have led to the subsequent vertical migration of mercury into the
underlying groundwater aquifer. Since 1962, a variety of dredge operations have
taken place in Lavaca Bay. These projects may have affected the distribution of
mercury in the sediment by temporarily increasing the amount of suspended solids
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
67

-------
Toxic Substances £ Pesticides In the Gulf cf Mexico
Chapter 2
and bound mercury, displacing sediment concentrations, removing mercury laden
sediment from the system, increasing water concentrations via dredge decant, and
dike failures of disposal lagoons.
Periodic monitoring in Lavaca and Cox Gays indicates a decline in ambient mercury
concentrations in water. However this monitoring also indicates that mercury in
contaminated sediments is persistent. Studies of biological organisms from 1970 to
present have shown elevated mercury concentrations in plankton, periphyton,
aquatic plants, shellfish, finfish, and birds. The area was closed by the Texas
Department of Health in 1988, and remains closed to date. Natural resource trustees
have begun discussion designed to lead to a cooperative assessment of injuries in
Lavaca Bay. USEPA has begun to evaluate Lavaca Bay for potential placement on
the National Priority List. Lavaca Bay is currently on the Texas 304(1) list.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
68

-------
Toxic Substances & Pesticides In the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter 2
Conclusion
Toxic substances and pesticides, found in Gulf of Mexico waters, sediments, and
biota, are a warning of potential decline. It is evident that the Gulf is being
contaminated; however, the extent of the contamination and the extent of risk to
the environment and to human health are not precisely known.
The effects of contamination of the Gulf of Mexico appear to be localized in areas
where the toxic substances and pesticides are highly concentrated. But because the
system into which these contaminants mix has a limited capacity, it is likely that a
wide range of ecological effects will eventually emerge The deleterious effects of
contamination may go unnoticed until the system reacts over time, with subtle and
long-term changes, such as the dramatic depletion of submerged aquatic vegetation
discovered in some Gulf regions
Consistent and regular sampling of water, sediment, and biota is necessary to
determine whether the presence of contaminants is due to a temporary fluctuation
or a more permanent condition Currently, there is no consistent Gulfwide
monitoring program. Such a program is difficult to achieve because of the size of
the Gulf system and the many different contributors involved, but it is crucial to a
complete evaluation of toxic substances and pesticide contamination in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Gulf el Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
69

-------
Federal & State Framework
Chapter 3
3 FEDERAL & STATE FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING
TOXIC SUBSTANCES & PESTICIDES
Many federal agencies are mandated by legislative statutes to control the use of
toxics and pesticides in the environment and to mitigate adverse ecological impacts
of that use. 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
toxic substances and pesticides. (For a description, see Appendix A.)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
70

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
4 THE UNFINISHED AGENDA --
Both Current Commitments & Uncommitted Activities
Goal
This Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda for the Gulf of Mexico sets forth a
framework for conserving, protecting, and restoring Gulf waters that will minimize
toxic substances and pesticides; thereby allowing the use and enjoyment of its
resources. The Gulf of Mexico Program has established the following long-term goal
for addressing toxic substances and pesticides:
~ Reduce and, where possible, eliminate adverse ecological impacts
from toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico system.
Action Agenda Framework
This chapter of the Action Agenda provides objectives, action items, and specific
project descriptions for addressing the problem of toxic substances and pesticides in
the Gulf of Mexico and for meeting the long-term goal as stated above. Objectives
and action items are clustered under five types of activity: 1) Monitoring &
Assessment 2) Research, 3) Planning & Standards, 4) Compliance & Enforcement,
and 5) Public Education & Outreach (see Index of Objectives and Action Items).
The forty-five 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
problem of toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico. As current projects
are completed and future generations of this document are developed, it is
anticipated that more geographically targeted projects will emerge.
Lead. The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee has identified a lead agency for
each project--the agency with the most authority or jurisdiction over the particular
issue. A proposed action item or project may involve the execution of legislative or
regulatory authorities or programmatic initiatives which derive from these
authorities. In other cases, a proposed action item or 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 Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee understands these
action items will require commitments by agencies and organizations that are
dependent on budget decisions. However, the Committee members hope this
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
71

-------
The UnflnlshodAgonda
Chapter 4
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 activities, these initiation dates may change
due to resource availability and prioritization within the individual agencies.
Underway or Completed Action Item Projects. Some of the action item projects
may already be underway or even completed. In these cases, short status reports are
provided and the projects are designated with the following icons:

Underway
Completed
Some action items are cross referenced to other action items and are designated with
a sign in the left hand column. This signals a close relationship among those
actions 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 toxic substances and
pesticides. Many of the action items specified in Chapter 4 of this document will aid
the Program in developing a baseline for measuring success in the future. For the
time being, however, acceptance and completion of action item 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.
There are important linkages between this Action Agenda and the Gulf of Mexico
Program Public Health Action Agenda. The Public Health Action Agenda addresses
public health concerns from all contributing sources, while the Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Action Agenda focuses on the ecological impacts from toxic substances
and pesticides. The Gulf of Mexico Program will coordinate action items between
these two Action Agendas.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlddes Action Agenda (3.2)
72

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index ef Toxle Substances & Pesticides Objectives & Action Items
Objective: Determine the inputs and concentrations of point and nonpoint sources of toxic substances and
pesticides in Culf of Mexico waters to establish baseline conditions and monitor changes over time
H Action Item 1: Develop an inventory report and data base on toxic substance and pesticide
contaminant locations within Culf of Mexico nearshore coastal waters
H Action Item 2: Develop an inventory report on potential sources of toxic substance and
pesticide contamination within the Culf of Mexico
Objective: Determine ecological effects in the Culf of Mexico that can be associated with inputs of toxic
substances and pesticides
Action Item 4: Evaluate the need for including radium 226 and 228 in ongoing Culf of Mexico
monitonng programs
Action Item 6: Prepare an update of the Toxic Substances & Pesticides Characterization Report"
which focuses on community and ecosystem-level effects
Objective: Develop a coordinated Culfwide monitonng strategy to maximize the effectiveness of efforts to
address toxic substance and pesticide issues
Action Item 6: Develop a centralized data base and Geographic Information System for toxic
substances and pesticides in the Culf of Mexico
H Action Item 7: Develop an inventory of toxic substance and pesticide monitonng programs
throughout the Culf of Mexico
H Action Item 8: Develop consistent and coordinated monitonng programs for toxic substances
and pesticides across the five Culf of Mexico states
Monitoring & Assessment
H
Action Item 3: Produce a Culfwide toxic substances and pesticides charactenzation report
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
73

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index ef Texle Substances & Pesticides Objectives & Action Items
Research
Objective: Develop a coordinated Gulfwide research plan designed to address the need for knowledge,
interpretation, and evaluation of toxic substances and pesticides
H Action Item 9: Sponsor a workshop on research needs for toxic substances and pesticides in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 10: Track ongoing research and planning activities related to toxic substances and
pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico to facilitate the coordination of activities Gulfwide
Objective: Monitor developments and technological advances and support research to determine the fate and
effects of toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 11: Develop a coordinated research program on the fate and effects of priority toxic
substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 12: Sponsor a forum on atmospheric deposition as a potential source of toxic
substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico
BV Action Item 13: Develop a methods manual for analyzing concentrations of toxic substances in
water, biota, and sediment
H Action Item 14: Develop bioassessment techniques for evaluating the ecological impacts of toxic
substances and pesticides in water, biota, and sediments
H Action Item 16: Develop retrospective and predictive techniques for assessing the ecological
impacts of contaminants.
Action Item 16: Develop improved testing technologies for produced waters in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 17: Develop new monitoring methodologies to address complex stressor issues in the
Gulf of Mexico
H Action Item 18: Assess the use and ecological effects of various oil spill remediation techniques
in the Gulf of Mexico
Gulf ef Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
74

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index of Texle Substances & Pesticides Objectives & Action Items
Planning & Standards
Objective: Implement and promote a coordinated Culfwide toxic substances and pesticides management
strategy which addresses, in priority order, source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal
Action Item 10: Develop an inventory and analysis of programs that control inputs of toxic
substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 20: Conduct a Culfwide forum on management approaches for toxic substances and
pesticides
Action Item 21: Develop recommendations for strengthening MARPOL as a tool for addressing
toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico.
Action Item 22: Require water reuse considerations in conjunction with selected NPDES permit
renewals in Gulf of Mexico States
Action Item 23: Develop national sediment quality criteria for use in setting NPDES permit
limitations
Action Item 24: Develop additional manne water quality criteria for Gulf of Mexico priority toxic
substances and pesticides.
Action Item 26: Support the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee in integrating
programs dealing with fish, wildlife, and water quality
Action Item 26: Sponsor a Gulfwide bi-annual disposal week for household toxic substances and
pesticides
Objective: Reduce and, where possible, eliminate the discharge of contaminants of concern into Gulf of
Mexico and Caribbean waters
Action Item 27: Conduct ecological nsk assessments to determine dischargers and contaminants
of concern for Gulf of Mexico waters
Action Item 28: Accelerate recommendations for remediation actions for tn-place contaminants at
high priority sites in the Gulf of Mexico
Objective: Expand nonpoint pollution control programs to reduce toxic substance and pesticide runoff to Gulf
of Mexico waters.
Action Item 29: Conduct technology transfer activities for urban nonpoint source controls in the
Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 30: Encourage integrated pest management practices within the Gulf of Mexico
agricultural community
Action Item 31: Evaluate the effectiveness of nutnent reduction activities for decreasing the inputs
of toxic substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin and promote appropriate
nutnent reduction actions
Action Item 32: Accelerate the implementation of NPDES storm water controls in Gulf of Mexico
coastal counties
Action Item 33: Sponsor an awards program to reward innovative approaches to reduce inputs of
toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico
Cult of Mexico Toxic Substances ftPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
75

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Index of Toxle Substances & Pesticides Objectives & Action Items
Compliance & Enforcement
Objective: Increase the effectiveness of permitting, compliance, and enforcement strategies to better address
the inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the Culf of Mexico
Action Item 34: Evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing programs within the Culf of Mexico that
control pesticides sales and application
Action Item 35: Conduct comprehensive inspections of targeted Culf of Mexico toxic dischargers.
Action Item 36: Produce reports on the frequency and types of water permit violations in Gulf of
Mexico coastal counties.
Action Item 37: Require additional permit conditions for Culf of Mexico dischargers to address
newly identified contaminants of concern
Action Item 38: Sponsor an awards program for Gulf of Mexico industry to recognize outstanding
performance in the reduction of toxic substance emissions
PmEHp Education ft Outreach
Objective: Develop public information and education efforts to promote awareness of environmental
problems associated with improper use and disposal of toxic substances and pesticides.
H Action Item 39: Develop a public education strategy to increase public awareness within the Gulf
of Mexico drainage basin about the value of the Gulf of Mexico and the potential impacts of toxic
substances and pesticides on this resource
Action Item 40: Expand ongoing Gulf of Mexico educational programs to foreign countries.
Objective: Develop public information and education efforts to target specific actions for reducing toxic
substance and pesticide inputs to and effects on the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 41: Develop a citizen awards program to recognize outstanding contributions to the
reduction of toxic substance and pesticide inputs to the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 42: Develop a citizen's handbook for addressing toxic substance and pesticide issues
in the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 43: Promote citizen monitoring programs for toxic substances and pesticides
.throughout the Gulf of Mexico
Action Item 44: Develop public information materials on Gulf of Mexico waste and pesticide
disposal locations and requirements
Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness and results of all public education and outreach strategies for use in
developing future toxic substance and pesticide outreach strategies
Action Item 45: Develop measures of success for evaluating Gulf of Mexico Program public
education and outreach activities related to toxic substances and pesticides
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
76

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Monitoring & Assessment
Monitoring is necessary to determine baseline conditions and measure trends. Many state,
federal and private monitoring efforts are presently underway but most of these efforts are
designed to meet specific goals and do not necessarily address Gulfwide regulatory and
environmental resource concerns. Although additional monitoring to address Gulfwide
concerns may be necessary, enhanced coordination among existing programs will increase
the likelihood that reliable, compatible data sets will be generated without duplicative
effort. The Gulf of Mexico program hopes to provide this coordination through the work
of its Issue Committees and will further strive to integrate monitoring programs across
issue areas such as Toxic Substances & Pesticides, Public Health, and Living Aquatic
Resources.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
77

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Determine the inputs and concentrations of point and nonpoint sources
of toxic substances and pesticides in Gulf of Mexico waters to establish baseline
conditions and monitor changes over time.
Action Item 1: Develop an inventory report and data base on toxic substance
and pesticide contaminant locations within Gulf of Mexico nearshore coastal
waters.
Project Description: Develop an inventory report which
describes the kinds and amounts of toxic substances and
pesticides in Gulf of Mexico water, sediment, and biota,
with an emphasis on near-shore coastal waters. The
report should summarize findings on types of chemicals
and their concentrations, key pollutants of concern, the
spatial distribution of key pollutants, locations of concern
and areas potentially affected, and data gaps. The report
should also include an inventory of coastal sediment
quality information, including sediment chemistry,
biotoxicity, and bioaccumulation for specific contaminants
of concern. A data base users manual will also be
included as part of the report.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency—Office of Science & Technology.
Initiation Date: September 1992
status: 1) The final draft report was released in June 1993
and is currently undergoing peer review. All sediment
and tissue chemistry and bioassay data are available in
ASOI format and are summarized by site (32 drainage
systems in the Gulf of Mexico). Several national and
Gulfwide presentations have been made based on this
data. Information from this project is provided in
Chapter 2 of this Action Agenda.
2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 4 has
compiled an inventory of coastal sediment quality data.
Region 6 has also completed a similar inventory,
currently limited to those areas being dredged and
material disposed offshore by the Corps of Engineers.
— 11
Gulf el Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
78

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action liem 2: Develop an inventory report on potential sources of toxic
substance and pesticide contamination within the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop an inventory report which
defines and identifies potential sources of toxic substance
and pesticide contamination in the Gulf of Mexico,
including types and amounts of contaminants as
available. Data bases and inventories will be collected
from state, federal, industrial, and municipal
organizations. A synthesis report will identify potential
sources, such as industrial, municipal, agricultural, federal
facilities, hazardous waste sites, and atmospheric
deposition, and the chemicals released in highest
quantities from each source. In addition, the report will
compile the total amount of toxic and pesticide compound
discharges to each major tidal river basin estuary or to
specified areas within the Gulf.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Initiation Date: September 1992
Status: The final draft report was released in June 1993
and is currently undergoing peer review. This report
includes a data base to identify the sources and amounts of
toxic substances and pesticides released mto the Gulf from
industry, oil and gas platforms, and pesticide runoff.
Relative concentrations of toxic substances and pesticides
have been calculated for 32 drainage systems of the Gulf.
Excluded from the current inventory are federal facilities,
hazardous waste sites, urban runoff, and atmospheric
deposition. Several national and Gulfwide presentations
have been made based on this data. Information from
this project is provided in Chapter 2 of this Action
Agenda.
-» 11
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
79

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 3: Produce a Gulfwide toxic substances and pesticides
characterization report.
Project Description: Integrate data collected in the source
inventory and sediment and tissue contaminants
inventory with water flow and toxicity data in order to
produce a Gulfwide characterization report. This report
will: 1) define areas in the Gulf of Mexico where
biological effects are likely to occur from toxic substance
and pesticide contamination; 2) define the chemicals
(toxicants or pesticides) most likely to be causing identified
problems; and 3) determine the most significant source(s)
of those chemicals.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substance &
Pesticide Committee and U.S Environmental Protection
Agency.
Initiation Date: 1993
Status: A draft summary report is currently undergoing
peer review. The Issue Committee is writing abstracts for
each data set to identify unique qualities. Information
from this report is included in Chapter 2 of this Action
Agenda.
— 6
Objective: Determine ecological effects in the Gulf of Mexico that can be associated
with inputs of toxic substances and pesticides.
Action Item 4: Evaluate the need for including radium 226 and 228 in ongoing
Gulf of Mexico monitoring programs.
Project Description: Evaluate the importance of and need
for including radium 226 and 228 in ongoing Gulf of
Mexico monitoring programs and, if feasible, develop a
standard approach for monitoring and analyzing these
compounds. Questions regarding distribution of these
isotopes in the Gulf of Mexico, their potential for
ecological effects, and the availability of inexpensive,
accurate analytical procedures must be addressed.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Minerals
Management Service, and Gulf of Mexico Program—Toxic
Substances & Pesticides and Public Health Committees.
Initiation Date: 1997
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestleldes Aetlon Agenda (3.2)
80

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 5: Prepare an update of the "Toxic Substances & Pesticides
Characterization Report" which focuses on community and ecosystem-level
effects.
Project Description: Using the most current data and risk
assessment procedures available, prepare a state-of-the-art
update of the 1993 "Toxic Substances & Pesticides
Characterization Report." While effects to individuals
and populations are important, this document will focus
on community and ecosystem-level effects. Pollutants
and sources most likely to be causing problems, levels of
these priority pollutants that are believed to be
ecologically safe, and specific systems known or predicted
to be affected by toxic substances and pesticides will be
presented.
Lead: U.S Environmental Protection Agency—Office of
Research & Development and National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration—Strategic Assessment
Branch, in coordination with Gulf of Mexico Program,
Minerals Management Service, and other appropriate
federal agencies.
Initiation Date: 1997
-» 3
Gulf of Mexieo Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
81

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop a coordinated Gulfwide monitoring strategy to maximize the
effectiveness of efforts to address toxic substance and pesticide issues.
Action Item 6: Develop a centralized data base and Geographic Information
System for toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop a centralized interagency
data base on toxic substances and pesticides
entering/existing in the Gulf of Mexico. Initiate a
Geographic Information System that will enhance rapid
retrieval of toxic substance and pesticide monitoring data
throughout the Gulf of Mexico This action should be
coordinated with other Gulf of Mexico Issue Committees
as appropriate.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Data & Information
Transfer Operations.
Initiation Date: 1996
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
82

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 7: Develop an inventory of toxic substance and pesticide
monitoring programs throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Identify and describe all existing and
proposed pesticide and toxic substance monitoring
programs in the Gulf of Mexico, including state and local
authorities (port authorities, cities, water districts, river
authorities, etc.), National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, citizens'
programs, private industry, and academic institutions in
order to create a more holistic approach to Gulf of Mexico
toxic substance and pesticide monitoring. To accomplish
I this, the Issue Committee will collect necessary data
through telephone and written surveys, the Gulf of
Mexico electronic bulletin board, and other "networking"
activities as required.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee,
initiation Date: 1991
Status: The Issue Committee has substantially completed
an inventory of state monitoring programs, and this
information has been added to the Gulf of Mexico
Program electronic bulletin board. Efforts need to
continue to update this information and to expand the
data base to include other sources.
— 8
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
83

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
ChaptT 4
Action Item 8: Develop consistent and coordinated monitoring programs for
toxic substances and pesticides across the five Gulf of Mexico states.
Project Description A: Develop a systemwide framework
to provide consistent and coordinated monitoring
methodologies and approaches for toxic substances and
pesticides across the five Gulf of Mexico states. The
program should harmonize the techniques used to take,
store, and analyze a sample, as well as criteria for accepting
data, quality assurance, quality control, and round robin
testing. The Environmental Monitoring & Assessment
Program - Estuaries (EMAP-E) probabilistic design should
be supplemented by more spatially or temporally
intensive sampling on a state by state basis as determined
necessary. The framework should also include a
provision for an annual Gulfwide technology transfer and
coordination meeting. The draft framework report will be
submitted to the full Issue Committee for their comments
and approval. A steering committee comprised of Issue
Committee members and others will oversee the effort to
ensure that reliable data exist to evaluate the impact of
toxic substances and pesticides on the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, in cooperation with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-EMAP-E, National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration—National Status
& Trends program, and state environmental agencies.
Initiation Date: 1991
Status: 1) The EMAP-E Program has worked with the
State of Alabama and with Tampa Bay, FL, to train
personnel on the monitoring design and the selection of
appropriate indicators. This assistance will be expanded to
cover all Gulf of Mexico states.
2) A critical evaluation of existing monitoring programs
that identify inconsistencies and define those programs
that fit with no change, moderate change, and massive
change has been developed by the Gulf of Mexico
Program. This information will be supplemented by
information generated at a workshop, "Chemical and
Biological Contamination of Fish and Invertebrates: A
Workshop to Evaluate Human Health Risk," sponsored
by the Public Health Committee and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The workshop will be scheduled in
1994.
- 7, 17
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pesticldes Action Agenda (3.2)
84

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Projeot Description B: Utilizing information obtained
from Action Items 1, 2, 7, and 8A, the Gulf of Mexico
Program will develop a final systemwide monitoring
framework that will emphasize and coordinate existing
monitoring activities and identify gaps and needs, with an
focus on the nearshore environment. The Gulf of Mexico
Program will convene and facilitate a workshop with
appropriate representatives from ongoing monitoring
programs, appropriate resource managers from the Gulf of
Mexico Program, and other experts in the field of marine
monitoring to provide information for the development
of a model on the fate of toxic substances and pesticides
and other contaminants in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1996
^ 1,2, 7, 8A, 17		
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
85

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Research
The Gulf of Mexico is a productive resource, but is susceptible to impacts of natural
phenomena and human activities. Human activities can result in increased inputs of
toxic substances and pesticides that may cause adverse effects on the Gulf's ecosystem. To
protect the marine ecosystem from the threats posed by these toxic substances and
pesticides, more complete knowledge is needed concerning the relationships of sources of
these contaminants to inputs and impacts. Research is also needed to determine the
environmental and biological responses to toxic substances and pesticides, on a geographic
basis and Gulfwide.
Most research funds are administered by federal agencies or state program offices in
support of specific missions, with only limited funding going to research that examines the
cumulative effects of decisions on the ecosystem as a whole. This action planning process
provides the necessary mechanism to enable producers, consumers, and funders of
research to agree on the priorities. A closer connection should be established between the
research agenda of the scientific community and the information needs of managers,
regulators, and those involved in management decisions for the Gulf of Mexico. Once a
research agenda is developed and implemented, the research results should be used to
understand the underlying processes and relationships and make appropriate decisions
regarding management of Gulf waters.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
86

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop a coordinated Gulfwide research plan designed to address the
need for knowledge, interpretation, and evaluation of toxic substances and
pesticides.
Action Item 9: Sponsor a workshop on research needs for toxic substances and
pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Sponsor a workshop on research
needs for toxic substances and pesticides which will: 1)
bring federal, state, and local agency program and resource
managers together with industry representatives, citizen
groups, and research scientists to review the current
information base relative to toxic substances and
pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico; 2) identify additional
research activities needed to determine the fate and effects
of toxic substances and pesticides in the water, sediment,
air, and biota of the Gulf of Mexico; and 3) recommend
priority research activities that will address the defined
needs. The product of the workshop will be a written
document that encompasses the combined consensus of
research scientists and resource managers from all aspects
of the Gulf of Mexico community for the application of
research to priority information needs. It is anticipated
that this document will provide the scientists and
environmental managers of the Gulf with guidelines for
focusing limited resources on the highest priority
informational needs regarding the sources, fate, and
effects of toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee.
Initiation Date: 1993
Status: The workshop was held August 23-25,1993, at the
Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, FL. A final
workshop report should be available in October 1993.
-» 10, 11, 19
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
87

-------
Tfio Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Hem 10: Track ongoing research and planning activities related to toxic
substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico to facilitate the coordination of
activities Gulfwide.
Project Description: Develop a tracking system for
ongoing research and planning activities related to toxic
substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico as a
vehicle for facilitating the coordination of activities
Gulfwide. Coordination efforts should include Mexico
and countries of the Wider Caribbean. Produce updates
on the Gulf of Mexico bulletin board system and develop
special reports and briefings as appropriate.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1994
— 9
Objective: Monitor developments and technological advances and support research
to determine the fate and effects of toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item ii: Develop a coordinated research program on the fate and effects
of priority toxic substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop a coordinated research
program on the fate (distribution and transport) and
effects of priority toxic substances and pesticides within
the Gulf of Mexico. Research should include the
following sources: agricultural, urban, domestic, and non-
urban. Research should eventually be expanded to
include Mexico and the Wider Caribbean.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
coordination with other appropriate agencies,
initiation Date: 1994
- 1, 2. 9	
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
88

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 12: Sponsor a forum on atmospheric deposition as a potential
source of toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf Mexico.
Project Description: Sponsor a panel or workshop of air
and aquatic experts to exchange information on the
potential contribution of atmospheric deposition to toxic
substance and pesticides inputs within the Gulf of Mexico.
The forum will also provide guidance on how to proceed
with atmospheric deposition research and
characterization in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 13: Develop a methods manual for analyzing concentrations of
toxic substances in water, biota, and sediment.
Project Description: Develop a methods manual,
including quality assurance/quality control procedures, to
more appropriately analyze concentrations of toxic
substances in water, biota, and sediment. This is a
nationally applicable product.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Science & Technology, in coordination with National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Food &
Drug Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, and universities.
Initiation Date: 1992
Status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Science & Technology has developed the draft methods
manual, which is currently undergoing review; a final
document is expected in early 1994.	
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pesticides Aetlon Agenda (3.2)
89

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Aotlon item 14: Develop bioassessment techniques for evaluating the ecological
impacts of toxic substances and pesticides in water, biota, and sediments.
Project Description: Develop and evaluate bioassessment
techniques for predicting and evaluating the ecological
impacts of contaminants in water, biota, and sediments.
To the extent possible, biological indicators (bioindicators)
to be used must be: 1) easy to detect and quantify, 2) able to
discriminate among natural and anthropogenic stresses,
3)	descriptive of effects at various levels of organization
(individual, population, community, ecosystem), and
4)	compatible with diagnostic approaches for evaluating
cause of affected systems/individuals. Complementary
! diagnostic techniques are required that have the ability to
j distinguish among effects caused by toxic organic and
inorganic chemicals, physical insults, biological stressors,
etc. These could include biomarkers, post-mortem
examinations, marine sediment toxicant identification
evaluations, and single species tests coupled with
chemical assays.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Offices of
Science & Technology and Research & Development, in
coordination with National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration.
Initiation Date: 1992
Status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Offices of
Science & Technology and Research & Development have
developed acute toxicity laboratory bioassay methods for
sediments which are currently under review; a final
document is expected in early 1994. Work will then
proceed on chronic toxicity methods for sediments.
Efforts are also underway to develop estuarine and near
coastal waters bioassessments and biocriteria.
Gulf o1 Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
90

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 16: Develop retrospective and predictive techniques for assessing
the ecological impacts of contaminants.
Project Description: Develop retrospective and predictive
techniques for assessing the ecological impacts of
contaminants. Develop methods that reduce uncertainty
in extrapolating from laboratory to field, lower to higher
organizational levels, species to species, and across
exposure and effects conditions in estuarine
environments. Validated methods, which meet these
criteria and are specifically designed for the unique Gulf of
Mexico coastal ecosystems, will allow prediction and
assessment of current and future toxic substances and
pesticides impacts.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Office of
Science & Technology, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, and Minerals Management Service.
Initiation Date: 1992
Status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Science & Technology has completed draft methods for
the chemistry and sampling of sediments to support the
national dredging program; a final product should be
released in 1994. Work continues at several agencies and
at many levels on the development of biomarkers as an
assessment tool.
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3-2)
91

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 16: Develop improved testing technologies for produced waters in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Projeet Description: Develop improved testing
technologies for assessing the toxicity of produced waters
in the Gulf of Mexico. Develop and/or validate testing
protocols that-are predictive of the effects of produced
waters in bays and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.
Chronic and acute exposures, short- and long-term effects,
and responses at the individual through community
levels of organization should be considered in the
protocols.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Office of
Research & Development (Gulf Breeze Laboratory),
Minerals Management Service, and the Gulf States
Initiation Date: 1998
Action Item 17: Develop new monitoring methodologies to address complex
stressor issues in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Assess and develop new monitoring
!methodologies to address increasingly complex stressor
issues in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, approaches
should be developed to deal with the introduction of
I genetically engineered organisms, including biological
control agents and to determine concentrations of specific
organic compounds from mixtures of compounds.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Minerals
Management Service, and National Research Council.
Initiation Date: 1994
— 8
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
92

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 18: Assess the use and ecological effects of various oil spill
remediation techniques in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Assess and monitor the use and
ecological effects of bioremediation, dispersants, and in
situ burning as oil spill remediation techniques in the
Gulf of Mexico. Existing Regional Response Teams (RRT)
are authorized through a National Contingency Plan to
monitor these techniques.
Lead: Regional Response Team (this team is co-chaired by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6 and U.S.
Coast Guard, with participation by U.S. Departments of
Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, State, Justice,
Transportation, Health, Energy, and Labor; Federal
Emergency Management Agency; General Services
Administration; National Research Council; and
appropriate state agencies), as well as organizations such
as Offshore Operators Committee and Marine Spill
Response Corporation.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
Status: The Regional Response Team has had an
ongoing work group to assess bioremediation as an oil
spill remediation technique for 5-10 years. Currently, this
technique does not appear valid for the Gulf of Mexico
marine environment. There are currently two pre-
approved plans for the use and monitoring of dispersants
in the Gulf of Mexico, neither of which has been
implemented due to the lack of oil spills. These plans are
the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) and the Industrial
Task Force on Offshore Lightering (ITOL) which covers
upper Texas and western Louisiana. The Marine Spill
Response Corporation is currently seeking pre-approval
for a Gulfwide plan for in situ burning as a remediation
technique for oil spills.	
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
93

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda	Ch ptT 4
Planning & Standards
The setting of standards is an essential component of toxic substance and pesticide
pollution control and prevention. Standards determine enforceable limits and
provide a basis for measuring improved environmental quality. However, needs
for standards development have grown faster than funding. To address the many
needs, priorities should be set on the basis of risk, both from specific dischargers and
contaminants of concern. Greater overall environmental results can be achieved if
resources are allocated based on risk reduction. In addition, contaminants of
concern may be coming from nonpoint sources as opposed to point sources.
Information about these sources should be developed to support effective decision-
making.
Historically, emphasis has been placed on the treatment and disposal of pesticides
and toxic substances rather than on source reduction and recycling of these
pollutants. Pollution prevention is now viewed as the cheaper, more efficient, and
more effective alternative to traditional control approaches which treat and/or
attempt to effectively dispose of these pollutants. Implementing such an approach
Gulfwide will require cooperation from many federal, state, and local governments,
as well as the private and public sectors.
Specific objectives, action items, project descriptions under this strategy include:
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
94

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
CHaptar 4
Objective: Implement and promote a coordinated Gulfwide toxic substances and
pesticides management strategy which addresses, in priority order, source reduction,
recycling, treatment, and disposal.
Aetion Item 19: Develop an inventory and analysis of programs that control
inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop an inventory of various
federal, state, and local programs that currently exist to
control inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the
Gulf of Mexico. Analyze the effectiveness of these
programs and develop recommendations to improve
existing regulatory programs, including the need to create
new programs.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee.
Initiation Date: 1994
— 10
Aetion Item 20: Conduct a Gulfwide forum on management approaches for
toxic substances and pesticides.
Project Description: Conduct a Gulfwide forum for the
five states and various federal agencies to share
information on alternative management approaches for
toxic substances and pesticides and develop a framework
for a more effective Gulfwide program. Pollution
prevention technology will be emphasized.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, in coordination with Data &
Information Transfer Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf ol Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
06

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 21: Develop recommendations for strengthening MARPOL as a
tool for addressing toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description A: Develop recommendations for
expanding and strengthening, as necessary, the provisions
of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as a tool for addressing
toxic substances and pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico. This
will include adding appropriate countries to the
Convention.
Lead: U.S. Coast Guard.
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description B: Encourage acceptance of MARPOL
Annex III (on containerized or packaged harmful
substances) by Mexico and Central and South American
countries contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean Sea.
Lead: U.S. Coast Guard
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 22: Require water reuse considerations in conjunction with
selected NPDES permit renewals in Gulf of Mexico States.
Project Description A: Require a Best Available
Technology-oriented water reuse strategy to be identified
and explained in NPDES permit renewals for discharges
into Gulf of Mexico waters.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gulf
States.
Initiation Date: 1996
Project Description B: Based on information from Project
22A, where a particular technology is determined to be
beneficial in controlling inputs of toxic substances and
pesticides to Gulf of Mexico waters, work with the
permittee to develop a permit provision to require the
technology.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gulf
States
Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
96

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 23: Develop national sediment quality criteria for use in setting
NPDES permit limitations.
Project Description: Accelerate the development of
national sediment quality criteria and associated
implementation guidance for toxicants and pesticides.
These will be used in setting state water quality standards
and NPDES permit limitations in Gulf waters.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Water, in coordination with U.S. Geological Survey.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
Status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
developed draft criteria for five organic compounds:
dieldrin, endrin, phenanthene, acenapthene, and
flouranthene. Another 8-10 metals are currently under
development.	
Action item 24: Develop additional marine water quality criteria for Gulf of
Mexico priority toxic substances and pesticides.
Project Description: Accelerate the development of
marine water quality criteria for toxic substances and
pesticides identified as chemicals of concern to the Gulf of
Mexico. These criteria will be used to establish NPDES
permit limitations for discharges within the Gulf of
Mexico drainage basin.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Water.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
status: Forty marine water quality criteria have been
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This includes 29 criteria covering priority
pollutants and another 11 criteria for non-priority
pollutants which were generated under a different
methodology. Approximately 20 additional new or
revised criteria are underway, including a saltwater
dissolved oxygen criterion and several pesticide criteria.
Gulf ef Mexico Toxie Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
97

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 25: Support the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
in integrating programs dealing with fish, wildlife, and water quality.
Project Description: Encourage and support the Lower
Mississippi River Conservation Committee in their
efforts to better integrate Gulf of Mexico
interjurisdictional programs dealing with fish and
wildlife and water quality.
Lead: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in coordination with
state fish/wildlife and water quality agencies of states
bordering the lower Mississippi River, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
Gulf of Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1993
Status: Bylaws for the Committee have been developed
and are currently being reviewed by the various state and
federal agencies.	
Action item 26: Sponsor a Gulfwide bi-annual disposal week for household
toxic substances and pesticides.
Project Description: Sponsor a Gulfwide bi-annual, or
more frequent, disposal week to facilitate the disposal of
household toxic substances and pesticides. This project
would be modeled on the marine debris beach cleanups
for the five Gulf States. Several of the Gulf States have
disposal programs underway but there is no coordinated
Gulfwide effort. The designated week would also include
forums for the exchange of information on effective
disposal approaches.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Citizens Advisory
Committee, in conjunction with Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, Public Education & Outreach
Operations, and appropriate state agencies.
Initiation Date: 1994
-> 42, 44	
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
98

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Reduce and, where possible, eliminate the discharge of contaminants of
concern into Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean waters.
Action item 27: Conduct ecological risk assessments to determine dischargers
and contaminants of concern for Gulf of Mexico waters.
Project Description A: Conduct an ecological risk
assessment to determine specific toxic substance and
pesticide discharges that should be reduced or eliminated
in the Gulf of Mexico, including, but not limited to,
discharges from tank/bilge facilities, abandoned gas tanks,
produced water reinjection technology, and open pits.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, in conjunction with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency—Regions and states,
initiation Date: 1995
Project Description B: Conduct a comparative ecological
risk assessment to identify specific contaminants of
concern in the Gulf of Mexico as a companion document
to Project 27A.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, in conjunction with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency—Regions and states,
initiation Date: 1995
- 2, 37
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
99

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 28: Accelerate recommendations for remediation actions for in-
place contaminants at high priority sites in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Accelerate recommendations for
factions for in-place contaminants at high priority sites (e.g.
hazardous waste sites) in the Gulf of Mexico. The focus of
these actions will be to reduce ecological impacts.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Regions 4
& 6 and Gulf States.
Initiation Date: Ongoing
Status: Under the federal Superfund Program, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to
provide remedial actions when contaminants pose a
danger to human health or the environment. Identified
sites are placed on the National Priority List for action.
One identified site in the Gulf region is Bayou Bonfouca,
LA, which was placed on the List in 1982, due to creosote
contamination. Alternative remediation methods for the
contaminated site have been examined and a feasibility
study has been completed. The selected method includes
incineration of creosote waste piles and heavily
contaminated bayou sediment; capping the site; and
pumping, treating, and monitoring contaminated ground
water.
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
100

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Expand nonpoint pollution control programs to reduce toxic substance
and pesticide runoff to Gulf of Mexico waters.
Action Item 29: Conduct technology transfer activities for urban nonpoint
source controls in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Conduct technology transfer
activities to share information across the Gulf States on
urban nonpoint source controls. One such project is a
pilot project in the City of Austin, TX, which addresses the
reduction of urban nonpoint source inputs and the use of
Best Management Practices to control slugs of trash and
sedimentation.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and City of
Austin.
Initiation Date: 1993
Status: The City of Austin has developed a four-task
workplan and initiated activities on this project. This
effort is scheduled to be completed in 1996.	
Action Item 30: Encourage integrated pest management practices within the
Gulf of Mexico agricultural community.
Project Description: Encourage and promote integrated
pest management practices within the agricultural
community of the Gulf of Mexico. Produce an annual
report on the degree to which these practices are occurring
within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
Lead: U.S. Department of Agriculture-Extension Service,
in coordination with Soil Conservation Service and
Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service.
Initiation Date: 1994
-~ 42
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
101

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Ch pt«r 4
Action Item 31: Evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient reduction activities for
decreasing the inputs of toxic substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico
drainage basin and promote appropriate nutrient reduction actions.
Project Description: Evaluate the effectiveness of
nutrient reduction activities for decreasing the inputs of
toxic substances and pesticides within the Gulf of Mexico
drainage basin and promote appropriate nutrient
reduction actions. Provide incentives to the agricultural
community to adopt appropriate nutrient reduction
measures.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Nutrient Enrichment
Committee, in coordination with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-Nonpoint Source Program.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action item 32: Accelerate the implementation of NPDES storm water controls
in Gulf of Mexico coastal counties.
Project Description: Accelerate the implementation of
NPDES storm water controls in coastal counties of the
Gulf of Mexico as a vehicle for reducing inputs of toxic
substances and pesticides.
Lead: Gulf States, in conjunction with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Initiation Date: 1993
status: The Clean Water Act regulations require
municipalities with populations over 100,000 to
implement storm water controls by October 1993.	
Action Item 33: Sponsor an awards program to reward innovative approaches
to reduce inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Sponsor an awards program, for both
the agricultural and non-agricultural community, to
reward innovative approaches to reduce inputs of toxic
substances and pesticides to the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee.
Initiation Date: 1995
— 38, 41	
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
102

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Compliance & Enforcement
The effectiveness of regulatory programs is greatly enhanced by active compliance
monitoring and enforcement programs Strong permit conditions are only effective if
met. Enforcement surveillance and resolution of violations are essential to an effective
regulatory program.
Currently many federal and state regulatory programs do not have the number of field
level personnel which are required to achieve effective compliance and enforcement.
Other incentives for compliance should be explored.
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Objective: Increase the effectiveness of permitting, compliance, and enforcement
strategies to better address the inputs of toxic substances and pesticides to the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 34: Evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing programs within the Gulf
of Mexico that control pesticides sales and application.
Project Description: Evaluate and assess the effectiveness
of ongoing cooperative efforts and information sharing
among agencies that control the sale and appropriate
application of pesticides. Encourage the enhancement of
appropriate activities to minimize adverse impacts within
the Gulf of Mexico from the use of such products.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of
Pesticides & Toxic Substances, in coordination with Gulf
States.
Initiation Date: 1995
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ftPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
103

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 35: Conduct comprehensive inspections of targeted Gulf of Mexico
toxic dischargers.
Project Description: Conduct comprehensive inspections
of selected dischargers within Gulf of Mexico states that
are targeted for the greatest potential risk reduction of
total toxic releases. The following factors and information
will be used to target dischargers: highly industrialized
and populated coastal counties and parishes in the Gulf,
toxic release inventory reports, records of past violations,
and other computerized environmental data.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gulf
States.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 36: Produce reports on the frequency and types of water permit
violations in Gulf of Mexico coastal counties.
Project Description: Produce a regular report on the
frequency and types of water permit violations in Gulf of
Mexico coastal counties to identify chronic problems
associated with toxic substances and pesticides. Develop a
strategy for selected dischargers to work toward voluntary
compliance, or enforcement action, as necessary.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gulf
States.
Initiation Date: 1995
Action Item 37: Require additional permit conditions for Gulf of Mexico
dischargers to address newly identified contaminants of concern.
Project Description: Require additional permit conditions
as part of the permit renewal process of appropriate Gulf
of Mexico NPDES dischargers to measure any newly
identified contaminants of concern.
Lead: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gulf
States.
Initiation Date: 1996
-» 27B
Gulf of Mexico Texlc Substanees &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
104

-------
The Unfinished Agon da
ChaptT 4
Action Item 38: Sponsor an awards program for Gulf of Mexico industry to
recognize outstanding performance in the reduction of toxic substance
emissions.
Project Description: Develop and sponsor an awards
program for Gulf of Mexico industry to recognize
outstanding performance in the reduction of emissions
beyond minimum requirements. This program should be
coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's pollution prevention awards program.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee.
Initiation Date: 1995
— 33, 41				
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
106

-------
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 Alternatively, the entire population of the U.S. can
potentially be affected by the environmental quality of the Gulf of Mexico.
Many farmers, landowners, and businesses are using chemicals and pesticides for
various purposes. Some of these toxic substances are in concentrated form, and in
many cases it is difficult for an individual to purchase the exact amount that is
needed; the unused portion may be improperly stored or disposed. The
accumulation of these chemicals has created a potential pollution problem or health
hazard. In addition, one of the major threats to the water quality of the Gulf of
Mexico is storm water runoff, which can include toxic substances and pesticides,
from residential areas and neighborhoods-- from lawns, gardens, roofs, driveways,
sidewalks, and streets
Effective toxic substance and pesticide controls will require an ongoing commitment
from an informed citizenry. 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. An
effective strategy can foster recognition of the Gulf as a regional and national
resource; stimulate civic, governmental, and private sector support for changing
lifestyles; develop the financial commitments necessary to preserve the resource;
and 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 needs include the following:
~	Knowledge about sources and impacts of contaminants;
~	Risk assessments and communication;
~	Information briefs on priority items/issues;
~	How to use and apply information; and
~	How the governmental process works in relation to "getting things
accomplished."
Specific objectives, action items, and project descriptions follow:
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
106

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda	Chapter 4
Objective: Develop public information and education efforts to promote awareness
of environmental problems associated with improper use and disposal of toxic
substances and pesticides.
Action Item 39: Develop a public education strategy to increase public awareness
within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin about the value of the Gulf of Mexico
and the potential impacts of toxic substances and pesticides on this resource.
Project Description A: Use the information from Action
Items 2 and 3 to develop and distribute specific toxic
substances and pesticide fact sheets for target audiences
throughout the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Public Education &
Outreach Operations and Citizens Advisory Committee.
Initiation Date: 1994
- 2, 3
Project Description B: Involve educators in developing a
Gulf of Mexico environmental code of ethics, which is
communicated through continuing education classes,
short courses, and workshops.
Lead: Gulf State education agencies, Agricultural
Extension Service, and Soil Conservation Service agents,
in coordination with Gulf of Mexico Program—Citizens
Advisory Committee. This effort should be coordinated
with other Gulf of Mexico Program committees
Initiation Date: 1995
Project Description C: Develop a specific strategy to reach
the Gulf of Mexico electronic and print media about the
value of the Gulf of Mexico, the need to protect and
conserve Gulf resources, and the potential impact of toxic
substances and pesticides on these resources.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education &
Outreach Operations. This effort should be coordinated
with all Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committees.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
107

-------
Tho Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Project Description D: Support and promote an biennial
public education event highlighting the Gulf of Mexico,
which could include, for example, a signatory document.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program. This effort should be
coordinated with all of the committees of the Gulf of
Mexico Program.
Initiation Date: 1989
Status: The first biennial symposium on the
"Environmental and Economic Status of the Gulf of
Mexico" was held December 2-5, 1990, in New Orleans,
LA. Nearly 1,000 representatives from federal, state, and
local agencies, industry, academia, and the public-at-large
attended. This gathering fostered a greater understanding
and exchange of information on the many complex issues
facing the Gulf of Mexico. The second Gulf of Mexico
Symposium was held December 10-12, 1992, in Tarpon
Springs, FL, to celebrate the "Year of the Gulf."
Presentations and discussions were held to focus on
solving the environmental problems in the Gulf of
Mexico. The highlight of the Symposium was the signing
of the "Partnership for Action" by all of the Gulf of Mexico
Program partners.	
Project Description E: Promote the Gulf of Mexico
Program Bulletin Board System as a useful citizen tool for
tracking Gulf of Mexico related information and research
and information exchange
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Data & Information
Transfer Operations.
Initiation Date: 1994
Action item 40: Expand ongoing Gulf of Mexico educational programs to
foreign countries.
Project Description: Develop strategies to expand ongoing
Gulf of Mexico educational programs to other countries.
This effort should be coordinated with other Issue
Committees throughout the Gulf of Mexico Program.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program. This effort should be
coordinated with all of the committees of the Gulf of
Mexico Program
Initiation Date: 1996
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
108

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Develop public information and education efforts to target specific
actions for reducing toxic substance and pesticide inputs to and effects on the Gulf of
Mexico.
Action Item 41: Develop a citizen awards program to recognize outstanding
contributions to the reduction of toxic substance and pesticide inputs to the Gulf
of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop a citizen awards program,
including monetary awards, to recognize outstanding
contributions to the reduction of toxic substance and
pesticide inputs to the Gulf of Mexico. The program
should be targeted to various levels of public school
systems and universities, as well as various areas (state
winners and Gulfwide winners) Gulfwide winner's
awards should be presented at Gulf of Mexico Program
Symposia.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program—Public Education &
Outreach Operations and Citizens Advisory Committee.
This effort should be coordinated with all Gulf of Mexico
Program committees.
Initiation Date: 1994
— 33, 38
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
109

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action item 42: Develop a citizen's handbook for addressing toxic substance and
pesticide issues in the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Develop a citizen's handbook for
addressing toxic substance and pesticide issues in the Gulf
of Mexico. This will include a description of concepts,
such as the toxic substances and pesticides management
hierarchy, multimedia approach, citizen responsibility;
existing legislation; programs (e.g., "amnesty" days) and
contacts; and a "how to" section. This should be
accomplished by using the information obtained in
Action Items 1, 2, and 3. Also, the handbook will include
residential water quality guidelines focusing on educating
urban homeowners in coastal areas on how to reduce
pesticide and fertilizer inputs and conserve large
quantities of ground water through lawn care alternatives,
such as integrated pest management, low maintenance
; landscape materials, proper pesticide and fertilizer use,
alternatives to pesticide use, pet and yard waste reduction,
soil sampling, erosion control, and household hazardous
waste management.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Committee, in conjunction with Public
Education & Outreach Operations, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, state soil & water conservation
agencies, local Soil & Water Conservation Districts, Soil
Conservation Service, Agricultural Extension Service,
local garden clubs, and civic organizations
Initiation Date: 1995
->1,2, 3, 26, 31. 44
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
110

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Action Item 43: Promote citizen monitoring programs for toxic substances and
pesticides throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Project Description: Promote citizen monitoring
programs for toxic substances and pesticides throughout
the Gulf of Mexico. This effort will build on volunteer
monitoring programs for conventional parameters
already underway in the five Gulf States, such as
Alabama's Bay watch Program (partially supported by Gulf
of Mexico Program funding). Stringent quality
assurance/quality control protocols will be incorporated in
monitoring program design.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Citizens Advisory
Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Regions 4 & 6, and Gulf of Mexico National Estuary
Programs. This effort should be coordinated with all Gulf
of Mexico Program Issue Committees
Initiation Date: 1995
Action item 44: Develop public information materials on Gulf of Mexico waste
and pesticide disposal locations and requirements.
Project Description: Develop public information
materials on waste and pesticide disposal locations and
requirements for Gulf Coast citizens. Provide relocation
businesses with a one-page handout which lists waste
disposal locations and guidelines for new people moving
into the Gulf of Mexico region.
Lead: Gulf State agencies, in coordination with Gulf of
Mexico Program—Citizens Advisory Committee, local
governments, and real estate associations.
Initiation Date: 1995
-» 26, 42
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
111

-------
The Unfinished Agenda
Chapter 4
Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness and results of all public education and
outreach strategies for use in developing future toxic substance and pesticide
outreach strategies.
Action Item 45: Develop measures of success for evaluating Gulf of Mexico
Program public education and outreach activities related to toxic substances and
pesticides.
Project Description: Develop measures of success
(criteria) for evaluating: 1) public education and 2) public
involvement activities related to reducing toxic substance
and pesticide inputs to the Gulf of Mexico.
Lead: Gulf of Mexico Program-Public Education &
Outreach Operations. This effort should be coordinated
with all Gulf of Mexico Program committees.
Initiation Date: 1994
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
112

-------
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 and reduce the
harmful ecological effects of toxic substances and
pesticides in the Gulf of Mexico system.
The Gulf of Mexico Program
Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee
ft
c

Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
113

-------
Bibliography
Barron, M.G. 1990. "Bioconcentration: Will Water-Borne Organic Chemicals
Accumulate in Aquatic Animals." Environmental Science & Technology.
Vol. 24, No. 11. pp. 1612-1618
Brabeck, J. and ]. Brecken-Folse. "Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances and
Characterization Report"
Brecken-Folse, J. and M.G. Babikow. Draft 1993. "Evaluation of Gulf of Mexico
Sediment Inventory." Technical Resources, Inc. Dr T.W. Duke, Consultant
under contract to EPA Gulf Breeze, FL,
Brecken-Folse, J. and M.G. Babikow. Draft 1993. "Impact of Toxic Substances &
Pesticides on Nearshore Gulf of Mexico: A Preliminary Comparison (Toxicity
Indices) of Twenty-Five Estuarine Drainage Systems Based on Releases of
Toxics From Industrial and Municipal Sites and Pesticide Run-Off From
Agricultural Operations in 1989." Dr T.W Duke, Consultant, under contract
to USEPA Gulf Breeze, FL
Buff, V. and S. Turner. "The Gulf Initiative " Coastal Zone 1987.
Capuzzo, J.M. and M.N. Moore. 1986 "Acute and Chronic Effects of Toxic
Chemicals in Aquatic Organisms." In Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic Life:
Research and Management Symposium Program and Abstracts. September
16-18, 1986. Seattle, WA.
Dunbar, J.B., L.D. Britsch, and E.B. Kemp III. 1992. Land Loss Rate: Report 3,
Louisiana Coastal Plain. USACE Technical Report. GL-90-2. Department of
the Army-WES-CE. Vicksburg, MS. 28 pp.
Hamilton, L.D., A.F. Meinhold and J. Nagy. 1992. "Health Risk Assessment for
Radium Discharged in Produced Waters." In: J.P. Ray and F.R. Engelhardt
(eds). Produced Water: Technological/Environmental Issues and Solutions.
Plenum Press, NY.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1990. Louisiana Toxics Release
Inventory 1990. Third Annual Edition, November 1991. Based on
information submitted pursuant to §313 of the Federal Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act. Baton Rouge, LA.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1992. Water Quality Inventory.
pp. 62-69.
Lytle, T.F. and J.S. Lytle. 1990. "Contaminants in Sediments from the Central Gulf
of Mexico." Estuaries. 13(1):98-111.
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
114

-------
Bibliography
Mayer, F.L., J.R. Clark and P.R Parrish. (date unknown). "Produced Water From
Oil and Gas Production: Enhancement of Toxicity Testing and Toxicity
Identification Technology." Research Proposal. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research & Development/OEPER.
Environmental Research Laboratory. Gulf Breeze, FL.
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.
Mearns, A.J. 1986. Inventory Band Trends of Chlorinated Pesticide and PCB
Concentrations in U.S. Fishes and Invertebrates. Toxic Chemicals and
Aquatic Life Symposium
Meinhold, A.F. and L.D. Hamilton. 1992. "Radium Concentration Factors and
Their Use in Health and Environmental Risk Assessment" In: J.P. Ray and
F.R. Engelhardt (eds) Produced Water: Technological/Environmental Issues
and Solutions. Plenum Press, NY.
National Academy of Sciences. 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on Evaluation of
the Safety of Fishery Products. Food and Nutrition Board. Institute of
Medicine. Washington, D.C.
Nauen, C.E. 1983. Compilation of Legal Limits for Hazardous Substances in Fish
and Fishery Products. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 764. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 102 pp.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments. Office of
Technology Assessment. U.S. Congress. OTA 0-334.
O'Neal, D. 1991. "Corporate Cleanup." Texas Coasts. Spring 1991.
Overstreet, R.M. 1986. "Aquatic Pollution Problems, Southeastern U.S. Coasts: II.
Biological Aspects." In Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic Life: Research and
Management. Symposium Program and Abstracts. September 16-18, 1986.
Seattle, WA.
Pait et al. 1992. "Agricultural Pesticides in Coastal Areas: A National Summary."
Pait, A.S., D.R.G. Farrow, J.A. Lowe, and P.A. Pacheco. 1989. The National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge Inventory: Agricultural Pesticide Use in Estuarine
Drainage Areas: A Preliminary Summary for Selected Pesticides. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Strategic Assessment Branch.
Rockville, MD.
Gulf el Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
115

-------
Bibliography
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. EPA/800-R-92-004. Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium Chauvin, LA.
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
Southern States Energy Board. 1991. "Marine Oil Spills Prevention and Response
in Southern Coastal States: A Review and Comparison of Selected Laws. July
1991 Norcross, GA.
St. Pe', K.M 1991. Comments on USEPA Gulf of Mexico Program proposal to assess
health effects of consuming seafood contaminated by produced water
discharges. Memorandum to Mauren O'Neill, April 26,1991. Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality. Office of Water Resources. Baton
Rouge, LA.
Summers, J. K., J.M. Macauly, P.T. Heitmuller, V.D. Engle, A.M. Adams, and G.T.
Brooks. 1993. "Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian
Province—1991." USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory. Gulf Breeze,
FL. EPA 620/R-93/007. January 1993.
Texas A&M Research Foundation—Geochemical and Environmental Research.
1989. Third Annual Report: Analyses of Bivalves and Sediments for Organic
Chemicals and Trace Elements. January 1989. Submitted to U.S. Department
of Commerce, NOAA National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.
Turner, R.E. and N.N. Rabalais. 1991. "Eutrophication and its Effects on Coastal
Habitats." 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, CA. American Society of Civil Engineers Press. New York, NY.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Fisheries of the United States. National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Current Fishery Statistics No. 9100. Washington, DC.
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.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
116

-------
Bibliography
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. 1990a. A Special Earthweek Report: 50
Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960-2010. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service. April
1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce 1990b. Estuaries of the United States: Vital
Statistics of a National Resource Base. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. National Ocean Service. October 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 Draft Point Source Discharges in Coastal
Areas of Alabama. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
December 1989
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 "Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs in Oysters
(Crassostrea virginica) and Sediments from the Gulf of Mexico, 1986-1987."
NOAA National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program. Submitted Mar.
Environ. Res.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Public Health Action Agenda for the
Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Program. John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Gulf Facts. Gulf of Mexico Program.
John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Toxics in the Community: National
and Local Perspectives. Pesticides and Toxic Substances (TS-779). USEPA
560/4-91-014. September 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991c. Toxic Substances & Pesticides Fact
Sheet. Gulf of Mexico Program. John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991d. Risk Assessment Forum.
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC. Draft October
1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Summary of the Toxic Substances &
Pesticides Workshop, August 6-9,1990, Port Isabelle, TX. Gulf of Mexico
Program. John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990b. Toxic Substances & Pesticides Fact
Sheet. Gulf of Mexico Program. John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
117

-------
Bibliography
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 1984 Poly chlorinated, biphenyls (PCBs) in Fish
and Shellfish: Reduction of Tolerances, Final Decision. Federal Register 49:
21514-21520. Rockville, MD.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 1982. Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious
Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed. Washington, DC. 13 pp.
Wade, T.L., J.L. Sericano, J.M. Brooks, and B.J. Presley. 1991. "Overview of the First
Four Years of the NOAA National Status and Trends Mussel Watch
Program." Draft. Texas A&M University. College of Geosciences.
Geochemical and Environmental Research Group. College Station, TX.
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
Windsor, Jr., J.G. 1985 "Nationwide Review of Oxygen Depletion and
Eutrophication in Estuanne and Coastal Waters: Florida Region" Project
Completion Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY and U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration,
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. Department 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 Mexlee Toxic Substances ftPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
118

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
FEDERAL LEVEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
USEPA administers nine comprehensive environmental protection laws; water
quality is protected by nearly all of these laws. Air pollution controls, for example,
keep harmful pollutants from entering the atmosphere, and subsequently from
reaching the waters. Laws governing toxic substances and pesticides also address
special pollution problems that affect water quality. The statutes and programs that
USEPA administers are discussed below.
*	Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). This Act empowers USEPA to
regulate chemical substances and mixtures that present an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment, and to address chemical substances and
mixtures that pose imminent hazards. TSCA also authorizes USEPA to gather
information on chemical risks from those who manufacture or process
chemicals. USEPA can require companies to test selected existing chemicals for
toxic effects and USEPA must review new chemicals before they are
manufactured. To prevent unreasonable risks, USEPA may select from a broad
range of control options under TSCA, from requiring hazard-warning labels to
outright bans on the manufacture or use of especially hazardous chemicals.
USEPA may regulate a chemical at any stage in its lifecycle. Under §6(a) of TSCA,
"Any requirement or combination of requirements imposed under this
subsection may be limited in application to specific geographic areas." Under §7
of the Act, USEPA may commence civil action for temporary or permanent relief
from any unreasonable risks posed by an imminently hazardous chemical
substance, mixture, or article USEPA may require remediation of sediments
contaminated by use or disposal of material after the effective date of USEPA's
regulation. If the contamination occurred before the regulation, USEPA's
authority under this law may be limited.
*	Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1982 (FIFRA). This Act,
originally passed in 1972, empowers USEPA to restrict, suspend, or cancel the
registration of pesticides that pose significant threats to human health or the
environment. As a result of FIFRA, USEPA has canceled the registration of
some persistent pesticides (e.g., DDT, dieldrin, endrin, and chlordane) that had
widespread use in the 1950s and 1960s. A pesticide product must be registered by
USEPA before it can be sold within the U.S. Use of a pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its label is a violation of the law. USEPA may suspend or
cancel the registration of a pesticide if information indicates that use of the
pesticide would pose unreasonable risks.
Pesticide registration decisions are primarily based on USEPA's evaluation of test
data provided by pesticide applicants. USEPA can require up to 70 different kinds
of specific tests. This testing is needed to determine the effects a pesticide may
have on humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
119

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Laboratory tests may be used to identify potential human risks, including acute
toxic reactions, such as poisoning and skin and eye irritation, as well as potential
long-term effects, such as cancer, birth defects, and reproductive system disorders.
As part of the testing, USEPA evaluates data on fate-how the chemicals react in
the environment.
Pesticides that were registered prior to 1978 must be reregistered under current,
more stringent, standards of toxicology. Registration lasts for five years, at which
time the registration expires, unless reregistration has been requested, but not
necessarily carried out, by a registrant. Registration may authorize only certain
uses, and a pesticide may be registered with conditions, as experimental, or for
restricted use. Reregistration may also be denied.
A state may regulate the sale or use of a federally registered pesticide only if that
regulation does not permit a sale or use that is prohibited under FIFRA A state
may impose more stringent standards than FIFRA; and a state may register a
pesticide for additional uses, if those additional uses are limited to the issuing
state.
A state cannot issue registration for food/feed uses unless a tolerance has been
set under FFDCA that permits the residues of the pesticides on the food. A
state's ability to issue special local needs registration is dependent upon the
Administrator's approval.
Since 1978, when USEPA began requiring more extensive data on pesticides than
it did previously, over 130 new chemical active ingredients have been registered
(10-15 new pesticide active ingredients each year). Under re-registration of old
chemicals, USEPA has issued 194 registration standards that represent about 350
individual active ingredients that account for 85 to 90 percent of the total
volume of pesticides used in the U.S
USEPA is working with state and local governments to develop integrated pest
management plans (IPM), guidance documents, and research papers on IPM
technology for home lawns, golf courses, and urban areas. USEPA annually
issues the Consolidated Pesticide Agreement Guidance, which outlines the
national enforcement priorities and the activities that every state, tribe, and
territory must address under its cooperative enforcement agreement.
USEPA as of 1989 published Health Advisories for 55 pesticides to assist
government officials in their response to the contamination of drinking water.
USEPA has set standards that regulate 17 pesticides in drinking water, and it has
initiated a National Pesticide Survey of drinking water wells. USEPA also is
preparing to publish a final Pesticides in Groundwater Strategy based on analysis
and consultation with farmers, other business organizations, environmentalists,
and government officials.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
120

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act ol 1972 (FWPCA). TheU.S Congress in 1972
significantly amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 and
produced further amendments in 1977, 1981, and 1987. These amendments are
also commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The objective of the Act
is to restore and maintain the quality of the nation's water resources to protect
the health of humans, fish, shellfish, and wildlife from harmful pollutants. The
Act establishes national water quality goals and creates a national permit system
with minimum standards for the quality of the discharged waters (effluent).
The Act directs USEPA to examine the effects of specific pollutants on plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, aesthetics, and recreation in any body of water.
The results of these examinations are "water quality criteria." They help states
determine the levels of pollutants that can exist in the water column and the
sediment without harming human and aquatic life. States are required to
establish standards based on the designated uses of their respective water bodies,
and these state-imposed standards are subject to USEPA approval.
Conventional pollutants, toxic or "priority" pollutants, and non-conventional
pollutants are all regulated under the Act. Section 304(1) addresses toxic
contaminants. States are required to identify point sources that discharge
toxicants into waterways, develop control strategies for these sources, and adopt
numeric water quality standards for toxic pollutants that have USEPA criteria
documents.
The Act requires that direct point source dischargers obtain National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and maintain effluent
standards. Specific waste water dischargers into rivers and storm water drainage
systems also must obtain permits. Pretreatment of specified discharges from
point sources is the mechanism used to control toxic and non-conventional
pollutants discharged into the sewage treatment system. The pretreatment
program is intended to reduce the total discharge of priority pollutants from
indirect dischargers to roughly the amount of direct point source dischargers.
Municipal waste water treatment plants (called Publicly-Owned Treatment
Works or POTWs) are required to meet standards different from those of direct
industrial dischargers. However, both municipal and industrial dischargers are
required to meet the same ambient water quality standards. Technology-based
regulation of POTW discharges focuses almost exclusively on conventional
pollutant control by requiring POTWs to achieve "secondary" levels of
treatment—85 percent removal of suspended solids and biochemical oxygen
demand.
The Act also establishes a program to manage contaminated runoff from
nonpoint sources of pollution. Each state must identify 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.
Gult of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
121

-------
Foderal £ Stale Framework
App«ndlx A
The states must submit a four-year management program for controlling the
pollutant sources. Each plan is subject to USEPA approval and may be eligible
for grants (up to 60 percent of costs, excluding construction) to assist in
implementation.
Dredged sediments may be contaminated by industrial or municipal wastes and
can pose a threat to marine life. Section 404 permits are designed to protect water
quality and habitat by regulating discharge of dredged and fill materials. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and USEPA jointly develop guidelines for
permit applications. These permits are managed by USACE and are subject to
review by USEPA, which has veto power over §404 permits if discharge of dredge
materials would adversely affect water quality or habitat. Usually, USACE works
with USEPA during the review process to ensure that concerns are resolved
through interagency consultation. These permits require state water quality and
coastal zone management certifications where applicable.
Under §309, USEPA can obtain sediment clean-ups in its actions against parties
that violate permit limits. Under §311, USEPA may remove or order removal of
an actual discharge or address a threatened discharge of oil or hazardous
substance into waters of the U.S Under §311, USEPA can also recover its costs.
Section 504 permits USEPA to use emergency powers to stop discharges that
imminently threaten public health.
Sections 317 and 320 as amended in 1987 established the National Estuary
Program (NEP), which is administered by USEPA. The program is intended "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, twenty-one estuaries are
participating in NEP, including 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 pollution problems,
from point and/or nonpoint sources.
¦ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA, or "Superfund"). Superfund authorizes USEPA to respond
immediately or provide remedial action when a release or threatened release of
any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant poses a danger to human
health or the environment. The agency has the authority to take both
immediate removal and long-term cleanup actions and to seek damages from
responsible parties. Although there is no determination on how to apply this
legislation to submerged marine lands, this law was applied to portions of
Commencement Bay in Puget Sound and has paid for research there.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
122

-------
Federal Si State Framework
Appendix A
*	Emergency Planning and Community Rlght-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).
EPCRA is part of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1982 (SARA). EPCRA is based on the premise that citizens have a "right-to-
know" about hazardous and toxic chemicals in their communities. This Act
requires states to establish State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) and
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) that will collect detailed
information about toxic and hazardous chemicals in local facilities in order to
prepare procedures for possible chemical accidents and emergency situations.
EPCRA §313 requires owners and operators of designated manufacturing
facilities to report the presence and release of certain toxic chemicals to local,
state, and federal governments so that USEPA may establish the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). The facilities that must submit reports are those that
manufacture, process, or otherwise use a listed toxic chemical in excess of
specified threshold quantities The TRI includes names, locations, chemicals
used, amounts of the toxic chemical present at any one time, quantity of the
chemical entering the air, land or water, and offsite locations for waste, waste
treatment, and waste disposal.
•	The Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1977 (CAA). Under this Act, USEPA must 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 specify measures that will be taken to
achieve acceptable air quality. Pesticides may be subject to regulation established
under this statute.
Pesticides may also be regulated under §112 of the CAA. This section 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." USEPA has developed a list of hazardous air pollutants for
which regulations establish stationary sources emission standards, but has not
yet developed a corresponding list for pesticides.
a Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This Act, as amended (21 U.S.
C. 301 et seq.), authorizes USEPA to establish tolerance limits for pesticide
residues in foods. Any pesticide proposed for food or feed use must have a
tolerance (or an exemption) established for those foods/feeds. Tolerance limits
are set by USEPA (usually when petitioned by registrant) and enforced by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.
" Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). RCRA empowers
USEPA to regulate the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid
and hazardous waste in the U.S. Many toxic and pesticide wastes fall under the
Gulf of Mexieo Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
123

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
RCRA definition: "A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because
of its quantity, concentrations, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics
may: cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human heath or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed."
Under §3004(u) of the Act, USEPA must permit treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities that require corrective action to address all releases of hazardous waste
from any solid waste management unit. Corrective action may address
contaminated sediments. §3004(v) allows USEPA to require corrective action for
releases that have migrated beyond the boundaries of a facility (e.g., off-site
sediments). Under §3008(a), USEPA may issue administrative orders or take
civil action for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent
injunction. Other sections allow USEPA to issue orders that require interim
status facilities to take corrective action or other response measures and bring
suit against persons whose past or present handling, storage, treatment,
transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste substantially threatens
health or the environment
•	Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). Pollution prevention can be
accomplished through increased efficiencies in the use of raw materials, energy,
water or other resources, or through conservation. These objectives can be met
through changes in equipment or technology; process or procedural changes;
reformulation or redesign of products; raw material substitution; or operational
improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory control.
USEPA is encouraged to work across program and regional boundaries to apply
multimedia responses to intractable problems like toxic contamination.
USEPA's waste management hierarchy focuses on preventing or reducing
pollution at the source. At the top of the hierarchy is source reduction, followed
by recycling, treatment, and, as a last resort for waste management, disposal.
USEPA's approach in implementing the Pollution Prevention Act and its 33-50
toxics reduction program (started in February 1991) is aimed at voluntary
compliance in the reduction of 18 targeted chemicals. Using 1988 as a baseline
year, USEPA's 33-50 program aims for 33 percent reduction of the 17 targeted
chemicals by 1992, and a 50 percent reduction by 1995. The 17 targeted chemicals
are: 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1,2-tnchloroethane, benzene, cadmium and
cadmium compounds, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, chromium and
chromium compounds, cyanide compounds and hydrogen cyanide,
dichloromethane, lead and lead compounds, mercury and mercury compounds,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, nickel and nickel compounds,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, and xylene.
•	Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). USEPA, in
consultation with USACE, establishes environmental impact criteria to assist in
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
124

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
evaluating proposed projects that involve transporting and dumping dredged
material in coastal waters and in the ocean. USEPA has the primary
responsibility for choosing ocean dumping sites. Under §105 of this Act, USEPA
can assess civil penalties and seek injunctive relief if contaminated sediments
are dumped in the ocean illegally.
* Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP is a long-
term, interagency monitoring activity designed to evaluate the status and trends
of U.S ecological resources and the effectiveness of pollution control. EMAP
conducts annual surveys to assess the health of plants and animals, the quality of
their surroundings, and the presence of pollutants by examining key indicators at
designated sites. The indicators are representative of the general condition of a
site's estuarine resources. The indicators address three areas of concern:
1) estuarine biotic integrity; 2) aesthetic appeal for public use of the estuarine
resources; 3) and exposure of biota to pollutants.
EMAP is structured on a regional scale by dividing all of the nation's coastal
waters, bays, and estuaries into regions for study; the Louisianian Province
corresponds to the Gulf of Mexico area The information collected is used to
address large areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, rather than smaller systems like
Galveston Bay. An intense study of every bay and estuary would be too costly.
Within each region, scientific measurements will be made every year at
randomly selected stations. From July-August 1991, the Estuaries component of
EMAP sampled 183 sites between Anclote Anchorage, FL, and the Rio Grande,
TX. All sampling is conducted during the summer months because summer is
when plants and animals generally are most active and when the effects of
pollution are most severe.
U.S. Department eff Commerce (USDOC)
National Oeeanle and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's research programs aim to increase current knowledge of the physical
processes of estuaries, the natural and human-induced factors affecting the
productivity and health of fishery resources, and the effects of habitat loss and of
chemicals and pathogens on edible fish and shellfish. NOAA collects, archives, and
synthesizes a variety of oceanographic, climatic, fisheries, and pollution data.
NOAA conducts research and development to provide alternatives to ocean
dumping. NOAA also develops sound national policies in the areas of ocean
mining and energy.
a National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI). This program assesses
levels of pollutants entering marine waters. The Agricultural Pesticide Use
Project is an evolving program and data base within the NCPDI Program It is
designed to assess the use of pesticides in coastal areas and the impacts of these
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
125

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
pesticides on the living resources of the nations' estuaries and coastal rivers
The data base has recently been updated to a base year of 1987 and expanded to
include estimates for 35 pesticides on approximately 70 crops. A unique feature
of the data base is the incorporation of an environmental rating system that
integrates several physical and toxicological properties of the pesticides with use
estimates to produce a pesticide use estimate normalized to relative
environmental hazard. The hazard normalized estimates can then be used to
target those estuarine systems that may be most affected by the application of the
pesticides in the inventory. In addition, extensive background information also
has been collected on the seasonal application of the pesticides, their use in areas
upstream of the coastal study area, and the environmental impact of the
pesticides on aquatic resources.
*	National Estuarine Inventory (NEI). This program inventories estuaries around
the nation, which allows comparisons of their use and health.
*	National Status and Trends Program (NSTP). This program documents the
current status and long-term trends in the quality of estuaries and coastal waters.
It provides data on concentrations of pollutants in finfish, shellfish, and
sediments and measures the effects of environmental degradation by toxic
chemicals in finfish, shellfish, and sediments. It also measures biological
parameters that reflect stress associated with human-induced perturbations,
assesses marine environmental quality, and recommends federal responses.
Under this program, NOAA conducts sampling throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
*	National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program (NSTMWP). TheMussel
Watch Program has consisted of sampling and analyzing bivalves from U.S.
coastal areas since 1986. Sampling sites include coverage of the Gulf Coast from
southernmost Texas to southernmost Florida.
" Benthic Surveillance Program (BSP). The Benthic Surveillance Program collects
samples of sediment, bottom-dwelling mollusks, and bottom-feeding fish from
numerous sites throughout the country. Samples are analyzed for substances
such as toxic metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated organic
chemicals.
*	Consequences of Contaminants Program (CCP). This program develops
techniques to determine how pollutants in marine water can affect marine fish
and shellfish and human health. Recent activities have emphasized: evaluating
indicators that signal the risk of shellfish contamination; documenting exposure
to pollutants that results when fishermen eat their catches; and quantifying the
relationship in fish between exposure to pollutants and reproductive
impairment.
*	National Shellfish Register (NSR). The Register contains information on
shellfish contamination incidents and provides important indicators of the
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
126

-------
Fedora! & State Framework
Appendix A
extent to which shellfish in U.S. waters are contaminated. The Register uses a
classification system based on concentrations of coliform bacteria and natural
marine biotoxins. Productive shellfish waters can be classified as approved,
prohibited, conditionally approved, or restricted. The Register provides limited
information on the current status of shellfishing areas and still less on past
trends, in part because the classification scheme is not used consistently by the
states. The register has been issued periodically since 1966 and was last published
in 1985.
* Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). CZARA
§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 §319 of the CWA and through
changes to the state coastal zone management program approved by NOAA
under §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 §319 of the CWA and §306 of the CZMA
The central purpose of §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 §6217(g) of the CZARA and 2) additional state-
developed management measures as necessary to achieve and maintain
applicable water quality standards.
The §6217 program guidance identifies and explains provisions state coastal
nonpoint programs must include in order to be approved by USEPA and NOAA.
Five 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;
4)'modify	coastal zone boundaries as the state determines is necessary to
implement NOAA's recommendations under §6217(e) of the CZARA; and
5)	implement management measures in the defined coastal area. (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.)
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
127

-------
Fodoral & Stato Framework
Appendix A
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 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.
Under the Irrigation Drainwater Program (IDP), 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 has recognized that dioxin, primarily from pulp and paper mills, is a major
problem within the Southeast Region. It is recognized that dioxin is contributing to
the contaminant load in many rivers and streams flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.
USFWS will seek support in identifying the extent of this problem and initiating
remedial activity.
USFWS routinely provides recommendations on BMPs 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.
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
MMS studies the potential impact of offshore activities, including the placement
and construction of petroleum pipelines, on coastal wetlands and resources. MMS
also funds research through state geoscience agencies for identifying mineral
resources in the coastal zone.
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 Toxic Substances ftPestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
128

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
U.S. Department ef Defense (USDOD)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
•	Clean Water Ae* (CWA). USACE has the primary responsibility for the permit
program and federal projects under §404 of the CWA for the discharge of dredged
and fill material. The USACE evaluation of a §404 permit application is a two
part test which involves determining whether the project complies with the
§404(b)(l) guidelines and conducting a public interest review. Federal projects
are reviewed in the same manner. USEPA has veto power over §404 permits.
Applicants must demonstrate that the discharge, which may be released to the
aquatic environment during dredging and disposal operations, will not have an
unacceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, applicants
must discuss possible alternatives, extent and permanence of beneficial and/or
detrimental aspects, and the probable cumulative impacts of the proposed
activity Discharges can be permitted only if all appropriate steps are taken to
mitigate the adverse impacts of the discharge on the ecosystem, including
compensating for unavoidable impacts
The public interest review is a balancing test in which the public and private
need for and benefits of a project are weighed against that project's adverse
impact to the environment, as measured by criteria developed by USEPA in
conjunction with the USACE. These criteria generally consider aesthetics,
recreation, historic values, economics, water supply, water quality, energy needs,
and flood damage prevention. In addition, the USACE conducts an
environmental assessment under NEPA to determine whether the project has
significant environmental impacts.
USACE can deny permits to those applicants whose projects it determines are not
in the public interest. Generally, USACE permits will not be issued where the
necessary state or local authorizations have been denied. Under CZMA,
objection by Gulf States to a project may also preclude the USACE from issuing
§10/404 permits.
*	Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Under §103 of
MPRSA, USACE must evaluate proposed projects that involve the
transportation and dumping of dredged material in most coastal waters and in
the open ocean. The evaluation of these activities is based on environmental
impact criteria developed by USEPA in consultation with USACE; these criteria
generally contain all the constraints set forth in the London Dumping
Convention. Non-federal projects that are approved receive an ocean dumping
permit from USACE Federal projects performed by USACE are evaluated in the
same manner, but do not receive permits. USACE may designate disposal sites,
but USEPA has the primary responsibility for designating ocean disposal sites.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
129

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
All permits must undergo a public review period, that includes receiving
comments from USEPA, NMFS and USFWS.
U.S. Department ef Agriculture (USDA)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is USDA's primary technical agency in the
areas of soil and water conservation and in water quality. SCS focuses its assistance
on non-federal land. It works with private landowners, planning and applying
measures to reduce soil erosion, conserve water, improve water quality, and protect
other renewable natural resources like plants, animals, and air. SCS works to
preserve, protect, and restore wetlands and to develop wildlife and fisheries habitat.
The guiding principle is the use and conservation treatment of the land and water
in harmony with its capabilities and needs. SCS also performs soil surveys and
operates a system of some twenty-seven Plant Material Centers for selecting,
developing, testing, and releasing plants for use in conservation programs.
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). Under the Swampbuster provisions,
SCS assists landowners to identify and protect wetlands. Loss of USDA benefits and
severe economic consequences can result for agricultural producers who convert
wetlands to make possible the production of agricultural commodities.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
The Agricultural Stabilization and 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
include cotton, rice, com, 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.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
130

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
The 1990 Farm Bill passed by the 101st Congress provided significant water quality
initiatives to reduce the impacts of agriculturally applied pesticides on the aquatic
environment. These incentives, in the form of payments, are provided to farmers
who implement agricultural practices that reduce surface or groundwater
contamination. In addition, the 1990 farm Bill strengthens the Conservation
Reserve Program, which sets aside highly erodible land that, if put to production,
could affect water quality.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)
USFDA is responsible for establishing safe levels for poisonous or deleterious
substances (other than pesticide residues which USEPA establishes) that
contaminate food.
* Federal Feed, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Under ideal conditions, USFDA
will attempt to establish a formal tolerance or maximum permissible level. But
when toxicological data are scanty or conflicting, when additional data are being
developed, or when other conditions are rapidly changing, §306, §402(a) and §406
of the FFDCA allow the use of action levels. Action levels meet the same criteria
as tolerances except they are intended for interim periods and can be instituted
and changed more quickly than tolerances Enforcement actions for toxic
constituents are based upon USFDA action levels-the only available criteria on
contaminants in fisheries products. Indeed, specific action levels have been
developed for several contaminants in seafood products. Action levels have
been established for some residual chemical contaminants, including pesticides.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
U.S. Coast Guard (USCGJ
USCG is responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act prohibitions on discharges of
oil, hazardous substances, and sanitary wastes from marine vessels and for
enforcing the provisions of the MPPRCA regarding disposal of garbage from ships.
USCG establishes regulations for marine sanitation devices (MSDs) to meet federal
performance standards.
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This Act is intended to reform the nation's spill
prevention and response system. It specifies measures to prevent or treat large
oil or chemical spills in U.S. waters. The law requires that shipping companies
transporting oil or chemicals on offshore and tidal waters demonstrate the ability
to contain and cleanup a spill should one occur. Vessel owners and operators are
liable for the cost of cleanup and the environmental damage resulting from a
spill. This legislation provides limited national immunity for oil spill
responders.
Gulf of Mexleo Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
131

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Facilities must develop national contingency plans that outline procedures for
the containment, dispersal, and removal of a worst-case spill on-site. The Act
does not preempt state law and thereby preserves the authority of the states to
maintain or create their own oil spill plan.
The Act also establishes a $5 billion Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, financed by a
five cent per barrel tax on oil, to pay removal costs, compensate individuals, and
restore natural resources damaged by a spill. In addition, the Act mandates the
use of a double-hull design on all new tankers operating in U.S. waters.
The Act requires the President to take charge of any spill of size or character that
poses a threat to public health or the country's welfare. This action is taken
through the On-Scene Coordinator, who is the Coast Guard in tidal and coastal
waters
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
132

-------
Fedora! & Stato Framework
Appendix A
STATE LEVEL
Alabama
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is responsible
for most environmental programs in Alabama. The Department's Water, Land,
Air, Field Operations, and Permits and Services Divisions regulate, permit, enforce,
monitor, and respond to facilities, actions, and incidents affecting the water, land,
and air media, including toxics and misapplication of pesticides. The Alabama
Department of Agriculture and Industry is responsible for the registration of
pesticides, their applications, and the certification of applicators.
Waste Reduction /Minimization and Pollution Prevention. In 1987, the Alabama
Legislature amended the "Hazardous Waste Management Act," changing its name
to the "Hazardous Waste Management and Minimization Act" to encourage waste
minimization. While the Act did not create specific waste minimization programs,
it paved the way for the development of such programs by recognizing the
importance of waste minimization.
In the development of pollution prevention programs, the State of Alabama has
focused on voluntary cooperation among industry, government, educators, and the
general public. ADEM proposed the development of a voluntary Waste Reduction
and Technology Transfer (WRATT) program to serve Alabama's industries. In
1989, the program began to utilize retired engineers and scientists to provide free
non-regulatory waste reduction opportunity assessments upon request from
Alabama industries.
Over $416,000 in program funding has been received or pledged to date from public
and private sources. In addition to actual funding, the program has received
volunteer in-kind services with an estimated value of over $400,000. Over 100
waste reduction opportunity assessments have been completed to date, and six to
eight additional requests for assessments are received monthly.
A unique feature of Alabama's WRATT program is outreach to other states and
organizations. The program offers assistance in recruiting, training, marketing, and
general program development and implementation. Since the program's inception,
states and organizations throughout the U.S. have issued inquiries and requests and
WRATT has provided them with assistance.
Toxics Release Inventory. ADEM has primary state responsibility for all Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) in Alabama. ADEM is responsible for collecting the Form
R's, and ADEM's Field Operations Division is currently the repository for this
information. Requests for information from Form R's should be made through
ADEM at 205/260-2700
Gulf of Mexico Toxie Substances ftPestlddes Action Agenda (3.2)
133

-------
Fedora! & State Framework
Appendix A
Monitoring. ADEM currently maintains 32 water quality trend monitoring stations
in coastal Alabama. Many of the tributary stations were established in the mid-
1970s, and the remaining open-water coastal stations were established in the past
five years. Water samples are analyzed monthly for routine water quality
parameters. A quarterly record of water column metals is available, though
sampling for metals is not currently being conducted. Sediments are analyzed for
mercury from 18 sampling stations located in the Mobile River delta once every
three years. Sediment monitoring data for toxins and pesticides are evaluated for
toxicity by using site-specific criteria coupled with professional judgment and
appropriate testing.
Fish tissues from two sites in the coastal area are assayed for metals and organics of
interest once every three years. ADEM also conducts routine macroinvertebrate
sampling at 32 sampling stations, seven of which are located in estuaries.
Additional sampling and special studies are scheduled as needed.
Florida
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency responsible for
most environmental programs in Florida. Permitting, monitoring, enforcement,
emergency response, pollution prevention, land, water, and natural resource
management are all housed in a recently created merger of the previous
Environmental Regulation and Natural Resource agencies. The Freshwater Fish
and Game Commission retains some aquatic life management responsibilities, the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services regulates and certifies pesticides
and manages forestry lands, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services issues health advisories.
Pollution Prevention. Florida initiated a pollution prevention program in the 1988
solid waste bill passed by the Florida legislature. Included were goals for recycling 30
percent of solid waste by 1994, grants to local governments for "amnesty days" for
the collection of household hazardous wastes, and directives for use of state agency
purchases of recycled content goods. A commission has examined barriers to the
sale of recycled content goods, recycling programs are now common, and an
advanced disposal fee on certain commodities that have not achieved recycling
goals goes into effect in October 1993. Efforts to further restrict the use of certain
toxicants in various industrial processes are under consideration.
A voluntary program utilizing retired engineers to render assistance to industry in
waste reduction programs has been quite successful. This program is funded with
the interest generated from the trust fund for penalty moneys collected in the state.
Most programs now look for pollution prevention opportunities when negotiating
enforcement case settlements or mitigation proposals.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcides Action Agenda (3.2)
134

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Toxic Release Inventory. The Florida Department of Community Affairs has
primary responsibility for all Toxic Release Inventory compliance data in Florida. A
state data base is available to assist emergency response personnel and community
disaster planning personnel in locating sources of toxic material.
Monitoring. A number of ambient monitoring strategies are now in use in Florida.
The Department of Environmental Protection conducts sampling in a Community
Bioassessment Network, a Chemistry Status Network, and a Chemistry Trend
Network. Most of the regional water management districts conduct ambient
monitoring with laboratory support from the state, and several of the larger
counties have ambient programs. Compliance and enforcement monitoring,
intensive survey data generated primarily for determining permit effluent or load
reduction limits, and special studies are also conducted by state, regional, and local
governments. Quality assurance plans are reviewed by DEP, and all data are
assigned to STORET or other appropriate computer data inventory system
Florida has developed a sediment evaluation technique comparing metal to
aluminum ratios. Not surprisingly, urban estuaries are showing enrichment of
heavy metals over less developed estuaries. A University of Florida study
conducted on behalf of the Department indicated certain groundwater
contamination sites had not been sufficiently managed to keep runoff or
groundwater seepage from affecting adjacent surface waters PAH contamination
was also identified as a chronic problem, probably due to the large amount of area
devoted to roads, parking lots, and other automobile-related infrastructure.
By far the greatest toxic pollutant problem identified to date is the widespread
contamination of fish with mercury. All other toxicants identified have been in
limited areas with known sources under compliance schedules to eliminate the
source of the toxicant.
Louisiana
Permitting & Enforcement. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LADEQ) is responsible for the permitting and enforcement of all point source
discharges, including the release of toxic substances and pesticides. The Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for the enforcement of
pesticides including the regulation of pesticides for agricultural uses.
Pollution Prevention & Waste Reduction Programs. The LADEQ, Office of the
Secretary, Technical Program Support Section currently coordinates activities on
pollution prevention and waste reduction programs. These programs include the
following:
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
135

-------
Federal £ State Framework
Appendix A
•	Income Tax Cretins for Recvclinc Fouipmeni. Act 1052 of 1991 authorizes applicants
with qualified recycling equipment to be eligible for 20 percent state five year
income tax relief.
•	Sales Tax Refund for Pollution Control Fouipment. Act 1019 of 1991 sets forth the
qualification criteria and application procedures for three percent state sales
tax relief provided to companies purchasing pollution control devices and
systems
•	"Corporate Response Challenoe '9?' Outreach Prooram. Annually, a CTOSS section of
industry is surveyed to ascertain what is being accomplished toward
achieving pollution reductions in media such as air, water, and land
(including underground injection). The survey includes thirty Corporate
Response Challenge companies addressing 38 facilities. The report informs
the public and LADEQ staff on the progress of Louisiana's regulatory
programs in answering reduction goals set forth by the agency.
•	Louisiana Environmental Leaoership Prooram. USEPA Region 6 will partially fund a
joint industry/LADEQ/USEPA 33/50 reductions program for the Baton
Rouge-New Orleans Mississippi River Corridor, as well as state-wide. This
will solicit over 300 industrial clients to join a voluntary reductions program
extending five years. The project is currently in development and will be
recommended for continued development in 1993
•	Louisiana Toxic Release inventory. The Louisiana Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
is responsible for making the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know's (EPCRA) §313 (Toxic Chemical Release Inventory) information
available to the public. The information is collected from facilities covered by
the §313 release-reporting requirements. Information is collected on facility
identification, chemical specific information (i.e., amount on-site, any
releases to the environment), off-site transfer locations of toxic chemical
wastes, source reduction, and recycling activities. LADEQ recently published
the fourth annual Toxic Release Inventory report presenting 1991 data
submitted by chemical manufacturers reporting releases and/or transfers of
chemicals designated by USEPA as being toxic.
•	Source Reduction and Reeve liny. The original USEPA pollution prevention grant
received March 15,1989, is in its fourth year of funding. This grant funds
many of the pollution control and prevention activities (e.g., Corporate
Response Challenge, Louisiana Environmental Leadership Program).
•	Louisiana Gulf Coast Waste Exchange. The Louisiana State University's Institute
for Recyclable Materials has initiated and maintains a waste exchange
program.
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
136

-------
Fedora I A Stale Framework
Appendix A
•	Nonpoint Source Poiiimon Coniroi Program. This program will be jointly developed
and implemented by the LADEQ and the Department of Natural Resources-
Coastal Management Division. The program will meet the requirements of
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
•	Gulf of Mexico Program Pannership for Action. In December 1992, all governors of
Gulf of Mexico states and heads of federal agencies signed a document that
outlines actions for protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Gulf of Mexico
and adjacent lands. Among its many goals, this program will attempt to
protect human health and food supply by reducing input of nutrients, toxic
substances, and pathogens to the Gulf
Monllorlng/Sampling Programs. There are 146 sampling stations in Louisiana's
monitoring program, with approximately 31 stations located in estuaries The
program began in 1958 and was revised in 1978. At each of these sampling stations,
water samples are routinely collected and analyzed. These samples are assayed for
seven metals and 17 conventional water quality parameters. No analyses for
organic compounds are conducted, and no routine samples of sediments and fish
are collected although special studies have been conducted where sediment and fish
are analyzed for toxicants and pesticides. However, since 1991, water samples are
collected monthly from two of the water quality stations located on the Mississippi
River and are analyzed for all priority pollutants. Toxicity testing according to
USEPA methods is performed.
Special studies conducted for the last five years have monitored the concentrations
of chlorinated organics in fish fillets from the Mississippi River and Calcasieu
estuary and selected compounds in water, biota, and sediment from the Calcasieu
estuary. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries also has a sediment
monitoring program assessing metals and organics in the vicinity of the offshore
LOOP marine terminal.
A 1990 LADEQ study and a more recent Louisiana University Marine Consortium
study both used caged oysters to demonstrate the ability of these organisms to
accumulate radium 226 and hydrocarbon (PAHs) contaminants in tissues from
produced water discharges. The study should fully document the effects of
petrogenic pollutants on the biota of waters which are now receiving, or have
received, produced water effluents. The study should specifically address the
possible human health impacts of consuming seafood contaminated with
petrogenic radium 226, radium 228, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and
aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and toluene.
Legislation/Statutes. Act No. 185--SoliO Waste Recycling and ReOuction Law. Provides a
comprehensive solid waste recycling and reduction program.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
137

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
Title 33--Fnvironmental Quality. Part VII-Solid Waste. Subpart P-Recvcling Awareness Program.
Designed to assist local governments in educating the citizens on the energy
conservation, environmental, and economic benefits to be gained from recycling.
Art No. 664--Waste Tire Management Fund
Title 33-Fnvlronmental Quality. Part VII—Solid Waste. Subpart ?»Recvcl!no Waste Tires.
Provides for the removal of certain materials from the solid waste stream going into
landfills in order to protect the environment; prevent nuisances; protect the public
health, safety, and welfare; extend the usable life of the facilities; aid in the
conservation and recovery of valuable resources; and to conserve energy by efficient
reuse of these products, thereby benefiting all citizens of the state.
Citizen Participation. Farth Week - LADEQ sponsored the following Earth Week
activities in Baton Rouge, April 27 through May 3, aimed at educating the
community on environmental issues and stimulating environmental awareness
and action: Air Quality Day, Household Hazardous Materials Collection Day, Earth
Day Festival, and Recycling Fair.
Annual High School I ab Waste Collection Program - Thousands of pounds of laboratory
waste from school science programs across Louisiana are collected annually for
disposal. The public service project is sponsored jointly by LADEQ, Dow U.S.A., and
C.E.T. Packaging supplies.
Mississippi
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is the agency
responsible for most environmental programs in Mississippi. Permitting,
monitoring, enforcement, emergency response, and pollution prevention for
various programs, including air, surface water, ground water, solid waste, and
hazardous waste are all responsibilities of MDEQ. The Mississippi Department of
Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, has responsibility for the regulation and
certification of agricultural and residential pesticides. These two agencies share
proceeds from the registration of these chemicals to conduct an extensive
monitoring effort of drinking water wells near agricultural areas of the state,
including all coastal counties and watersheds.
Waste Reduction/Minimization & Pollution Prevention. Mississippi has a
comprehensive, multimedia Waste Reduction/Waste Minimization/Pollution
Prevention Program. Established in 1989, and implemented through the Waste
Reduction/Waste Minimization Division of the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality, the Program addresses both hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes discharged into the air and waters or placed on the lands of the state. The
program includes the following components: 1) statewide administration and
planning; 2) technical assistance; 3) research and development; 4) outreach and
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
138

-------
Federal A State Framework
Appendix A
education; and 5) waste exchange. The technical assistance and research
components are carried out through two programs funded within the Chemical
Engineering Department at Mississippi State University, the Mississippi Technical
Assistance Program for Industry (MISSTAP), and the Mississippi Solid Waste
Reduction Assistance Program (MISSWRAP). The Mississippi Waste
Reduction/Waste Minimization Program provides industry waste assessments,
seminars, workshops, conferences, demonstration projects, and an informational
clearinghouse for both hazardous and non-hazardous waste reduction,
minimization, and pollution prevention. The Program serves industry, business,
local governmental entities, schools, universities, community colleges, and the
general public.
Toxics Release Inventory. The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
(MEMA) has primary state responsibility for all Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
compliance data in Mississippi. MDEQ's Waste Reduction/Waste Minimization
Program (MDEQ WR/WM) has been awarded a grant to construct and make
available to specified state programs as well as the general public the Mississippi
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base. The initial data base will reflect all of the
data reported on the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory Form R's
MEMA is responsible for collecting the Form R's, and is currently the repository for
this information. MEMA is working in conjunction with MDEQ WR/WM to
compile portions of the data for use in the state's data base. Currently, requests for
information from the Form R's should be made through MEMA at 601 /960-9975.
Upon completion of the Mississippi TRI data base, TRI data will be made available
through the MDEQ WR/WM Program 601/961-5321, or through MISSTAP at
Mississippi State University 601 /325-8067.
It is anticipated that the data base will be available in hard copy for the cost of
reproduction plus shipping and handling. The data can also be accessed through the
use of magnetic media (MS-DOS compatible personal computers).
Typical data that can be accessed through the data base will include: facility name,
county, SIC code, facility identification numbers, chemical name and CAS number,
releases to the environment, transfers to off-site locations, and pollution prevention
information.
Copies of the database will be provided to the State Emergency Response
Commission and Local Emergency Planning Committees. Availability of the
database will be announced through the MISSTAP monthly newsletters, as well as
through the MISSTAP computerized information exchange.
Pilot Projects & Citizen Participation. Several Mississippi pilot projects have been
undertaken to minimize the contribution of toxic substances and pesticides into the
environment. One of the most successful projects began as a national pilot project
to recycle used pesticide containers. The project began in 1989 with the support of
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
139

-------
Federal & State Framework
Appendix A
interested farmers, Mississippi Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension
Service, Farm Bureau, National Agricultural Chemicals Association, and Dupont.
The "Pesticide Container Recycling Program," which began in Washington County,
encourages farmers to turn in empty, rinsed pesticide containers; thus eliminating
not only the possibility of contamination but also the added burden on landfills.
These are collected by the county from one of several collection points. Plastic
containers are recycled into new pesticide containers; metal containers are taken to a
local scrap metal company. Sixty thousand containers were collected and recycled
the first year. Since that first year, the program has spread to several counties and
through 1992, nearly 362,880 kg (800,000 pounds) of plastic containers (approximately
1,200,000 individual containers) have been recycled. In 1992, nearly 30 percent of all
plastic pesticide containers used in Mississippi were recycled, and for the first time
recycled containers are now being recycled. Mississippi has the most successful
program of this kind in the nation, and it is now used as a model for other programs
across the country.
Another project is an outreach program to the generators of small quantities of
hazardous waste. The "Technical Assistance For Very Small Hazardous Waste
Generators in the State of Mississippi" program is in its third year. This program is
a joint effort by MDEQ's Ag-Chem Unit, Underground Injection Control Unit, and
the Technical Assistance Program MISSTAP at Mississippi State University, to
identify and inventory the generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. The
generators are then assisted in developing best management practices for the use,
handling, and disposal of their hazardous waste. Not only are the generators getting
this technical assistance, but also the inventory of these generators is being
accumulated for future action by MDEQ.
The Hazardous Waste Division of MDEQ is in charge of a new program, "Right Way
To Throw Away" which is the state's program for amnesty days to handle
hazardous waste statewide. Local governments and organizations can apply for
financial support and technical assistance through MDEQ to conduct "Amnesty
Days." MDEQ has worked with the City of Jackson on a very successful Amnesty
Day for hazardous waste and is anxious to work with other communities.
Additionally, the 1993 legislature passed a statewide Pesticide Disposal Program.
This program provides a mechanism and funding for "Amnesty Days" to allow for
the disposal of canceled, suspended, and unused pesticides. This is a multi-agency
program with the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Bureau of
Plant Industry as lead agency.
Monitoring. 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. Fish are analyzed
for pesticides and metals. Sediments are not sampled on a routine basis; however,
several special studies have been and are currently looking at coastal sediment
contamination. MDEQ measures pesticides, PCBs, metals, etc. on special programs
(i.e., metal treaters, rocket motor test facilities). Mississippi determines toxicity
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
140

-------
Fodoral & State Framework
Appendix A
using USEPA or USACE test methods, comparison to standards and criteria, and
through appropriate toxicity testing.
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, including a major study of Back Bay, Biloxi, and
the ongoing dioxin monitoring of fish tissue in the Escatawpa and Pascagoula
Rivers.
There is currently a "limit consumption" advisory for catfish, smallmouth buffalo,
and striped mullet on the lower 16 km (10 miles) of the Escatawpa River. MDEQ
biologists collect multiple species of fish and shellfish from six stations 2-3 times per
year for dioxin level monitoring This aggressive monitoring has demonstrated a
reduction in dioxin levels since it began in 1988. The most recent study began in
February of 1991 and examined dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD) levels in fish and shellfish
three times in 1991 and twice in 1992
Texas
Waste Reduction/Minimization & Pollution Prevention. Texas has an ongoing waste
reduction program.
Texas is implementing a $2.7 million project to demonstrate innovative methods
for controlling nonpoint source pollution, from several primary causes, namely
erosion and sedimentation from new construction or existing development,
silviculture, and animal waste runoff.
The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) is an agency of the State of Texas
charged with preserving and maintaining water quality throughout their statutory
district, which includes Matagorda Bay. LCRA is concerned about the potential
detrimental impacts of the current and future toxic substance and pesticide
pollutants to the Matagorda Bay system. LCRA has programs for the lower Colorado
River System that address areas such as nonpoint source pollution, integrated pest
management, and household chemical collection sites.
Monitoring. LCRA maintains an ambient water quality monitoring network
including sites in the zone of tidal influence on the mainstream. LCRA has also
implemented an nonpoint source ordinance to the Lake Travis watershed and in
the near future intends to expand the ordinance to all of their statutory districts.
Texas has a statewide trends monitoring program that includes 15 sampling stations
in estuaries along the Gulf Coast. At these sampling stations, metals and organics
including pesticides are measured in water, sediment, and biota at least once a year.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
141

-------
Federal £ State Framework
Appendix A
Water and sediment samples are analyzed for 17 metals, 21 organic compounds, and
the conventional water quality parameters. Additional water or sediment samples
are taken for analysis of metals or organics. Sediment concentration is compared
with historical data. Follow-up bioassay or elutriate testing is conducted if a
problem is defined. A problem is defined to exist if the sediment concentration
exceeds 90 percent of the state's historic data or 85 percent of the data maintained by
USEPA. Whole-body samples of fish are routinely analyzed for seven metals and 15
organic compounds. The Natural Resource Conservation Commission has recently
completed special studies in nine bays and estuaries. The water, sediment, and biota
trends monitoring program has changed in recent years, with more emphasis on
special studies and less emphasis on long-trend monitoring.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ft Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
142

-------
Acronym Guide		Appendix B
ADEM
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
AET
Apparent Effects Threshold
AL
Alabama
ALCOA
Aluminum Company of America
ASCS
Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry
BMP
Best Management Practice
POD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BSP
Benthic Surveillance Program
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAC
Citizens Advisory Committee—Gulf of Mexico Program
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &

Liability Act (Superfund)
CCMP
Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan
CCP
Consequences of Contaminants Program
CO
Compliance Order
CSI
Contaminated Sediments Inventory
CWA
Clean Water Act
CZARA
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
DEP
Department of Environmental Protection—Florida
DHH
Department of Health & Hospitals-Louisiana
EMAP-E
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program-Estuaries
EPCRA
Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act
FFDCA
Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act
FIFRA
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide & Rodenticide Act
FL
Florida
FWPCA
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GCRL
Gulf Coast Research Lab
GCWDA
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
GIS
Geographic Information System .
GMP
Gulf of Mexico Program
HCB
Hexachlorobenzene
HCBD
Hexachlorobutadiene
HSWA
Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments
IDP
Irrigation Drainwater Program
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
ITOL
Industrial Task Force on Offshore Lightering
LA
Louisiana
LADEQ
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LCRA
Lower Colorado River Authority
LEPC
Local Emergency Planning Committee
LOOP
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
MARPOL
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships
Gull el Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
143

-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix P
MC
Management Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
MEMA
Mississippi Energy Management Agency
MDEQ
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
MISSTAP
Mississippi Technical Assistance Program for Industry
MISSWRAP
Mississippi Solid Waste Reduction Assistance Program
MMS
Minerals Management Service
MPPRCA
Marine Plastic Pollution, Research & Control Act
MPRSA
Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act
MS
Mississippi
MSD
Marine Sanitation Device
NAS
National Academy of Science
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCPDI
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
NEI
National Estuarine Inventory
NEP
National Estuary Program
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priority List
NSR
National Shellfish Register
NSTMWP
National Status & Trends Mussel Watch Program
NSTP
National Status & Trends Program
OCS
Outer Continental Shelf
OPC
Office of Pollution Control-Mississippi
OTA
Office of Technology Assessment
PAH
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB
Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
POTW
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PPA
Pollution Prevention Act
PRB
Policy Review Board—Gulf of Mexico Program
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
RRT
Regional Response Teams
SAB
Strategic Assessment Branch—NOAA
SARA
Federal Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act
SCS
Soil Conservation Service
SERC
State Emergency Response Commission
SMN
Statewide Monitoring Network
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee-Gulf of Mexico Program
TNRCC
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
TRI
Toxic Release Inventory
TS&P
Toxic Substances & Pesticides
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TSWQS
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
Gulf of Mexico Texle Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
144

-------
Acronym Guide
Appendix B
TX
Texas
UDS
Ulcerative Disease Syndrome
USACE
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
USDOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFDA
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
WRATT
Waste Reduction & Technology Transfer—Alabama
WR/WM
Waste Reduction/Waste Minimization Program—Mississippi
Gulf of Mexico Texle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
145

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
algae
ambient
Any of a group of aquatic plants, including phy toplankton and seaweeds, ranging from
microscopic to several meters in size
Referring to average concentrations of substances in the surrounding media (water, air,
or sediment)
anoxia
atmospheric
deposition
bacteria
benthic organism
Absence of dissolved oxygen in water (<0.1 mg oxygen/L)
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.
(Singular- bacterium) Microscopic organisms that are an important, natural component
of the environment Many forms are instrumental in the breakdown of organic matter,
releasing nutrients to the environment where they can be used by primary producers.
They can also aid in pollution control by consuming or breaking down organic matter in
sewage or by similarly acting on oil spills or other water or soil pollutants. Disease-
causing bacteria in soil, water, or air can also cause health problems for humans,
animals, and plants
A form of aquatic plant or animal life that is found on or near the bottom of a stream,
lake, or ocean
best
management
practices (BMPs)
bioaccumulation
bioassay
bioconcentration
Pollution control techniques developed by farmers, scientists, and administrators for
managing nonpomt source nutnent 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.
The uptake of substances (eg, metals) leading to elevated concentrations of those
substances within plant or animal tissue
Using living organisms to measure the effect of a substance, factor, or condition by
comparing before-and-after data Often used to test toxicity of sediments and water
that may be contaminated with toxic substances.
Concentration of contaminants by an aquatic organism through its digestive tract ot gill
tissues.
biomonitaring
biota
cadmium
(1) The use of living organisms to test ambient environmental conditions, often to check
the impact of effluents on receiving waters (2) Analysis of blood, urine, tissues, etc., to
measure chemical exposure in humans
Plants and animals inhabiting a given region.
A heavy metal that may be toxic in the environment at or above certain concentrations.
Cadmium is used in a number of ways; among them, the most important use being for
anti-corrosion protective electroplating of iron and steel Today, the only continued use
of cadmium is in batteries Cadmium exhibits several toxic effects. Classified as a
teratogen, carcinogen, and a probable mutagen, it has been implicated as the cause of
severe deleterious effects on fish and wildlife.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
146

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
carcinogen
chlordane
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
chlorination
chromium
chronic effects
coastal zone
combined sewer
overflows
contaminant
conventional
pollutants
copper
criteria
cumulative
impacts
Any substance that can cause or contribute to the development of cancer
A chlorinated organic insecticide having both stomach poison and fumigant properties.
Like DDT, it has a high degree of persistence in the environment and a tendency to be
concentrated in the food chain. USEPA completely banned the use of chlordane in 1988.
These include a class of persistent, broad-spectrum insecticides that linger in the
environment and accumulate in the food chain. Among them are DDT, aldnn, dieldnn,
heptachlor, chlordane, lindane, endnn, mirex, hexachlonde, and toxaphene. Other
examples include TCE, used as an industrial solvent.
The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage, or industrial waste to disinfect
or to oxidize undesirable compounds.
A trace element essential to humans; at high levels of exposure it is known to be toxic to
humans. Chromium produces inflammation of the skin and, if inhaled, damages the
nose People exposed to chromium fumes have a greater risk of developing lung cancer.
Lethal response or debilitating damage to an organism(s) resulting from prolonged
exposure to a toxicant(s) Exposure time may be several days, weeks, months, or even
years.
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
Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter that has an
adverse affect on habitats or organisms
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.
A metal that has many industrial uses. Uses include plumbing, electrical products,
metal plating, brass, pesticides, fungicides, paint, and wood preservatives. Sewage
sludge is enriched in copper.
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.
Culf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
147

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
DDT
The first chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide (chemical name Dichloro-Disphsdyl-
Trichloromethane). It has a half-life of 15 years and can collect in fatty tissues of
certain animals. USEPA banned registration and interstate sale of DDT for virtually
all but emergency uses in the U.S. in 1972 because of its persistence in the environment
and accumulation in the food chain.
designated uses
direct discharger
dissolved oxygen
(DO)
diversity
drainage basin
dredging
dredged
sediments
ecological impact
ecosystem
effluent
Those water uses identified in state water quality standards that must be achieved and
maintained as required under the Clean Water Act. Uses can include cold water
fisheries, public water supply, agriculture, etc
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
A statistical measurement that generally combines a measure of the total number of
species in a given environment with the number of individuals of each species. Species
diversity is high when there are many species with a similar number of individuals;
low when there are fewer species and when one or two species dominate
The land area drained by a nver or stream and its tributaries
Mechanical removal of sediment from the bottom of waterbodies. This disturbs the
ecosystem and causes silting that can have adverse impacts on aquatic life.
Bottom sediments associated with coastal/estuanne waters which are removed,
usually for navigational purposes, by mechanical means such as a bucket or hydraulic
dredge. The disposal of dredged sediments may occur on either upland or in coastal or
estuanne waters State and federal permit programs only allow sediments to be
disposed at designated sites and only in a manner that will not cause adverse effects on
organisms.
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.
emission
estuary
eutrophication
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
A semi-enclosed body of water, connected to the open sea, m which sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water from inland sources.
The process by which a body of water becomes overly rich in dissolved nutrients
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
148

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
fertilizer
freshwater
Geographic
Information
System (CIS)
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.
A computerized database of land use, land cover, and many other types of information
that can be statistically analyzed and graphically displayed using maps.
ground water
Subsurface water saturating soil or porous rock which often returns, with its nitrogen
loads, to surface streams during dry periods.
habitat
hydrocarbons
(HC)
The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism) lives and its
surroundings, both living and non-living.
Chemical compounds that consist of carbon and hydrogen
hypoxia
indicator
indirect discharge
land use
lead
Low levels of dissolved oxygen in water, defined as less than 2 mg/L.
In biology, an organism, species, or community whose characteristics define the presence
of specific environmental conditions
Introduction of pollutants from commercial and industrial facilities into a sewage
treatment plant
Refers to the ways in which a community or area makes use of its natural resources
A heavy metal that is hazardous to health if breathed or swallowed. Its use in
gasolines, paints, and plumbing compounds has been sharply restricted or eliminated by
federal laws and regulations
Louisianian Province A biogeographic area of the country within the Estuanes component of USEPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The area includes the coastline of
the Gulf of Mexico between and including Rio Grande, TX, and Anclote Anchorage, FL.
marine	Any equipment installed on board a vessel to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
sanitation	sewage and any process to treat sewage,
device (MSD)
metals	Metallic elements that can cause harm to living organisms and can accumulate in the
food chain. Often divided into common metals (e.g., zinc, iron, copper) and trace metals
(eg., chromium, cadmium, arsenic). Elements of primary concern in the environment are
the heavy metals
mercury	A heavy metal that can accumulate in the environment and is highly toxic if breathed
or swallowed. Industrial uses of mercury include manufacture of thermometers, mirrors,
pharmaceutical products, mercury vacuum pumps, agricultural fungicides and
germicides. Mercury can enter the environment via combustion of fossil fuels since
mercury is a trace element in both coal and tar. Mercury is a significant element in terms
of its potential toxicity.
Gulf of Mexico Toxle Substances &Pestlcldes Action Agenda (3.2)
149

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
microorganism
modeling
monitoring
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System (NPDES)
nickel
nitrate
nitrogen
nonpoint source
pollution
nutrients
oil spill
organic
organic chemicals/
compounds
organic matter
organism
Unicellular living organisms so small that individually they can usually only be seen
through a microscope, some of which cause diseases (e.g., bacteria, viruses).
An investigative technique using a mathematical or physical representation of a
system or theory, usually on a computer, that 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.
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.
An element that is considered relatively non-toxic to man The concentrations tolerated
by most marine organisms appear to be high The sources of nickel include stainless
steel, nickel-plating, storage batteries, spark plugs, and electrical contacts
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
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.
Chemicals required for growth and reproduction of plants. Excessive levels of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to excessive algae growth
An accidental or intentional discharge of oil that reaches bodies of water; can be
controlled by chemical dispersion, combustion, mechanical containment, and/or
adsorption
(1) Referring to or derived from living organisms. (2) In chemistry, any compound
containing carbon.
Animal or plant-produced substances containing mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from domestic
or industrial sources.
Any living thing
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
1SO

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
outfall
oxygen demand
PAHs
pathogens
PCBs
permit
persistence
phytoplankton
point source
pollutant
pollution
pretreatment
primary waste
treatment
The place where an effluent is discharged into receiving waters.
Consumption of oxygen by bacteria to oxidize organic matter.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) comprise a group of petroleum derived
hydrocarbon compounds that are found in the water and fish tissue of aquatic
organisms. PAHs have a tendency to bioaccumulate and many are known or suspected
carcinogens.
Microorganisms that can cause disease m humans, animals, or plants They may be
bacteria, viruses, or parasites and are found in sewage, in runoff from animal farms or
rural areas populated with domestic and/or wild animals, and in water used for
swimming Fish and shellfish contaminated by pathogens, or the contaminated water
itself, can cause senous illnesses.
A group of toxic, persistent chemicals (polychlonnated biphenyls) used in transformers
and capacitors for insulating purposes and in gas pipeline systems as a lubricant
Further sale or new use was banned by law in 1979.
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
Refers to the length of time a compound, once introduced into the environment, stays
there. A compound may persist for less than a second or indefinitely.
Microscopic plants that live in water such as algae.
A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or
emitted. Also, any single identifiable source of pollution, eg , a pipe, ditch, ship, ore
pit, factory smokestack.
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.
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 and oxygen demand from
domestic sewage.
priority pollutant A pollutant that is listed by USEPA as a pollutant of concern.
publicly-owned
treatment works
(POTW)
A waste-treatment works owned by a state, unit of local government, or Indian tribe,
usually designed to treat sewage and other domestic wastewaters.
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
151

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
qualitative
Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment of a parameter
quality assurance/
quality control
(QA/QC)
quantitative
receiving waters
residual
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 nver, 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.
restoration
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.
resuspension	Lifting of tn-place bottom sediments into the water column by waves, bottom currents, or
other mechanical disturbance.
runoff	Drainage of precipitation over the soil or a non-porous surface (eg , asphalt) to a
stream, river, or other receiving body of water
salinity	Amount, by weight, of dissolved salts in 1,000 units of water (reported as parts per
thousand).
sanitary sewers	Underground pipes that carry only domestic or industrial waste, not storm water.
secondary	The second step in most sewage treatment plants in which bacteria consume the
treatment	organic parts of the waste. It is accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and
oxygen in trickling filters or in the 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.
sediments	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.
septic tank	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
sewage	The waste and wastewater produced by residential and commercial establishments and
discharged into sewers.
sewage sludge	Sludge produced at a sewage treatment plant, the disposal of which is regulated under
the Clean Water Act
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
152

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
sewer
sludge
species
standards
stressor
storm sewer
storm water
stream
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
(SAV)
surface water
toxic
toxicant
toxicity
toxic pollutants
tributary
wastewater
wastewater
treatment plant
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
A semi-sol id residue from any of a number of air or water treatment processes Sludge
can be a hazardous waste.
A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding populations of organisms
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.
Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
A system of pipes (separate from sanitary sewers) that carries only water runoff from
building and land surfaces
Runoff caused by precipitation
A body of water, including brooks and creeks, that moves in a definite channel in the
ground driven by a hydraulic gradient.
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
Harmful to living organisms
A poisonous agent that kills or injures animal or plant life
The degree of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
Materials contaminating the environment that cause death, disease, and/or birth
defects in organisms that ingest or absorb them. The quantities and length of exposure
necessary to cause these effects can vary widely
A stream, creek, or nver that flows into a larger stream, creek or river.
The spent or used water that contains dissolved or suspended matter from individual
homes, a community, a farm, or an industry.
A facility containing a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other processes by which
pollutants are removed from water
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
153

-------
Glossary
Appendix C
water column
water quality
standards
watershed
wetlands
A vertical extent of water reaching from the surface to the bottom substrate of a
waterbody.
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.
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 soil conditions
Examples include- swamps, bogs, fens, and marshes. Often defined based on soil
characteristics.
zinc
An essential trace element to living organisms. It is toxic when present in high
concentrations and can act synergistically to increase the toxicity of other metals and
contaminants Uses of zinc-based chemicals include wood preservatives, pigments,
metallurgical operations, dry cell batteries, and its most important use as a catalyst in
vulcanizing rubbers Major point sources of atmospheric zinc are smelters, galvanizing
operations, and waste incinerators
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
164

-------
Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process
Appendix P
The Toxic Substances & Pesticides Committee
Co-Chairs:

Ray Wilhour
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Phil B. Bass
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Members:

Ronnie Albritton*
Georgia-Pacific
Robert Baker*
U.S. Geological Survey
William Benson
University of Mississippi
Kenneth Blan
Soil Conservation Service-Gulf of Mexico Program
Fred Bedsole
Scott Paper Company (Alternate)
Michael Brim
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Alternate)
Brian Burgess
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brian Cain
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
John Carlton*
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
George Cason
Gulf of Mexico Program—Citizens Advisory Committee
Emelise Cormier*
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Philip Crocker
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Phillip Dorn*
Shell Development Company
Roxane Dow*
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
David Engel
National Marine Fisheries Service
Joseph Ferrario
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Fisher
National Council for Air & Stream Improvement
Catherine Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Valanne Glooschendo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Alternate)
Don Grothe
Monsanto Company
Lore Hantske
Texas General Land Office
Matthew Keppinger
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Richard Kiesling*
Texas Water Commission
Arnold King
Soil Conservation Service
Julia Lytle
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Foster Mayer*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Merrill McPhearson
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Rick Medina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David Moore
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Randy Palachek
Engineering Science, Inc.
Richard Pierce
Mote Marine Laboratory
Russell Ray
Lower Colorado River Authority
Pat Roscigno
Minerals Management Service
William Schroeder
University of Alabama
Terry Wade
Geochemical & Environmental Research Group
"Steering Committee Member
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances &Pestleldes Action Agenda (3.2)
155

-------
Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process
Appendix P
Additional Participants In Action Agenda Workshop - November 16-17. 1892
Charles Adams
Al Ballard
Betty Brousseau
Fred Calder
Jon Cannon
Cathy Cashio
Jim Clark
Paul Conzelmann
Robert Fisher
Bill Holland
Brian Hughes
Doug Jacobson
Ralph Jennings
Fred Kopfler
Drew Leslie
Joel Lindsey
Doug Lipka
Beade Northcut
Randy Palachek
Lloyd Regier
Robert Rosene
Kerry St. Pe'
Haskell Simon
Butch Stegall
Kevin Summers
Bill Walker
Wesley Williams
Southern University
Gulf of Mexico Program
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Gulf of Mexico Program
Gulf of Mexico Program
Exxon Biomedical Sciences
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Council on Air & Stream Improvement
Gulf of Mexico Program
Alabama Department of Public Health
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Southern University
Gulf of Mexico Program
Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board
Engineering Science, Inc.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Unaffiliated
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Matagorda County Water Council
Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-EMAP
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Soil Conservation Service
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
156

-------
Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process
Appendix P
Written Comments on Strawman (1.11 Received From Ihe Following:
Ronnie Albritton
A1 Ballard
Robert A. Baker
Phil B. Bass
Joseph B. Ferrario
Fred Calder
John Carlton
Jim Clark
Philip Crocker
Tom Duke
Robert Fisher
Fred Kopfler
Brandt Mannchen
Foster L. Mayer
Richard Medina
David Moore
Richard Pierce
Bill Walker
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Gulf of Mexico Program
U.S. Geological Survey
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Exxon Biomedical Sciences
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Technical Resources, Inc.
National Council on Air & Stream Improvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sierra Club
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—WES
Mote Marine Laboratory
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 6
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances ftPestlddes Action Agenda (3.2)
167

-------
Participants In the Action Agenda Development Process
Appendix P
Written Comments on Draft 2.1 Received From the Following;
Robert A. Baker
Phil B. Bass
Eugene G. Bugliewicz
John Carlton
Emelise Cormier
Philip Crocker
Philip Dorn
Roxane Dow
David Engel
Joseph B. Ferrario
Catherine Fox
Dewayne Imsand
Doug Jacobson
Arnold King
Brandt Mannchen
Sonny Mayer
David Moore
Anthony S Pait
J. Rogers Pearcy
James Pulliam
Laura Radde
Randy Reed
Susan Rees
Tom Richardson
Winston Smith
Jim Yarbrough
U.S. Geological Survey
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 6
Shell Development Company
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Mobile District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 6
Soil Conservation Service
Sierra Club
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—WES
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Minerals Management Service
U.S Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—WES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Written Comments on Draft 3.1 Received From the Following:
Robert A. Baker
Phil B. Bass
Emelise Cormier
Philip Dorn
Catherine Fox
Douglas Fruge'
Kevin Summers
Mike White
Ray Wilhour
U.S. Geological Survey
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Shell Development Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—EMAP
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
168

-------
Toxicologlcal Profiles of TopTon Gulf wide Reseases
Appendix E
From Hlghait Toxicity To Lowest Toxicity:
Ammonium Ammonium sulfates are released in the manufacturing of
sulfates	ammonia, and used in freezing mixtures, flame-proofing fabrics
and paper, tanning, and galvanizing iron. The commercial grade is
used as fertilizer
Chlorine	Chlorine is the commonest of the four halogens which are among
the most chemically reactive of all the elements. Gaseous chlorine
is a bleaching agent in the paper and pulp and textile industries for
bleaching cellulose for artificial fibers. It is used in the manufacture
of chlorinated lime, inorganic and organic compounds such as
metallic chlorides, chlorinated solvents, refrigerants, pesticides, and
polymers (synthetic rubber and plastic). It is used as a disinfectant,
particularly for water and refuse, and in detinning and dezincing
iron. Chlorine reacts with body moisture to form acids. It is
extremely irritating to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. The
recommended disposal method for chlorine is to introduce it to
large volumes and solutions of reducing agents to neutralize it and
then flush to the sewer with water.
Ammonia The amount of ammonia produced every year by man is very small
compared to that produced by nature yearly. However, when
ammonia is found at a level that may cause concern, it is usually
produced either directly or indirectly by man. Ammonia dissolves
easily in water, and changes to ammonium (most common form in
wells, rivers, lakes, and wet soils). Eighty percent of all man-made
ammonia is used as fertilizer. A third of this is applied directly as
pure ammonia. The remainder is used to make other fertilizers
that contain ammonium. Ammonia is also used to manufacture
synthetic fiber, plastics, and explosives. Many cleaning products
also contain ammonia.
Chromium Chromium is a naturally occurring element that is found in
continental dust and volcanic dust and gases. Most of the
chromium and chromium compounds we use come from a
naturally occurring ore. It is mainly used for making steel and
other alloys. Chromium compounds are used in refractory brick for
the metallurgical industry and in the chemical industry for metal
finishing, manufacture of pigments, leather tanning, wood
treatment, and water treatment. In the process of mining ores
containing chromium, larger amounts of chromium are emitted
into the environment than from natural processes. The two largest
sources of chromium emission in the atmosphere are from the
chemical manufacturing industry and combustion of natural gas,
Gull of Mexico Toxic Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
159

-------
Toxlcologlcal Profiles of Top Ton Gulfwide Resoases
Appendix E
Hydrazine
Copper/
Copper
Compounds
Zlne/
Zino
Compounds
oil, and coal. Other sources include the incineration of municipal
refuse and sewage sludge, the emissions from cooling towers that
use chromium compounds as rust inhibitors, and wastewaters from
electroplating, leather tanning, and textile industries when
discharged into surface waters.
Hydrazine is an animal positive carcinogen. Because of its strong
reducing capabilities, it is used as an intermediate in chemical
synthesis and in photography and metallurgy. It is also used in the
preparation of anti-corrosives, textile agents, and pesticides, and as a
scavenging agent for oxygen in boiler water. Hydrazine is widely
used in pharmaceutical synthesis, and also as a rocket fuel.
Soluble copper compounds that are most commonly used in
agriculture are more hazardous to health than insoluble forms.
Occupational exposure forms of copper that are soluble or not
strongly attached to dust or dirt would most commonly occur in
agriculture, water treatment, and industries such as electroplating.
Zinc has many industrial uses, found in pure form or mixed with
other metals to form alloys such as chlorine, in the same way that
sodium is found in table salt. High levels of exposure to zinc can
occur from drinking water or other liquids that are stored in
galvanized metal containers, flow through galvanized pipes, or that
are contaminated by waste zinc from industrial sources or toxic
waste sites.
Cyanide/
Cyanide
Compounds
Ethylbensene
Sulfuric add
Cyanides are produced by certain bacteria, fungi and algae, and may
be found in a number of foods and plants; however, most cyanide
in the environment comes from industrial processes. Cyanide salts
are used in electroplating metallurgy, production of organic
chemicals, and photographic development.
Ethylbenzene occurs naturally in coal tar and petroleum, and
manmade products including paints, ink and insecticides. In
surface waters such as rivers and harbors, it breaks down by reacting
with other compounds naturally present in the water.
Sulfur dioxide in solution is a common solvent used as a
disinfectant in breweries and food factories, and bleaching textile
fibers, straw, and wicker.
Gulf of Mexico Toxie Substances & Pesticides Action Agenda (3.2)
160

-------