Critical Scientific
Research Needs Assessment
for the
Gulf of Mexico Program
Prepared by:
Research Subcommittee of the Monitoring, Modeling and Research Committee
for the Gulf of Mexico Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Mail Code: EPA/GMPO
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
-------
CONTENTS
Notice i
Abstract ii
Executive Summary iv
1. Introduction 1
Approach
2. Major Health and Environmental Focus Areas 2
3. GMP Focus Teams 2
4. GMP Research Sub-Committee 2
5. Major Environmental Issues and Topics 3
6. Technical Expert Panels 3
7. Research Priorities forthe Gulf 4
8. Inventory of Currentand Future Research 6
9. References 6
Critical Research Needs Assessment
10. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area- Estuarine Hypoxia Research Topic 6
11. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area - Coastal Hypoxia Research Topic 14
12. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area - Harmful Algal Blooms
in the Gulf of Mexico Research Topic 17
13. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area - Atmospheric Deposition Research Topic 21
14. Habitat Focus Area - Emergent Coastal Wetlands Research Topic 29
15. Habitat Focus Area - Seagrasses Research Topic 33
16. Public Health Focus Area - Biotic Pathogens Research Topic 36
17. Public Health Focus Area - Toxic Substances Research Topic 38
18. Invasive Species Focus Area - Invasive Species Research Topic 41
Appendices
Appendix A.
Research Subcommittee Members 46
-------
NOTICE
This document was prepared by the Research Subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico
Program's Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Committee (MMRC) with the assistance
of numerous technical experts, primarily from universities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
of the U.S. and from federal agencies with responsibility for the Gulf of Mexico. The
MMRC is a subcommittee of the Gulf of Mexico Policy Review Board, a chartered
Federal Advisory Committee to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This document has been reviewed by the members of the MMRC and the
Focus Teams of the Gulf of Mexico Program. While there will always be controversy
concerning opinions regarding priority research needs, the reader is reminded that teams
of practicing, technical experts, with detailed knowledge of the subject matter, provided
the recommendations contained herein.
The primary goal of this document is to identify critical research needs in areas of interest
to the Gulf of Mexico Program. Its sole purpose is to provide information to assist
federal, state, and private funding organizations, particularly partners of the Gulf of
Mexico Program, to develop research plans that support scientific needs of the Program.
It is not intended as a stand-alone document to be used by a single agency as a research or
budget document.
DISCLAIMER: This report and recommendations have been written as a part of the
activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board, a federal advisory
committee providing external policy information and advice to the Administrator and
other officials of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Board is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of issues related to the water quality
and living resources of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.
This report has not been review for approval by the EPA and, hence, its contents and
recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the EPA, nor of
other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
This Critical Research Needs Assessment describes the approach used by the Gulf of
Mexico Program to define the major environmental issues/problems of the Gulf of
Mexico and to determine the major scientific uncertainties that prevent a complete and
reliable definition of the problems and their causes. Research to solve these
uncertainties, and the scientific products (reports, methods, data, models) needed to
support environmental decisions in nine important issue areas are described.
11
-------
Executive Summary
The Gulf of Mexico is an ecologically, economically rich ecosystem that is increasingly impacted by
physical, chemical, and biological stresses directly related to human activity. The health and
environmental problems, and their causes, in the Gulf are numerous, complex, and often interconnected
and the financial and technical resources required to understand and solve them are limited. In response,
the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) is working to facilitate the protection and restoration of its coastal
habitats, sustain living resources, protect human health and the food supply, and ensure the recreational
use of Gulf shores, beaches and waters in ways that are consistent with the economic well-being of the
region.
In an effort to understand and solve the most important health/environmental problems in the
Gulf Coastal Zone, the GMP has formed four Focus Teams to address those problems: Nutrient
Enrichment, Habitat, Public Health and Invasive Species. In addition, the GMP organized the Monitoring,
Modeling and Research Committee (MMRC) as an operational committee to provide advice, identify
requirements, and coordinate monitoring, modeling, and research efforts in the GMP. In coordination
with the MMRC, nine panels of scientific experts from Gulf State and Federal agencies have identified
critical scientific research that is needed to understand and address environmental and public health issues
facing the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem.
The nine panels of experts provided the scientific expertise to create the Critical Scientific Research
Needs Assessment for the Gulf of Mexico Program. This document describes critical research needs
required to understand major health and environmental issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region and to lay the
foundation for future initiatives to address those needs. Issues and objectives identified by the nine panels
include:
I. Nutrient Enrichment - Estuarine Hypoxia
A. Determine the importance of anthropogenic versus "natural" processes in the formation of
hypoxia/anoxia in Gulf estuaries.
1. What evidence suggests that hypoxia occurs naturally in Gulf estuaries?
2. Determine the roles physical processes have in the onset of hypoxia.
3. Determine which nutrients, or combinations, are most strongly linked as contributing factors
to anoxia.
4. Determine how anthropogenic sources vs. natural sources of dissolved organic matter affect
the magnitude and species composition of algal production.
5. Determine the relative roles of external vs. internal, re-cycling nutrient supplies in
maintaining primary production.
B. Develop an index that will improve the assessment of "estuarine susceptibility" to nutrient
enrichment for Gulf of Mexico estuaries.
1. What are the most useful classification systems and their levels of predictability?
2. Are there biochemical early warning indicators of impending hypoxia formation?
3. Determine what environmental conditions are useful in predicting the intensity, frequency,
duration, and physical extent of hypoxia.
C. Determine how the frequency, duration and intensity of hypoxia/anoxia events affect estuarine
biological communities.
1. What migratory species are at greatest risk to life cycle completion due to hypoxia events?
2. Are macro-fauna community biomass and structure indicative of conditions favoring
hypoxia?
in
-------
3. Determine if there is a relationship between occurrence of hypoxia and changes in the food
web between benthic organisms and planktonic grazers.
D. If estuarine hypoxia is a problem in the Gulf of Mexico, determine what management practices
would have the greatest effect in minimizing these conditions.
1. What are the relative effects of nutrient loading, nutrient ratios, bathymetric modification,
regulation of freshwater input, etc., on hypoxia/anoxia in Gulf estuaries?
E. Develop a quantitative assessment of estuarine hypoxia/anoxia for Gulf estuaries.
1. Define the critical information/data required to assess the extent of hypoxia in Gulf estuaries.
2. Define the major uncertainties associated with available data to characterize the frequency,
duration, extent, and intensity of hypoxia in Gulf estuaries.
II. Nutrient Enrichment - Coastal Hypoxia
A. Determine the past, current, and potential impacts of hypoxia on commercially and economically
important species and ecosystem.
1. Conduct a retrospective analysis based on sediment cores and existing data bases.
2. Effects of other factors that affect the ecological health and fisheries of the Northern Gulf of
Mexico.
B. Define the dynamics and timing of transport of N (nitrogen) and other nutrients from the
landscape into streams and coastal waters.
C. Develop innovative demonstration projects, watershed partnerships, and adaptive management
practices.
1. Define geographic location and design criteria for wetlands and other strategies for effective
nitrate reduction.
2. Determine the influence of on-farm practices on transport of N and other nutrients into
streams.
3. Develop better methods to intercept agriculture nutrients between the fields and ground water
and adjacent streams.
4. Describe the effectiveness of current and potential policies and actions to reduce nutrient loss
on a basin scale.
III. Nutrient Enrichment - Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS)
A. Develop a catalog of investigators/facilities that are capable of and willing to provide analyses of
Gulf of Mexico HAB samples, as well as provide assistance to event response efforts.
B. Develop and enhance satellite and aircraft remote sensing capabilities to monitor and track blooms
at local and regional scales.
C. Develop economic impact figures for Gymnodinium breve red tides.
D. Assess cyanotoxin accumulation in higher trophic level species and threats to human and animal
health and determine the roles of nutrient enrichment and managed freshwater flow in bloom
development.
E. Develop guidelines for siting mariculture facilities in coastal waters that incorporate hydrographic
conditions, water quality data, rearing practices, and historical HAB events.
F. Identify HAB species in ballast sediment in ships from Gulf of Mexico ports.
IV
-------
IV. Atmospheric Deposition
A. Quantify atmospheric N deposition (oxidized, reduced, and dissolved organic N) to the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River Basin, estuaries and their watersheds, and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
1. Identify and fill data gaps in ambient monitoring for wet and dry N deposition.
a. Assess the applicability of available data to assess contribution of atmospherically
deposited N. Identify data gaps.
b. Evaluate the feasibility of expanding wet deposition measurements to include organic
N or a surrogate.
c. Collect basic monitoring data within the Gulf coastal land area for wet deposition of
N using National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network
(NADP/NTN) protocols.
d. Increase dry deposition measurements in the Mississippi Basin to supplement
NADP/NTN and Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) programs.
2. Collect atmospheric chemistry and meteorological data to validate locally the dry deposition
inferential model and to calibrate a synoptic-scale transport model.
a. Improve methods of estimating dry deposition of nutrient gasses and aerosols directly
over water surfaces.
b. Review the availability of weather data to satisfy the level of modeling precision
desired for coastal processes.
c. Access the adequacy of sampling rate and frequency of wet and dry deposition
observations.
B. Assess the role that increases in human and domestic animal population densities in the Mississippi
River Basin and states that border the Gulf of Mexico may have on direct and indirect atmospheric
N. deposition to the Gulf of Mexico and its estuaries.
1. Quantify the range of effect of nutrient deposition from urban, agricultural and industrialized
regions.
a. Investigate the availability of emissions inventories.
b. Improve the emission inventory for ammonia.
c. Examine the urban plume influence on total nutrient deposition, particularly direct
deposition, to Gulf waters through intensive, event-based wet deposition studies
coupled with dry deposition measurements.
C. Investigate the significance of the land-sea-air interface in estimating total deposition amounts.
1. Quantify the interactions of reactive N species with sea salt and the recirculation effect of the
land/sea breeze and the warm Gulf of Mexico waters.
a. Quantify the influence of sea salt aerosols on dry deposition estimates through co-
located measurements of particulate size distribution/chemical composition and trace
gas concentrations of oxidized N compounds.
b. Investigate the role of land and sea breezes on nutrient wet and dry deposition along
the Gulf Coast and over near-shore water.
V. Habitat - Emergent Coastal Wetlands
A. Evaluate the success of coastal emergent wetland restoration approaches, emphasizing re-
constructing ecological functions.
1. Conduct long-term studies to determine the success of emergent wetland restoration with
respect to ecological values.
-------
2. Assess the effects of large scale freshwater diversions on emergent wetlands and adjacent
sub-tidal systems and fishery species.
3. Determine the potential for Gulf-wide, standardized, rapid assessment protocols of wetland
function, loss, and restoration success.
B. Evaluate innovative means for performing successful restoration.
1. Develop innovative and/or low-cost techniques of restoration and assessments of optimal
configuration.
C. Determine the status, structure, and function of coastal wetland systems and develop tools to
evaluate these systems over large spatial and temporal scales.
1. Conduct spatial scale studies of the relationships among wetland systems linked
hydrologically and by common faunal use.
2. Develop and apply remote sensing and GIS tools for assessing long-term change in emergent
wetlands.
3. Conduct population and community dynamics studies to determine how these systems
function and change over time and to document ecological factors underlying long-term
changes.
D. Determine habitat linkages of coastal wetland and attendant estuarine systems.
1. Quantify the linkages among emergent wetlands, submerged systems, and fisheries.
E. Determine effects of disturbance (human and natural) on productivity and longevity of coastal
wetland systems.
1. Conduct studies of plant-herbivore/parasite/disease/contaminant disturbance relationships and
effects on productivity, reproduction/colonization, wetland loss, and habitat value of
emergent wetland type.
F. Determine the effects and interactions among biogeochemical factors and environmental stressors
on emergent wetland systems and habitat utilization.
1. Analyze the effects of biogeochemical factors and soil features on wetland species and on
species-species interactions.
VI. Habitat - Seagrasses
A. Assess the ecological status (areal and temporal extent) and condition of seagrasses in the Gulf of
Mexico and change overtime.
1. Quantify and map current seagrass acreage.
2. Identify indicators that best describe quality of seagrass beds and are appropriate for long-
term monitoring and assessment.
3. Define the monitoring and assessment protocols and sampling designs to routinely monitor
seagrass beds.
B. Identify factors which determine establishment and persistence of seagrasses.
1. Quantify and map geological and historical seagrass acreage to determine quantity and
locations of declines.
2. Determine cause-effect relationships and describe stress thresholds for effects.
3. Correlate seagrass condition with sources to determine cause-effect hypotheses.
4. Document major destruction caused by biological stressors and determine cause(s),
including eractions with anthropogenic stressors.
5. Define water column and sediment characteristics required for establishment of seagrasses in
areas to be restored.
VI
-------
6. Document and monitor restoration success rates of existing and new seagrass planting
technologies.
C. Determine the critical factors which determine natural structural and functional characteristics of
seagrass habitats.
1. Determine if and how habitat function (e.g., fish and shellfish utilization) differs in and
among different species and densities of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV).
2. Determine the relationships among primary and secondary productivity and landscape
features.
VII. Human Health - Pathogens
A. Pathogen Indicators
1. Are the current indicator recommendations adequate or are new indicators better at
predicting disease outcomes in human beings?
2. Is there a single indicator which could be used for both recreational and shellfish purposes
that would adequately protect the public?
3. Is there a method available to rapidly detect the indicator of interest?
4. Is there a difference in the risk of disease related to exposure from human vs. non-human
sources of indicator organisms?
B. Pathogenic Organisms
1. What organisms may be present at levels that would cause disease endpoint in humans when
indicator levels are acceptable?
2. Is there a method available to rapidly detect the organism of interest?
C. Pathogen Source Tracking
1. What are the best methodologies to use to conduct source tracing?
2. Of the methodologies identified above, what is the minimum dataset necessary to construct a
valid library of sources?
3. To what geographic extent can a bacterial library be applied?
VIII. Human Health - Toxic Substances
A. Characterization of Mercury and other toxic compound levels in aquatic species
IX. Invasive Species
A. Risk Analysis
1. What methods, data, and models are required to assess the risk of trade pathways and trade
partner sources associated with invasive species introductions?
B. Prevention of new introductions
1. Determine preventive strategies and develop model control mechanisms.
2. Develop risk assessments for potential and initial presence of invasive aquatic species.
3. Inventory Gulf marine waters for invasive species.
C. Reducing the spread of established invasive species populations
1. Develop basin-specific and Gulf-wide databases to pinpoint and track invasions and spread of
invasive aquatic species.
2. Conduct a status and trends analysis of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.
3. Develop monitoring protocols for incorporation into existing water quality monitoring to
identify presence of invasive species.
4. Inventory Gulf marine waters for invasive species.
vn
-------
D. Ballast water - management and treatment
1. What methods, data, and models are required to assess the risk of ballast water pathways and
trade partner sources associated with invasive species introductions?
2. Develop mechanisms to ensure that open ocean exchanges have been performed.
3. Develop mechanisms to regulate ballast water discharge.
4. Refine methods/procedures for monitoring compliance of ballast exchange in the Gulf.
5. Characterize biological contents of ballast discharges in major ports.
6. Establish a long-term database of shipping activities in Gulf ports.
7. Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange in killing or removing organisms in
ballast water and sediments.
8. Determine the effectiveness of ballast water exchange in preventing the establishment of
reproducing, self-sustaining populations of invasive species.
9. Determine the effectiveness of alternate compliance technologies in killing or removing
ballast organisms and preventing established populations of invasive aquatic species.
E. Ballast Water - ecosystem effects
1. What methods, data, and models are required to assess the risk of ballast water pathways and
trade partner sources associated with invasive species introductions?
2. Determine the ecosystem vulnerability to invasive species of the Gulf ports and adjacent
inland waters.
3. Determine similar vulnerabilities for aquaculture and water garden imports, handling
organisms and preventing established populations of invasive aquatic species.
F. Shrimp viruses
1. Develop best management practices to identify and control shrimp viruses during delivery of
seafood.
2. Develop simple probes to determine the presence/absence of shrimp viruses.
3. Establish a monitoring protocol/program to test for the presence of virus in wild
shrimp populations.
Vlll
-------
1. Introduction
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) comprises
approximately 600,000 square miles of
ecologically and economically rich,
interconnected ecosystems which are
increasingly impacted by physical, chemical,
and biological stresses directly related to
human activity. Anthropogenic pollutants
enter the Gulf waters primarily through the
coastal watersheds. The Mississippi River
Drainage Basin, which encompasses
approximately two-thirds of the contiguous
U.S., is the largest watershed influencing the
Gulf. Atmospheric deposition serves as an
additional source of pollutants to Gulf waters.
Environmental problems are magnified by the
relatively closed circulation of the Gulf and
the numerous and sensitive habitats which
border it.
General signs of diminishing
environmental quality include debris on
shorelines, beach closures, reduced water
clarity and quality, fish consumption
advisories, shellfish bed closures, and fishing
bans. More quantitative evidence of
environmental degradation was provided by
monitoring of the Louisiana Province (Rio
Grande, TX to Anclote Key, FL) estuaries
during 1991-94. This effort determined that
25±6% of sediments in the province displayed
poor biological conditions, measured by
benthic community structure, and 14±7% of
the area was characterized by poor water
clarity, the presence of marine debris, and
elevated levels offish tissue contaminants
(Macauley et al. 1999). Based on this
assessment as well as data provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
overall condition of the Gulf Coast was
described as "fair to poor" (USEPA 2001).
There is concern that increased human use
of the watersheds and waters of the Gulf is
affecting the overall quality of this important,
large marine ecosystem. The population of
the coastal counties of the Gulf has
experienced significant growth. Between
1990 and 2000, there was a 16.6% increase -
1,300,958 more people - in the Gulf coastal
counties. With these rapidly growing
demands on the natural resources, we must
develop a better understanding of the
environmental problems and their causes so
that practical and effective
management/control alternatives can be
developed, assessed, and implemented in a
timely and credible fashion. These concerns
led to the creation of the Gulf of Mexico
Program (GMP). The GMP's goals are to
"facilitate the protection and restoration of the
coastal marine waters of the Gulf 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."
This document describes the critical
research needs required to understand major
health and environmental issues in the Gulf,
determine their cause(s), and to support
environmental decisions in nine areas. The
issues, related scientific uncertainties, and
relevant research priorities are presented to
assist federal, state, private, and public
members of the GMP to incorporate these
research needs in their annual research
planning and budgeting exercises. This is not
a stand-alone research planning or budget
document.
The Research Needs Assessment was
created in partnership with EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), other
Federal Agencies, the five Gulf States, and
key stakeholders across the Gulf. The
research identified reinforces a number of the
critical needs identified in both the EPA,
ORD Strategic Plan and Specific Research
Plans. However, unlike EPA's Plans, this
document focuses on key issues and
information gaps for the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem. While many of the Gulf needs
overlap with national needs identified by
EPA, this document identifies needs that are
unique to the Gulf that fall under the purview
of other Federal agencies as well as EPA.
The ultimate objective of this effort is to
encourage and assist those organizations and
institutions responsible for conducting
environmental research to focus on the needs
of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and to
support those needs where possible. An
important secondary objective is to assist Gulf
scientists in preparing research proposals that
support the critical scientific needs.
-------
2. Major Health and Environmental
Focus Areas
The health and environmental problems,
and their causes, in the Gulf are numerous,
complex, and often interconnected and the
financial and technical resources required to
understand and solve them are limited. For
these reasons, the GMP has focused its
available resources toward understanding and
solving the most important
health/environmental problems of the Gulf
coastal zone. The following health and
environmental Focus Areas and related
objectives were identified as most important:
Nutrient Enrichment - to facilitate
successful actions that will, through their
combined effect, make advances toward
protecting the waters of the Gulf from the
deleterious effects of nutrient enrichment
from all contributing sources and thereby
enhance biodiversity, aesthetics, recreational
opportunities, and economic benefits.
Habitat - to identify and champion
candidate actions and/or projects that prevent,
slow, stop or reverse losses of important Gulf
habitats, enhance/restore the functions and
values of degraded Gulf habitats, or protect
rare or otherwise noteworthy Gulf habitats.
Public Health - to facilitate actions to
reduce illnesses resulting from consumption
of seafood harvested from the Gulf or from
contact with its waters.
Invasive Species - to facilitate actions to
reduce potential impacts on human health,
important Gulf fisheries, and the economy of
the Gulf region resulting from the
introduction of undesirable, invasive
organisms.
3. GMP Focus Teams
Four Focus Teams, one for each of the
above Focus Areas, were organized to: (a)
Identify major health/environmental problems
related to their respective Focus Areas; (b)
Define goals that, if accomplished, will assist
measurably in fully understanding and
correcting these problems; (c) Describe
critical methods, data, or models needed to
accomplish these goals; (d) Periodically
evaluate alternative solutions to the problems
as new data and information are generated;
and (e) Recommend management practices to
solve specific problems. Focus Team
members include technical representatives
from state and federal organizations,
university scientists, public organizations and
citizen groups, and industry.
The Focus Teams identify and annually
update long-term objectives and annual
performance goals required to understand and
solve health and environmental problems of
the Gulf related to their Focus Areas. Once
endorsed by the GMP Policy Review Board,
these goals and milestones provide direction
to the Research Sub-Committee for
recommending research priorities for the
GMP.
4. GMP Research Subcommittee
The GMP organized the Monitoring,
Modeling, and Research Committee (MMRC)
as an operational committee to provide
advice, identify requirements, and coordinate
efforts on monitoring, modeling, and research
issues for the GMP. The MMRC provides a
forum for regular interaction among members
of the monitoring, modeling, and research
community to assist the GMP, especially its
four Focus Teams, in the application of
monitoring data, models, and research
findings to support scientific assessments and
decision-making in response to key health and
environmental problems of the Gulf
ecosystem. Three subcommittees, Monitoring,
Modeling, and Research, were organized
under the MMRC.
The Research Subcommittee of the
MMRC works with the Focus Teams and
assists in:
1. Defining priority research needs to
substantially increase our
understanding of major health and
environmental problems of the Gulf
Ecosystem, determine cause(s), and
identify and assess environmental
management/control options/remedies.
2. Communicating these needs to the
research community;
3. Identifying and communicating past,
current, and planned research activities
in other programs that may meet these
needs;
4. Seeking support from GMP Partners to
meet GMP research needs;
-------
5. Integrating research results to support
comprehensive assessments;
6. Recommending major research
milestones to the Focus Teams that
will substantially increase our
understanding of a health or
environmental problem, its causes,
and/or possible remedies;
7. Reviewing and ranking proposed
applied research and assessment
projects for GMP funding; and
8. Performing peer scientific review of
technical products produced and
published by the GMP.
Membership includes senior technical
representatives from federal, state,
business/industry, and Gulf state universities
with responsibility for, or interests in, the
Gulf. Technical capabilities of the
subcommittee were buttressed by including
the co-chairs of Expert Panels (see description
below) as members and, through them,
linking to technical experts in the Gulf.
(Please see Appendix A for the names and
parent organizations of the GMP Research
Sub-Committee members).
5. Major Environmental Issues and
Topics
Since the technical breadth of the Focus
Areas is very broad, in most instances, the
Research Subcommittee identified several
specific Research Topics within each area for
detailed study. For example, the Nutrient
Enrichment Focus Area was subdivided into
four Research Topics - Estuarine Hypoxia,
Coastal Hypoxia, Harmful Algal Blooms, and
Atmospheric Deposition (of nutrients); the
Habit Focus Area was subdivided into
Emergent Coastal Wetlands and Seagrasses;
and Public Health was subdivided into
Pathogens and Toxic Substances. The
Invasive Species Focus Area was not
subdivided.
The Research Subcommittee reviewed
reports from previous efforts, e.g., the May
1993 Gulf of Mexico Marine Research Plan
(Gulf of Mexico Marine Research Program,
1993), to further characterize the research
requirements for each Focus Area/Issue. The
Subcommittee also reviewed the research
planning efforts of the cooperating federal and
state partners to identify candidate research
needs. The Focus Teams and the Research
Subcommittee confirmed the importance of
these Research Topics, using criteria to assess
the magnitude of potential health &
environmental effects such as:
1. Known or potential severity to human
health or ecological health,
2. Time scale over which the effect
might occur,
3. Ease with which the effect could be
reversed,
4. Level of human or ecological
organization impacted (e.g.,
individuals, populations,
communities), and
5. Geographic scale of the effect.
Through this process, nine Research
Topics (Table 1) were identified as important
and have become the organizing themes
around which Technical Expert Panels were
organized and research/assessment objectives
and research priorities developed.
6. Technical Expert Panels
Each Technical Expert Panel consisted of
recognized subject matter experts, primarily
from Gulf states, and was co-led by one state
and one federal expert (see Research Topics
which follow for names and affiliations of
expert panel representatives). The Expert
Panels were asked to describe the problem
area(s) related to each Research Topic and to
assess the state of the science regarding our
understanding of each problem, its causes,
and options for addressing each problem.
Then, identify the major unknowns requiring
research to provide the science or tools
needed by environmental managers to assess,
understand, or take action to address the
problems. Finally, identify the major, related,
scientific uncertainties as testable scientific
-------
hypotheses or scientific questions, and rank
them (research needs) according to the
magnitude of uncertainty they would resolve.
This effort led to a well defined description of
the research priorities for the Gulf Ecosystem.
(Note: research needs were not prioritized for
all research topics)
The specific research requirements to
address these unknowns were identified and
prioritized, in part, on the following factors:
1. Breadth of applicability of the
research,
2. Extent to which the research will
facilitate or improve risk assessment or
risk management,
3. Size of the anticipated user community
for the proposed research product,
4. Degree to which the problems,
source(s), and risk(s) have been
characterized to develop risk
management options,
5. Existence and acceptability of
available risk management options,
6. Degree to which new or improved
technical solutions might prevent or
mitigate the risk efficiently, cost-
effectively, and in a manner acceptable
to stakeholders; and
7. Potential for research collaboration
among the GMP Partners.
The desire was to provide sufficient level of
detail in defining research needs to enable the
GMP to solicit research support from partner
members. This was a major responsibility of
the Expert Panels, working with the respective
focus teams.
7. Research Priorities for the Gulf
The Expert Panels were guided by the
following approach to identify and describe
the Research Priorities for the Gulf:
1. Define the research priorities in terms
of the strategic goals of the GMP
(Protect public health and the food
supply; Maintain and improve Gulf
habitats that support living resources;
and Maintain and enhance the
sustainability of Gulf living resources)
and the important health and
environmental issues that were
identified as the focus for achieving
those goals. The GMP had identified
four Focus Areas (Habitat, Nutrient
Enrichment, Human Health, and
Invasive Species). Nine Research
Topics were identified as high priority
in meeting the GMP strategic goals.
2. For each Research Topic, describe the
most important objectives related to
meeting the strategic goals of the
GMP.
3. For each objective, define the major
uncertainties in fully understanding the
problem(s), conducting hazard
assessments, and recommending
remedial actions to correct the
problem(s).
4. Describe the ongoing and planned
research that addresses, at least in part,
the major uncertainties.
5. Identify the unmet research needs
(major uncertainties that are not
adequately resolved by ongoing or
planned research).
The research priorities that have been
identified in FY2003 for each of the nine
Research Topics follow in the research
needs sections below. Each section is
organized using a format that corresponds
to the steps mentioned above and presents
the un-met research needs for that
Research Topic. These research needs
should be considered by Gulf
environmental organizations as important
projects for funding support. It is
anticipated that these un-met research
needs will also be used by the GMP
Partners and the research community as
guidance for developing their research
programs for the Gulf Ecosystem.
-------
Table 1. Gulf of Mexico Focus Areas and Research Topics
Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area
Goals and Objectives of Focus Team: Protect the waters of the Gulf from the
deleterious effects of nutrient enrichment, from all contributing sources, and thereby
enhance biodiversity and aesthetic, recreational and economic benefits.
Research Topic 1: Estuarine Hypoxia
Research Topic 2: Coastal Hypoxia
Research Topic 3: Harmful Algal Blooms
Research Topic 4: Atmospheric Deposition
Habitat Focus Area
Goals and Objectives of Focus Team: Identify and champion candidate actions and/or
projects that prevent, slow, stop or reverse losses of important Gulf habitats;
enhance/restore the functions and values of degraded Gulf habitats; or protect rare or
otherwise noteworthy Gulf habitats.
Research Topic 5: Emergent Coastal Wetlands
Research Topic 6: Seagrasses
Public Health Focus Area
Goals and Objectives of Focus Team: Facilitate actions to reduce human illnesses
resulting from: consuming fecal pathogens in shellfish, consuming naturally-occurring
pathogens in shellfish, consuming marine biotoxins in shellfish, non-consumptive
exposure to marine biotoxins, exposure to pathogens through recreational contact, and
exposure to toxic substances in Gulf seafood.
Research Topic 7: Public Health - Pathogens
Research Topic 8: Public Health - Toxic Substances
Invasive Species Focus Area
Goals and Objectives of Focus Team: Facilitate actions to reduce potential impacts to
human health, important Gulf fisheries, and the economy of the Gulf region resulting
from the introduction of undesirable, invasive organisms.
Research Topic 9: Invasive Species
-------
8. Inventory of Current and Future
Research
Two parallel approaches will be pursued to
define which of the research needs are being
effectively addressed by current research
activities or planned, budgeted research to be
initiated in 1-3 years. The first approach will
be accomplished by the Research Sub-
Committee who will provide a comprehensive
update of this needs assessment document an
updated review of the research needs every
five years. A second approach is through
maintenance of a public database of ongoing
and planned research in the Gulf region
(
) developed by the Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. Information
regarding research in the four Focus Areas
(Nutrient Enrichment, Habitat, Public Health,
and Invasive Species), requested from
scientific organizations and university
departments, include: Project Title, Agency/
Organization, Points-of-Contact, Researchers,
Starting and Ending Dates, Mission, Update.
This database is updated on an annual basis.
Collectively, these two approaches should
identify the majority of the current and
planned research relevant to the selected
Focus Areas of the GMP.
9. References
Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R
Goodspeed, D.G. Remer, C.M.
Blackwell, and J.J. McDonough, III.
1990. 50 Years of Population Change
along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010.
U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean
Service, Silver Spring, MD. 41 p.
Gulf of Mexico Regional Marine
Research Program, 1993, Gulf of
Mexico Marine Research Plan 1992-
1996, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Macauley, J.M., J.K. Summers, and
V.D. Engle. 1999. Estimating the
Ecological Condition of the Estuaries
of the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 57: 59-83,
1999.
USEPA, 1999. Ecological Condition
of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico.
EPA 620-R-98-004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf
Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
USEPA, 2001. National Coastal
Condition Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development and Office of Water.
EPA-620/R-01/005. Washington, D.C.
10. Nutrient Enrichment Focus
Area -Estuarine Hypoxia
Research Topic
: Over one-
half of the estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf) exhibit moderate to severe dissolved
oxygen depletion (hypoxia/anoxia), one of the
key indicators of'ecosystem health'. While
anthropogenic nutrient over-enrichment is
perceived to be a primary cause of
hypoxia/anoxia, the estuaries of the Gulf
display significant diversity in freshwater
discharge, residence time, and stratification
which impart varying susceptibility to nutrient
loading that confound a simple cause and
effect relationship.
Overview and Importance. Over the past
several decades there has been increased
concern about the negative effects of
anthropogenic nutrient over-enrichment on
estuarine and coastal ecosystems, a process
often referred to as 'eutrophication'. While
there is evidence that estuarine eutrophication
is widespread in United States (82 of 122
estuaries were found to exhibit moderate to
high levels eutrophication: Bricker et al.
1999), there are large differences in: (1) the
sources of nutrients, (2) the biological
responses to and indicators of nutrient over-
enrichment, and (3) the degree of
susceptibility to nutrient over-enrichment, for
different estuaries.
While historically both point and non-
point sources of nutrients have been important
contributors to anthropogenic nutrient inputs
to estuaries, a large percentage of point source
nutrient inputs (e.g. municipal and industrial
discharges) have been regulated considerably
over the past 30 years. During this time,
however, non-point source nutrient inputs
(e.g. agriculture, atmospheric and septic tank
-------
inputs) have increased in most watersheds,
particularly for nitrogen (N). As a result, both
the concentration and loading of nutrients has
increased in many systems.
Unlike many other anthropogenic
pollutants (e.g. organic contaminants and
metals), the negative effects of nutrient over-
enrichment can not be measured in terms of
increased body burden or LD-50s, Lethal
Dose-50, of indicator organisms. As a result,
the expression of eutrophication is assessed
indirectly, most often by quantifying one or
more of the following factors: (1) chlorophyll-
a concentration, (2) epiphyte overgrowth of
seagrasses, (3) nuisance macroalgae density,
(4) loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, (5)
the presence of nuisance/toxic algae, and (6)
the presence of hypoxic/anoxic conditions
(Brickeretal. 1999). However, such
assessments are often compromised by the
fact there is a great natural variance between
different estuaries. For example, nuisance
macroalgae (potential "weed" species, e.g.,
Cladophora and Ulva) are often naturally
occurring but can rapidly increase biomass
production following nutrient enrichment. In
cool-temperate estuaries on the coast of
Maine large brown algae (i.e., kelps such as
Laminaria) provide important habitats while
estuaries along the Gulf coast have naturally
had varying densities of seagrasses,
independent of the degree of anthropogenic
nutrient loading to which they have been
exposed.
In addition, the susceptibility of estuarine
ecosystems to nutrient over-enrichment is in a
large part regulated by the physical,
geomorphologic and latitudinal characteristics
of the estuary. For example, freshwater
residence time, vertical salinity/density
stratification, bottom depth and topography
and seasonal temperature patterns will all
affect the response(s) of an estuarine
ecosystem to nutrient inputs (Pennock et al.
1999). As a result, ecosystem production and
'health' may be positively or negatively
affected by the same level of nutrient loading,
depending on the susceptibility of the system
to loading. For example, Nixon (1980)
observed a general pattern of increase in
estuarine production with increasing
freshwater input. In contrast, increased
nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay and
the Louisiana-Texas coast have been
associated with negative food web alterations
and hypoxic/anoxic events (Officer 1984;
Rabalais et al. 1994).
Depending on the estuarine characterization
scheme used, the Gulf contains between 32
(Bianchi et al. 1999) and 37 (Bricker et al.
1999) estuaries. One of the striking features
of these estuaries is their diversity in
geomorphologic (Schroeder and Wiseman
1999), physical (Solis and Powell 1999) and
biogeochemical (McKee and Baskaran 1999;
Turner and Rabalais 1999; Pennock et al.
1999; Twilley et al. 1999) characteristics. Of
particular importance to hypoxia is the broad
variability among Gulf estuaries in total
nitrogen loading rates (1-5000 mM m-2 y-1;
Turner and Rabalais 1999), vertical salinity
stratification (vertically well-mixed to >10 ppt
change over a 0.5 m depth in the water
column; Schroeder and Wiseman 1999), and
freshwater residence time (3-350 days; Solis
and Powell 1999). As a result of these factors
and the warm-temperate climate that supports
high metabolic rates year-round, the potential
for the formation of hypoxic/anoxic bottom
waters is great.
Several studies provide assessments of
estuarine hypoxia in the Gulf (Whitledge
1985; Rabalais 1992; Bricker et al. 1999;
Ritter and Montagna 1999). Each of these
studies found significant summertime bottom
oxygen depletion in numerous estuaries.
Interestingly, however, is the fact that there is
not a strong congruence between the
conclusions drawn for many of the estuaries
in the different assessments. These
differences may at times result from changes
in these systems during the 15-year range
between these assessments; however, it is also
apparent that the lack of quantifiable data
analyzed over similar spatial and temporal
scales has contributed to these differences.
During our panel discussions,
the Technical Expert Panel (TEP)
acknowledged the importance of
-------
'hypoxia/anoxia' as a regulator of 'ecosystem
health' and as an indicator of nutrient over-
enrichment in estuaries of the Gulf. We
were, however, surprised by the lack of
congruence from the several Gulf-wide
assessments of hypoxia over the past 20 years.
We believe that this variance is due in large
part to the fact that these assessments were
frequently based on a 'presence/absence'
scheme rather than quantifiable data sets that
were spatially and temporally robust. It is
also clear that the large range of
geomorphologic and physical characteristics
in Gulf estuaries will result in different factors
being dominant forcing functions in different
estuaries.
The TEP also expressed concern that the
presence of hypoxia/anoxia is frequently
taken, a priori, as an indicator of degradation
in estuarine 'ecosystem health' when, in fact,
conditions in many Gulf estuaries (e.g. low
tidal energy, strong vertical stratification and
warm temperatures) are conducive to oxygen
depletion even in the absence of increased
anthropogenic nutrient loading. This problem
is made more acute by the fact that oxygen
saturation values during the summer are often
near the accepted level of concern (5 mg/1)
established for cool-temperate estuaries of the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In addition, the
panel felt that the well-documented and
widespread occurrence of hypoxia/anoxia in
the Mississippi River Plume has diluted
efforts to understand and manage the effects
of nutrients on the health of Gulf estuaries,
despite the fact that a large percentage of the
population lives in close proximity to these
systems.
As a result, there was strong consensus
that protocols/techniques must be developed
that can distinguish between 'natural' and
anthropogenic hypoxia/anoxia events and be
able to quantify 'nutrient susceptibility' for
Gulf estuaries. For example, continuous
monitoring instruments may provide
increased temporal sampling while at the
same time furnishing information on predawn
oxygen concentration and day/night
variability that might prove to be valuable
'indicator' parameters.
: These discussions
led to a consensus on the following research
needs.
1. Develop a quantitative assessment of
estuarine hypoxia/anoxia for the Gulf
that provides a spatially and
temporally robust framework
describing hypoxia/anoxia in these
systems.
a. What information is needed to better
assess the extent of hypoxia in Gulf
estuaries?
b. What are the major uncertainties
associated with available data to
characterize the frequency, duration,
extent, and intensity of hypoxia in Gulf
estuaries?
c. How should hypoxia be defined for the
range of estuarine types in the Gulf?
d. What are the most appropriate measures
of dissolved oxygen, e.g., absolute
concentration or a measure of
saturation?
2. Develop an index that will improve the
assessment of 'estuarine susceptibility'
to nutrient enrichment for Gulf
estuaries. In addition to 'nutrient
loading', this index must incorporate
the roles of residence time, vertical
stratification and other physical
factors.
a. What are the most useful classification
systems (e.g., flushing/stratification-
based, geomorphologically-based,
etc...) across the spectrum of Gulf
estuaries that reduce variability in
assessment of hypoxia susceptibility?
b. What is the level of predictability of the
various classification systems?
c. What might be a cascading suite (e.g.
change in phytoplankton community
dominance, development of macro-
algal blooms, etc...) of early biotic-
based warning indicators of hypoxia
formation?
d Are there any biochemical early
warning indicators of impending
hypoxia formation?
e. Assess the evidence that characterizes
the occurrence and magnitude of
predawn hypoxia conditions in Gulf
estuaries?
f Does predawn hypoxia tend to occur
regularlyunder a suite of similar
environmental conditions?
-------
g. Does the pattern in the variability of
hypoxia at smaller scales predict the
intensity, frequency, duration, and
physical extent of hypoxia at larger
scales?
3. Determine the importance of
anthropogenic versus 'natural'
processes in the formation of
hypoxia/anoxia in Gulf estuaries.
a. What is the evidence that hypoxia
occurred or continues to occur naturally
in Gulf estuaries?
b. What roles do physical processes play in
the onset of hypoxia, e.g., water
circulation, residence times, freshwater
inflow, and stratification?
c. Which nutrients or combinations are
most strongly linked as a contributing
factor (s) to hypoxia?
d. How do anthropogenic sources (e.g.,
wastewater treatment plant effluent) vs
natural allochthonous and
autochthonous dissolved organic matter
affect the magnitude and species
composition of algal production with
potential effects on hypoxia; e.g., the
more phytoplankton organic matter
passed up the food web through the
copepod-to-fish pathway would leave
lessor amounts available to the
microbial loop to effect a greater level
ofhypoxia?
e. Under what conditions might bacteria
out-compete autotrophic phytoplankton
for nutrients and thereby limit increased
in situ organic carbon formation by
photosynthesis?
f Which estuaries provide the potential for
documenting sedimentary paleo-redox
conditions?
g. What is the relative role of
allochthonous organic matter
contributing directly to BOD?
h. What are the relative roles of external
nutrient supplies versus internal
recycling to maintain primary
production?
i. Are there conditions (e.g. turbid or
blackwater systems) where light
limitation serves to increase or decrease
hypoxia formation?
j. Just because an estuary has a naturally-
low DO concentration, due to high
temperature and salinity, does not mean
that wasteloads are not a
problem/concern. Low natural DO
solubility means the assimilative
capacity for pollutants is low, so
wasteloads should be limited more than
for receiving waters with naturally
higher DO solubility. More research
needs to be done on the implications of
naturally-low DO solubility due to high
temperature and salinity for managing
wasteloads (including nutrients).
Cautionary note: For Objectives # 2 & #3 it is
important to note that it is desirable to
consider the relative change in spatial area
and duration as indicators of change where
appropriate, particularly in contrast to merely
presence or absence.
4. Assess how the frequency, duration
and intensity of hypoxia/anoxia events
affect biological communities across
the broad gradient of Gulf estuaries.
a. Which migratory species are at greatest
risk to life cycle completion because of
hypoxia formation? Do these vary with
the 'type/class' of estuary?
b. Can macrofauna community biomass
and structure serve as an indicator of
conditions favoring hypoxia?
c. Is there a relationship between the
occurrence of hypoxia and changes in
the food web between benthic organisms
(e.g. oysters) and planktonic grazers
(e.g. jellies, zooplankton and fish)?
5. If estuarine hypoxia is a problem in
Gulf estuaries, determine what
management practices would have the
greatest effect in minimizing these
conditions.
a. What are the relative effects of nutrient
loading, nutrient ratios, bathymetric
modification (e.g., dredging), regulation
of freshwater input, etc. on
hypoxia/anoxia in Gulf estuaries?
-------
b. What are the anticipated effects of
climate change on estuarine hypoxia in
the Gulf?
: All of the research
priorities have relevance for natural resource
decision makers. Team members recommend
that all research objectives be given
consideration as resources become available
but recognize that resources will likely limit
implementation of the full suite of objectives.
Therefore, several objectives are especially
important for earliest consideration. The
following objectives were selected from the
list with a brief rationale for their early
inclusion in a research program designed to
reduce critical uncertainties and improve risk
management decisions regarding Gulf
estuarine hypoxia.
#3. Determine the importance of
anthropogenic versus 'natural' processes in
the formation of hypoxia/anoxia in Gulf
estuaries. This objective is singled out
because it is critical to determine early in the
decision process which estuaries possibly
experienced hypoxia naturally. This could
influence the level of expectations and nature
and extent of any management actions
designed to reduce hypoxia through
management activities. Although the
objective does not list the possibility of past
management actions that may have reduced
the frequency, duration, and magnitude of
hypoxia that occurred naturally, that
possibility exists, especially for smaller
estuaries where intervention through
engineering efforts may have occurred, e.g.,
opening or deepening channels at the passes
to the open Gulf waters. The converse is also
important to know-Did any earlier
management efforts to reduce hypoxia
exacerbate this problem?
#2. Develop an index that will improve the
assessment of 'estuarine susceptibility' to
nutrient enrichment for Gulf estuaries. This
objective ranks very high. Development of a
Gulf estuarine 'susceptibility index' would
help decision makers determine where to
focus remediation resources and protect
estuaries that are presently minimally
ecologically impaired.
#4. Assess how the frequency, duration, and
intensity of hypoxia/anoxia events affects
biological communities across the broad
gradient of Gulf estuaries. One of the first
questions frequently asked by various
stakeholders is the "so-what question" - so
the estuary experiences hypoxia, does it affect
negatively recreational and commercial
species or other aesthetic values that have
important economic value? The biological
connection must be made to hypoxia
regarding various land use activities that
cause an increase in hypoxia, especially
anthropogenic increases over naturally
occurring hypoxia. For example, although
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) had
markedly declined in Chesapeake Bay by the
time of initiation of the Chesapeake Bay
Program in 1977, stakeholders wanted to
know whether the decline was to any degree a
natural event. This question stimulated early
work on collection of sediment cores and
biostratigraphy to determine if the SAV
decline had an earlier antecedent.
We consider Research Objective # 5 to be in a
virtual tie with Objective # 4. The rationale is
that an evaluation of the relative effects from
different "sources" of nutrients contributing to
hypoxia would allow those estuaries where
the characterization has been completed to
more effectively move forward in addressing
the source issue without waiting.
Milestones for Research Program
Implementation and Integration:
1. Workshop on Estuarine Hypoxia. A
workshop is needed to assess the
feasibility of developing a provisional
classification system that would
facilitate determination of the power of
extrapolation of hypoxia-based research
findings across one or more Gulf
estuarine systems. The assumption is
made that resources to implement a
Gulf-wide estuarine research hypoxia
program are limited and the utility of
extrapolation of research findings would
be well received by decision makers and
scientists. The most robust framework
or model for assessment of extrapolation
lies in the ability to develop a
'susceptibility index' for Gulf estuaries.
However, that effort may require several
years to develop and field verify the
scientific robustness and predictability
of such a framework as it may require
the passage of natural events, e.g., major
10
-------
freshets, droughts, to adequately
confirmpredictions. We recommend
that:
a. As soon as resources become available,
hold workshop and produce report within 2
months of workshop on estuarine
classification/extrapolation relative to
hypoxia research questions. Approaches
to estuarine classification and
susceptibility are discussed in Chapter 6-
What Determines Susceptibility to
Nutrient Over-Enrichment?, In: National
Research Council. 2000. Clean Coastal
Waters-Understanding and Reducing the
Effects of Nutrient Pollution, National
Academy Press, Washington, B.C.
b. Develop criteria at the Workshop for
which estuaries will receive priority study
regarding hypoxia. Examples of criteria
might include: serve as critical nurseries
for highest number of endangered species,
highest secondary biological productivity
per unit area with greatest economic value,
most unique system within a class, highest
likelihood of success in reducing hypoxia,
and least impaired now but most
vulnerable estuary to an increase in
hypoxia because of future demographics
and land use. Criteria development for this
activity should involve scientists and
resource managers. The final priority
should be made by managers with two to
three scientists present as resource
individuals to answer technical questions.
2. Plan for Assessment of Hypoxia in Gulf
Estuaries. To maintain program integrity
in the face of budget uncertainties, it is
important to perform the following
activities. In parallel to the criteria
workshop described above, another
workshop is needed to prepare a
research, modeling, and monitoring plan
to integrate experimental research,
ambient empirical research and
monitoring and modeling, events of
opportunity, e.g., freshet effects on
strength of hypoxia vs nutrient loading,
and long-term monitoring, e.g., data
buoys, satellites, fixed wing aircraft
with environmental sensors. These
efforts should be integrated into a
research management framework for
candidate estuaries where hypothesis-
focused research will be conducted. We
recommend that:
a. As soon as resources become available,
hold a workshop to assess research,
modeling, and monitoring activities being
conducted or planned to be initiated by
various Federal, State environmental
agencies, universities and private
organizations for relevance to the Gulf
estuarine hypoxia program. Correlate
findings from this assessment with
management information and data needs to
determine if and where largest data-gaps
occur in candidate estuaries.
b. Develop a plan to fill data gaps that are
identified at the assessment workshop.
Note of caution: Analyses described above
will involve nutrient budgets. However, the
accuracy and precision of such budgets,
whether existing or to be developed, should be
evaluated in terms of component
uncertainties. Budgets with high
uncertainties can be misleading. Expensive
resource management decisions often require
more than so-called "back of the envelop"
budget estimates.
3. Data Management Plan for Hypoxia in
Gulf Estuaries. Develop a database
management plan for Gulf estuarine
hypoxia research that includes metadata.
This plan should be web-accessible and
completed by fall 2001.
References
Bianchi, et al. (1999) Biogeochemistry
of Gulf of Mexico e stuarie s:
Implications for Management, pp. 407-
421. In: T.S. Bianchi, J.R. Pennock,
and RR Twilley [Ed],
Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries. John Wiley & Sons.
Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E.
Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G.
Farrow. (1999) National estuarine
eutrophication assessment: Effects of
nutrient enrichment in the nation's
estuaries. NOAA, National Ocean
Service.
McKee, B.A., and M. Baskaran
(1999) Sedimentary Processes in Gulf
of Mexico Estuaries, p. 63-85. In: T.S.
Bianchi, J.R. Pennock, and R.R.
Twilley [Ed], Biogeochemistry of Gulf
11
-------
of Mexico Estuaries. John Wiley &
Sons.
Nixon, S. (1980) Fresh water inputs
and estuarine productivity. In: National
Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to
Estuaries. 1, p. 31-57. San Antonio,
Officer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.L. Taft,
E.L. Cronin, M.A. Tyler, and W.R.
Boynton. (1984) Chesapeake Bay
anoxia: Origin, development, and
significance. Science, p. 22 - 27.
Pennock, J.R., J.N. Boyer, J.A.
Herrera-Silveira, R.L. Iverson, T.
Whitledge, B. Mortazavi, and F.A.
Comin. (1999) Nutrient behavior and
phytoplankton production in Gulf of
Mexico estuaries, p. 109-162. In: T. S.
Bianchi, J. R. Pennock, and R. R.
Twilley [Ed], Biogeochemistry of Gulf
of Mexico Estuaries. John Wiley &
Sons.
Rabalais, N.N. (1992) An Updated
Summary of Status and Trends in
Indicators of Nutrient Enrichment in
the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. EPA, Office
of Water and Gulf of Mexico Program,
EPA/800-R-92-004,421p.
Rabalais, N.N., J. Wiseman, W. J., and
R.E. Turner. (1994) Comparison of
continuous records of near-bottom
dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia
zone along the Louisiana coast.
Estuaries 17: 850-861.
Ritter, C. and P. A. Montagna. 1999.
Seasonal hypoxia and models of
benthic response in a Texas bay.
Estuaries 22: 7-20.
Solis, R.S., and G. Powell (1999)
Hydrography, mixing characteristics
and residence times of Gulf of Mexico
estuaries, p. 29-61. In: T.S. Bianchi,
J.R. Pennock, and R.R. Twilley [Ed],
Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries. John Wiley & Sons.
Schroeder, W.W., and J. Wiseman, W.
J. (1999) Geology and
Hydrodynamics of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries./?. 3-28. In: T.S. Bianchi,
J.R. Pennock, and RR Twilley [Ed],
Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries. John Wiley & Sons.
Turner, RE., and N.N. Rabalais (1999)
Suspended Particulate and Dissolved
Nutrient Loadings to Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries, p. 89-107. In: T.S. Bianchi,
J.R. Pennock, and RR Twilley [Ed],
Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries. John Wiley & Sons.
Whitledge, T.E. (1985) Nationwide
review of oxygen depletion and
eutrophication in estuarine and coastal
waters. No. BNL 37144. U. S. Dept.
of Energy.
Nutrient Focus Team Co-Chairs
Ms. Larinda Tervelt
Gulf of Mexico Program, MS
(228) 688-1033
[ ]
Mr. Robert Fisher
NCASI, NC
(919)558-1989
Expert Panel Members:
David A. Flemer, Ph.D. (Federal Co-
Lead)
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
MC: 4304
Ariel Rios Bldg.
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:(202)260-0619
Fax: (202)260-1036
Email: flemer.david(g),epa.gov
Jonathan R. Pennock, Ph.D. (State Co-
Lead)
Chair, University Programs
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
IGlBienvilleBlvd.
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
Phone: (334)861-7531
Fax: (334)861-7540
Email: jpennock@disl.org
Thomas S. Bianchi, Ph.D.
Institute for Earth and Ecosystem
Sciences
Dept. of E.E. Biology
310DinwiddieHall
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 701 18-5698
Phone: (504)865-5191
Fax: (504)862-8706
12
-------
Email: tbianchi(g),mailhotulane.edu
Joseph N. Boyer, Ph.D.
SE Environmental Research Program
Florida International University
Miami, FL 33199
Phone: (305)348-4076
Fax: (305)348-4096
Email: boverj (gjfiu.edu
Paul R. Carlson, Jr., Ph.D.
Florida Marine Research Institute
100 Eight Avenue, SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (813)896-8626 Ext. 4104
Fax: (813)823-0166
Email: paul.carlson(gfwc.state.fl.us
Quay Dortch, Ph.D.
LUMCON
8124 Highway 5 6
Chauvin, LA 70344
Phone:(504)851-2800
Fax:(504)851-2874
Email: qdortch(glumcon.edu
Kenneth H. Dunton, Ph.D
UTMSI
750 Channel View Dr.
Port Aransas, TX 78373-1267
Phone: (512)749-6744
Fax: (512)749-6777
Email: dunton(gutmsi .zo.utexas.edu
Daniel Farrow
NOSHQTR Route: N/SP3
Building: SSMC4 RM: 9431
1305 East West Hwy
Silver Spring MD 20910-3281
Phone: (301)713-3000 ext.156
Fax: (301)713-4384
Email: dan.farrow(gnoaa. gov
Holly Greening
Senior Scientist
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
1008thAve. S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727)893-2765
Fax: (727)893-2767
Email: hgreening@tbep.org
Richard Iverson, Ph.D.
Florida State University
Dept. of Oceanography
Tallahassee, FL 32306-3048
Phone: (850)644-1730
Fax: (850)644-2581
Email: iverson@ocean.fsu.edu
Cynthia Moncreiff, Ph.D.
USM - Institute of Marine Sciences
GCRL - P.O. Box 7000
703 East Beach Drive
Ocean Springs, MS 39566-7000
Phone: (228)872-4260
Fax: (228)872-4204
Email: cvnthia.moncreiff@usm.edu
Paul Montagna, Ph.D
University of Texas at Austin
Marine Science Institute
750 Channel View Dr.
Port Aransas, TX 78373-1267
Phone: (361)749-6779
Fax: (361)749-6777
Email: paul(gutmsi.utexas.edu
Christine Ritter, Ph.D.
Texas Bays and Estuaries Program
Texas Water Development Board
P.O Box 13231
Austin, TX 78711-3231
Phone: (512)936-0820
Fax: (512)936-0816
Email: Christine.ritter(gtwdb.state.tx.us
David A. Tomasko, Ph.D.
SWFWMD
7601 Highway 301
Tampa, FL 33637
Phone: (813) 985-7481 Ext. 2206
Fax: (813)987-6747
Email:
dave .tomasko(gswfwmd.state .fl.us
Robert R. Twilley, Ph.D.
Dept. of Biology
P.O. Box 42451
University of Southwestern Louisiana
Lafayette, LA 70504
Phone: (318)482-6146
Fax: (318)482-5834
Email:
13
-------
11. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area -
Coastal Hypoxia Research Topic
Note: In recognition of the extensive past
efforts in assessing the scientific knowledge
and uncertainties related to coastal hypoxia
conducted by the Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR), and for
consistency, the materials contained in this
research needs document were abstracted
from "An Integrated Assessment of HYPOXIA
in the Northern Gulf of Mexico" (CENR,
2000). Reference should be made to this and
referenced predecessor documents for greater
detail.
: The largest
hypoxic zone in U.S. coastal waters is located
in the northern Gulf of Mexico on the
Louisiana/Texas continental shelf. The
affected area, about the size of the state of
New Jersey, has increased since regular
measurements began in 1985. Hypoxic
waters are distributed from shallow depths
near shore (4-6 meters) to as deep as 60
meters and are most prevalent from late spring
through late summer. Hypoxia occurs mostly
in the lower water column but encompasses as
much as the lower half to two-thirds of the
water column.
: The shallow
continental shelf area of the Gulf affected by
hypoxia shows signs of hypoxia-related stress,
including low abundance offish and shrimp
and distinctly different benthic communities.
While the ecological effects of this hypoxic
zone are not well understood, potential
impacts could include a precipitous decline in
ecologically and commercially important fish
and shellfish species.
Research results strongly indicate that
hypoxic conditions in the northern Gulf of
Mexico are caused primarily by excess
nutrients delivered to Gulf waters from the
Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB)
in combination with stratification of Gulf
waters. Improvements in farming practices,
riparian and wetland restoration, and river-
flow management may mitigate hypoxia in
the Gulf but current factors (e.g., population
growth and food production) which drive
hypoxia are projected to intensify.
: While a great deal of
research and monitoring results were
incorporated in the CENR Integrated
Assessment (CENR, 2000), uncertainties
remain in the scientific analyses regarding the
nature of the problem, its cause(s), and
effective remedial actions. It is recommended
that a comprehensive program of monitoring,
interpretation, modeling, and research be
coupled with development and application of
nutrient management strategies.
An effective research strategy is integral to
an adaptive management framework.
Coordinated research efforts improve
monitoring designs, support the interpretation
of monitoring output, and increase the
predictive power of models and other
assessment tools used in the management
process. For large and complex systems such
as the MARB and the northern Gulf of
Mexico, monitoring and research should be
integrated using holistic models that simulate
our understanding of how the overall system
functions and how management practices can
be most effectively implemented. River
monitoring data should be integrated with
offshore ecological and oceanographic data on
appropriate time scales. An effective
modeling framework would include models
that simulate:
1. transport and transformation of
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and
silica) from natural, urban, and
agricultural landscapes to ground
water and surface waters;
2. inputs and outputs of nutrient flow
throughout the landscape to improve
estimates of nutrient mass balances;
3. biogeochemical cycling and water
quality effects of those nutrients on
river ecosystems within the drainage
basin;
4. oceanographic and climatic influences
on those nutrients and their impacts on
Gulf productivity as they leave the
Mississippi-Atchafalaya River system;
5. impacts of increased nutrient flux on
productivity in the northern Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem, including
commercially and recreationally
important fisheries; and
6. three-dimensional coupling of
biological and physical processes in
the Gulf ecosystem influenced by the
Mississippi River discharge.
14
-------
Research Needs for the Gulf of Mexico:
Research needs fall into two categories: (1)
immediate priorities that are essential for
designing near-term management actions, and
(2) longer-term priorities that fill critical gaps
in understanding as well as guide efforts to
mitigate and control the effects of hypoxia
and excess nutrients.
Immediate Research Priorities
1. Past, current, and potential impacts of
hypoxia on both commercially and
economically important species and
ecosystems
a. retrospective analysis based on sediment
cores and existing data bases
b. better understanding of the effects of
other factors that affect the ecological
health and fisheries of the Northern Gulf
of Mexico
2. Dynamics and timing of transport of
nitrogen and other nutrients from the
landscape into streams and coastal
waters
3. Geographic location and design
criteria for wetlands and other
strategies (e.g., riparian zones) for
effective nitrate reduction
4. Influence of on-farm practices on
transport of nitrogen and other
nutrients into streams
5. Better methods to intercept agriculture
nutrients between the fields and
ground water and adjacent streams
6. Effectiveness of current and potential
policies and actions to reduce nutrient
loss on a basin scale.
Longer-Term Research Priorities
1. Nutrient cycling and carbon dynamics
across the MARB and relationship of
site-specific actions to Basin-scale
effects
2 Characterize mineralization and
immobilization processes to better
understand the amount and forms of
nitrogen in the soil reservoir and to
develop strategies to minimize
leaching of nitrate into streams
3. Quantify denitrification and nutrient
retention rates in streams and in Gulf
sediments and compare to that
achieved in riparian zones and
wetlands
4. Relationships among nutrient fluxes,
nutrient ratios, and nutrient cycling on
the continental shelf of the Gulf of
Mexico
5. Amount and composition of
atmospherically deposited nitrogen in
the Gulf
6. Relationship between large-scale
climate patterns and impacts on river
flows, nutrient flux, and flow
dynamics on the continental shelf
7. Role of flood prevention and control
methods in retaining nitrogen within
the MARB
8. Better understand nutrient cycling in
the deltaic plain to guide potential
changes in land management activities
9. Aggregated analysis of direct
(drinking water protection) and
indirect (recreational improvements)
improvements in water quality for the
MARB, as a whole.
10. Potential economic effects of hypoxia
on the ecology of the Gulf, including
impacts to biodiversity and
nonmarket-valued ecosystem goods
and services.
11. Better estimates of the economic
benefits to agricultural producers from
reduced fertilizer use and to society
from nitrogen management or
reduction strategies
References:
CENR. 2000. Integrated Assessment of
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, Washington, B.C.
15
-------
Nutrient Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Ms. Larinda Tervelt
Gulf of Mexico Program, MS
(228) 688-1033
Mr. Robert Fisher
NCASI, NC
(919)558-1989
[ ]
Expert Panel Members:
Coastal Hypoxia Expert Panel Co-Leads
Dr. Don Scavia
Senior Scientist
Office of NOS, NOAA, MD
(301) 713-3060 ext. 130
[ ]
Dr. Nancy Rabalais
Louisiana University Marine Consortium
LA
(504)851-2836
[ ]
The CENR commissioned six research
teams to critically evaluate various aspects of
Gulf coastal hypoxia and analyze and
summarize technical information regarding
the problem and its cause(s). The CENR, "An
Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico," drew heavily from
the results of their collective efforts. The
research teams and their members are listed
below.
Characterization of Hypoxia
Nancy N. Rabalais,
Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium
R. Eugene Turner, Louisiana State
University
Dubravko Justic, Louisiana State
University
Quay Dortch,
Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium
William J. Wiseman, Jr.,
Louisiana State University
Ecological and Economic Consequences of
Hypoxia
Robert J. Diaz,
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Andrew Solow,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the
Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin
Donald A. Goolsby, U.S. Geological
Survey
William A. Battaglin, U.S. Geological
Survey
Gregory B. Lawrence, U.S. Geological
Survey
Richard S. Artz, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Brent T. Aulenbach, U.S. Geological
Survey
Richard P. Hooper, U.S. Geological
Survey
Dennis R. Keeney,
Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture
Gary J. Stensland, Illinois ,State Water
Survey
Effects of Reducing Nutrient Loads
toSurface Waters within the Mississippi
River Basin and Gulf of Mexico
Patrick L. Brezonik, University of
Minnesota
Victor J. Bierman, Jr., Limno-Tech, Inc.
James Anderson, University of Minnesota
John Barko, Waterways Experiment
Station,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mark Dortch, Waterways Experiment
Station,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lorin Hatch, University of Minnesota
Gary L. Hitchcock, University of Miami
Dennis Keene, Iowa State University
David Mulla, University of Minnesota
Val Smith, University of Kansas
Clive Walker, Blackland Research Center
Terry Whitledge, University of Alaska
William J. Wiseman, Jr.,
Louisiana State University
Reducing Nutrient Loads, Especially
Nitrate-Nitrogen, to Surface Water,
Ground Water, and the Gulf of Mexico
William J. Mitsch, The Ohio State
University
16
-------
John W. Day, Jr., Louisiana State
University
J. Wendall Gilliam,
North Carolina State University
Peter M. Groffman,
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Donald L. Hey, The Wetlands Initiative
Gyles W. Randall, University of
Minnesota
Naiming Wang, The Ohio State University
Evaluation of Economic Costs and
Benefits of Methods for Reducing Nutrient
Loads to the Gulf of Mexico
Otto C. Doering, Purdue University
Francisco Diaz-Hermelo, Purdue
University
Crystal Howard, Purdue University
Ralph Heimlich,
Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A.
Fred Hitzhusen, The Ohio State University
Richard Kazmierczak,
Louisiana State University
John Lee, Purdue University
Larry Libby, The Ohio State University
Walter Milon, University of Florida
Tony Prato, University of Missouri
Marc Ribaudo,
Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A.
12. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area -
Harmful Algal Blooms Research
Topic
: Harmful
Algal Blooms (HABs) are now common
events in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and
worldwide. HABs have caused large-scale
aquatic mortalities, altered coastal ecosystem
structure and function, impacted coastal
economies, and threatened human health.
Although knowledge concerning HABs in
freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems
has increased over the last several years,
scientific uncertainties regarding many
aspects of HABs continues to hinder attempts
to develop and implement effective
management programs for the multitude of
problems associated with these species and
their toxins.
The expansion of HABs and their impacts
in coastal waters of the Gulf, U.S., and
worldwide over the last two to three decades
has been well documented (Hallegraeff, 1993;
Anderson, 1995; Steidinger et al., 1999).
Realization of the scope of the problem is
reflected in the growing number of
publications on various aspects of HABs, in
the number of local, national and international
meetings, conferences, and workshops, in the
development of Federal and State funding
initiatives, and more recently in passage into
law of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998.
During any particular year, one or more
HAB events are likely to occur in Gulf
freshwater, estuarine, or marine waters. More
than 60 known toxic or potentially toxic
microalgal species, including the Texas brown
tide species, are known to exist in Gulf
waters, but currently the effects of only a few
species are the most visible and real threat to
human health, aquatic resources, and coastal
economies (Dortch et al., 1999; Steidinger et
al., 1999). Yet, since we know little about the
biological and physicochemical factors or
ecological conditions that promote blooms of
some toxic species and not others, there is a
growing need for studies on several other
species and toxins that pose emerging risks
(i.e., toxins in drinking water sources) and
dozens of other species which are not current
threats but which might create toxic blooms
under certain conditions.
By far the most problematic species is the
red tide dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis, which
produces brevetoxin and causes neurotoxic
shellfish poisoning (NSP). Brevetoxin has
long been implicated as a causative factor in
mass mortalities offish, birds, and marine
mammals, yet the effects of acute and chronic
exposure to brevetoxin on reproduction and
population dynamics of the affected species
are largely unknown. Risks to human health
are associated with ingestion of contaminated
seafood, direct contact with seawater, and
inhalation of aerosols. Economic losses from
K. brevis blooms are difficult to assess
accurately, but have been estimated at
approximately $15 to 25 million per event in
some areas.
In contrast to the Gulf-wide threat of K.
brevis blooms and NSP, other HAB species
and their toxins currently are more localized
problems. These include Pseudo-nitzschia and
17
-------
domoic acid in Louisiana, okadaic acid in
Louisiana and Alabama, and the emerging
threat of cyanobacterial hepatotoxins in lakes
and freshwater impoundments Louisiana,
Florida, and probably the other Gulf states as
well. Pfiesteria-related events along the
Atlantic coast during the 1990's emphasized
the need for better information on the
occurrence and distribution of Pfiesterict-like
species in the Gulf and on environmental or
ecological conditions that may promote toxic
events. Finally, increasing numbers of
mariculture facilities and their products may
be at risk from toxic outbreaks in the
facilities, and in some cases these operations
may increase the incidence and severity of
some, but not all F£ABs, depending on the
location, hydrographic conditions and rearing
practices.
The research needs are recommended with
consideration to existing research underway,
particularly the substantial financial support
provided by the Ecology of Harmful Algal
Blooms, ECOHAB-Florida program. Dr.
Karen Steidinger, Florida Marine Research
Institute, FMRI, St. Petersburg, FL is the
Principal Investigator of this research effort
which incorporates numerous technical
experts and HAB-related research topics.
The reader is referenced to a national HAB
research plan prepared by the National Sea
Grant College Program entitled, "Prevention,
Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal
Blooms." It is available at
There are similarities and differences in
research needs compared with information
presented here. Differences are largely due to
a national versus a regional focus.
Major Gulf Research Needs and
Objectives:
Estuarine and Marine HABs
1. Develop a list of HAB
investigator/facility expertise and
capabilities. Identify those facilities
capable of, and willing to provide
analyses of Gulf of Mexico, GOM,
samples, such as toxin analysis,
species identification, etc. (include
cost per sample and number of
samples willing to analyze, and how
frequently), as well as provide
assistance to event response efforts.
2. Develop the capabilities for routine
monitoring of HABs and
environmental condition.
a. Develop standardized monitoring
designs and protocols to determine the
distribution and abundance of specific
HAB species.
b. Develop standardized monitoring
designs and protocols to detect bloom
initiation, development, movement, and
termination to determine environmental
and ecological conditions, and to protect
public health.
c. Develop and/or enhance state-by-state
contingency plans and training for rapid
response to HAB events.
d. Develop reliable and rapid chemical (or
other non-mouse) assays for HAB toxins
for use in field monitoring.
e. Develop and enhance satellite and
aircraft remote sensing capabilities to
monitor and track blooms at local to
regional scales.
f Develop an integrated web-based forum
for sharing of HAB monitoring data in a
standardized format.
3. Develop the capabilities to predict the
occurrence of HABs
a. Establish clonal cultures of HAB
species from different geographic
areas around the GOM in order to
characterize:
• toxin profiles, other bioactive
compounds, and effects of
environmental conditions on toxin
production.
• morphological variation, physiological
tolerances, nutritional requirements, and
responses to environmental conditions.
• life history stages and genetic strain
variability in order to evaluate the source
of inoculum for blooms and
reoccurrence of blooms.
b. Develop methods, models, and data to
determine the onset and movement of
HABs, and potential linkages (direct and
indirect) between anthropogenic
activities (i.e., nutrient enrichment,
water diversions, land use practices,
etc.), natural conditions and HAB
occurrence.
18
-------
c. Develop long-term monitoring programs
which describe changing conditions in
the Gulf offshore in order to understand
changes in the Gulf which precede HAB
development.
4. Develop epidemiological and
epizootiological studies to assess
exposure to and acute and chronic
effects of algal toxins on public health
and aquatic animals.
a. Develop standardized methods to
identify toxins and toxin metabolites in
humans and aquatic animals, including
dead animals.
b. Develop acute and chronic dose-
response relationships for humans and
aquatic animals exposed to algal toxins
in order to provide
scientifically defensible guidance levels
for protection of human and animal
health.
c. Determine effects of toxin-induced
mortalities on reproduction and
population dynamics of affected species,
including mortalities of eggs and larvae.
d. Determine effects of toxins on
physiological function of different
species, including effects on
reproductive capability (sperm and egg
production).
5. Determine the fate and effects of algal
toxins in aquatic environments,
including water, sediment, air, and
food webs.
a. Develop standardized extraction,
detection, and quantification protocols
for algal toxins and metabolites in water,
sediment, and animal tissue.
b. Assess accumulation and degradation on
algal toxins in water, sediment and
animal tissue.
c. Develop suggested methodology for
evaluating impacts on biological
communities in affected areas over the
short-term following HAB events.
6. Evaluate the effects and effectiveness
of potential mitigation, control, and
prevention strategies to reduce
ecological and public health impacts of
HABs, and evaluate possible
relationships to nutrient water quality
standards development.
7. Continue and enhance public
information and outreach programs.
a. Develop or enhance the use of the
Internet for public information and data
reporting.
b. Encourage and support States to foster
appropriate public awareness.
c. Improve effectiveness of
communication with media.
Toxic Cyanobacteria
1. Develop standardized monitoring
designs and protocols to assess the
distribution of toxic and nontoxic
cyanobacteria strains in surface waters.
2. Develop epidemiological studies to
assess public health risks associated
with cyanotoxin-contaminated
drinking water.
3. Determine whether aquatic animal
mortalities in lakes heavily impacted
by toxic cyanobacteria were caused by
cyanotoxins.
4. Assess cyanotoxin accumulation in
higher trophic level species and threats
to human and animal health.
5. Determine the roles of nutrient
enrichment and managed freshwater
flow in bloom development.
6. Determine the fate and effect of
cyanobacteria toxins from the source
to the finishing water at the plant to
the faucet in the private residence.
Mariculture
1. Develop guidelines for siting
mariculture facilities in coastal waters
that incorporates hydrographic
conditions, water quality data, rearing
practices, historical HAB events.
2. Develop monitoring guidelines for
mariculture facilities that incorporates
HAB information and water quality
criteria.
3. Develop practical, cost efficient
contingency plans to control or
mitigate HABs should they occur in
mariculture facilities.
Strategic Products:
1. A list of laboratories capable of
identifying and responding to a HAB
events.
2. Training on sampling methodology and
identification of harmful algae.
3. Quantitative information on the biology
of HAB species.
4. Capabilities for real time tracking of
HABs.
19
-------
5. A decision tree for state and local
responses to HAB events.
6. Effective communication with the
public and media about harmful algal
blooms.
7. Predictive numerical model(s) of HAB
initiation and transport.
8. Quantitative assessment(s) of HAB
toxin effects on ecosystems, aquatic
animals, and public health.
9. Practical, cost-effective management
strategies to reduce or prevent HAB
occurrences protect public health.
10. Management strategies aimed at
reducing HAB events, reducing
product loss, and thus increasing
economic output at mariculture
facilities.
References:
Anderson, D.M. (Ed) 1995. ECOHAB,
The Ecology and Oceanography of
Harmful Algal Blooms: A National
Research Agenda. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, 66 pp.
Dortch, Q., M.L. Parsons, N.N.
Rabalais, and R.E. Turner. 1999. What
is the threat of harmful algal blooms in
Louisiana coastal waters? In,
Proceedings of Recent Research in
Coastal Louisiana: Natural System
Function and Response to Human
Influences.
Hallegraeff, G.M. 1993. A review of
harmful algal blooms and their apparent
global increase. Phycologia 32: 79-99.
Steidinger, K.A., J.H. Landsberg, C.R.
Tomas, and J.W. Burns 1999. Harmful
Algal Blooms in Florida. Harmful
Algal Bloom Task Force Technical
Advisory Group of the Florida Harmful
Algal Bloom Task Force, 61 pp.
Nutrient Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Ms. Larinda Tervelt
Gulf of Mexico Program, MS
(228) 688-1033
Mr. Robert Fisher
NCASI, NC
(919)558-1989
Harmful Algal Blooms Technical Expert
Panel
Dr. Richard Greene (Federal Co-Lead)
U.S. EPA
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Gulf Ecology Division
1 Sabine Island Dr.
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
TEL: 850-934-2497
FAX: 850-934-2401
email: greene.rickigjepa.gov
Dr. Karen Steidinger (State Co-Lead)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission
Florida Marine Research Institute
1008thAve, SE
St. Petersburg, FL 3 3 701
TEL: 727-896-8626
FAX: 727-896-0166
email: Karen.Steidingerigjfwc.state.fl.us
Dr. Robert Dickey
Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
TEL: 334-694-4480 ext 249
FAX: 334-694-4477
email: RWD(gicfsan.fda.gov
Dr. Jonathan Pennock
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
IGlBienvilleBlvd
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
TEL: 334-861-7531
FAX: 334-861-7540
email: jpennock(g),disl.org
Dr. Cindy Moncreiff
Institute of Marine Sciences
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
The University of Southern Mississippi
703 East Beach Dr.
Ocean Springs, MS 39566
TEL: 228-872-4260
FAX: 228-872-4204
email: cynthia.moncreiffgiusm.edu
Dr. Quay Dortch
Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium
8124 Highway 5 6
20
-------
Chauvin, LA 70344
TEL: 504-851-2800
FAX: 504-851-2874
email: qdortchigjlumcon.edu
Dr. Tracy Villareal
Marine Science Institute
The University of Texas
750 Channel View Dr.
Port Aransas, TX 78373
TEL: 361-749-6732
FAX: 361-749-6777
email: tracv(giutmsi .utexas .edu
Mr. Dave Buzan
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
TEL: 512-912-7013
FAX: 512-707-1358
email: david.buzan@tpwd.state .tx.us
Dr. John Ramsdell
Marine Biotoxins Program
Charleston Laboratory
NOAA National Ocean Service
221 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
TEL: 843-762-8510
FAX: 843-762-5535
email: John.ramsdell@noaa.gov
13. Nutrient Enrichment Focus Area -
Atmospheric Deposition Research
Topic
: The
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers carry to
the Gulf of Mexico each year 0.95 million
metric tons of nitrate nitrogen in waters
drained from the Mississippi River Basin.
Every summer this nutrient load is thought to
cause the development of a hypoxic zone the
size of the State of New Jersey in the northern
Gulf of Mexico (Goolsby, 2000). Moreover,
continued population growth around the
perimeter of the Gulf of Mexico has
intensified the nutrient loading at the coastline
where eruptions of harmful algal blooms and
the threat of human pathogens pose a
recurring public and environmental health
problem. Atmospheric deposition has been
recognized as a source of nutrients in the
estuaries and coastal waters of the United
States (NRC, 2000). Nitrogen loadings are
due to both direct deposition to the water
surface and indirectly from deposition to and
subsequent transport from the watersheds
associated with these water bodies, and may
contribute up to 24% of the total nitrogen
discharged by the Mississippi River to the
Gulf of Mexico (Goolsby, 2000). The
complexity inherent in understanding the
multimedia nature of the air/water/land
interfaces has made quantifying this source of
water quality impairment a significant
research challenge.
: The coastal
zone of the Gulf of Mexico is endowed with
immensely productive habitats whose
ecological functions enhance all of the Gulfs
wildlife and fishery resources and provide
important aesthetic and tourism opportunities.
Impairment of the water quality is largely
associated with nutrient over-enrichment,
leading ultimately to the hypoxia events
observed in the coastal zone of the Gulf of
Mexico and possibly to harmful algal blooms.
The contribution of the atmosphere to this
over-enrichment has been estimated for many
of the coastal estuaries (Castro et al, 2000)
and estimates range from 15% to 40% of the
total nutrient load.
Nationally, wet deposition is generally
well characterized through monitoring data
gathered by the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP). (Lynch et al.,
2000). Wet deposition is typically a source of
nitrogen to the nutrient pool with nitrate (NO3'
), ammonium (NH4+) and organic forms
(poorly identified) providing the bulk of the
species present. Dry deposition across the
United States is not as well characterized as
wet. The measurement of the amount of dry
deposition is technically challenging and it is
more difficult to spatially interpolate these
measurements as they are land-use (location)
specific. Relatively fewer sites across the
U.S. regularly monitor for dry deposition,
compared to the many sites monitoring wet
deposition. Regional estimates of dry
deposition are typically model-derived and
verified from point observations. The
nitrogen compounds may be either gas or
aerosol and are comprised of the same
nitrogen species found in wet deposition.
21
-------
Deposition occurring directly to the water
surface of estuaries and near-coastal waters
may be estimated from air or rainwater
nutrient concentration measurements
transformed through chemical transport,
meteorological, or observational models.
Deposition occurring on the watersheds
associated with each estuary can also
contribute to the nutrient load affecting the
estuary's waters. The deposition to the
watershed surface can be estimated by the
same methods used to determine direct
deposition to the water. Once on the
watershed, the deposited nutrients enter into
biogeochemical cycles and become part of the
non-point source load reaching the water
bodies. The contribution from non-point
source loads to the loading in the receiving
water bodies is generally assessed using
watershed models (NRC, 2000). Improved
estimates of nutrient loading from
atmospheric deposition will, of course, be
evaluated in comparison to other pathways of
nutrient loading which affect the northern
Gulf, its near shore waters, and estuaries.
The distribution of nitrogen species in the
lower atmosphere can be defined in terms of
three steps on temporal or spatial scales; three
terms will be used in this paper as follows.
First, the local scale of 0.1 km to 100 km or a
temporal scale of ~1 day; for example, urban
nitrogen oxide (NO) concentrations decay
within tens of km or less than one day (though
nitrates and other reaction products may
persist for several days.) A regional scale of
100 km to 1,000 km or a temporal scale of
days to one week; for example some nitrates
or ammonium sulfate aerosols atmospheric
gradients decay over this scale. [Some
references, e.g. Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998,
may consider regional scale to extend for
weeks.] The third scale of interest is the
synoptic scale of 1,000 km to 5,000 km and
its corresponding temporal scale of weeks.
(A larger scale, "global" generally applies to
trace materials which especially persistent in
the atmosphere and can be carried more than
5,000 km or 10,000 km for a year, or possibly
longer. However, for nutrient chemicals in
sufficient quantities for direct eutrophic
effects, the global scale generally does not
apply.)
: The four
goals reflect information considered
necessary to achieve the overall goal of
quantifying the contribution from atmospheric
deposition to the Mississippi-Atachafalaya
River Basin, estuaries and watersheds along
the U.S. coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the
northern Gulf waters to better assess total
nutrient loads associated with Gulf hypoxic
and anoxic events. Milestones characterize
areas of scientific uncertainty that need to be
resolved before a particular goal can be
achieved. Research Needs describe individual
research tasks that must be completed to
resolve the scientific uncertainties expressed
in by the Milestones.
Goal 1. Improve our ability to quantify
the atmospheric nitrogen deposition, in
terms of oxidized nitrogen, reduced
nitrogen and dissolved organic
nitrogen, to the Mississippi-
Atachafalaya River Basin (MARB), to
estuaries along the Gulf of Mexico and
their watersheds, and to the waters of
the Gulf of Mexico, especially the
northern waters near the U.S.
Atmospheric nitrogen deposition by
indirect (to watershed) and direct (to
water surface) pathways contributes
20% to 30% of the total nitrogen flux to
the northern Gulf of Mexico, with the
majority coming from indirect
deposition to the MARB.
Milestone (a): Identify and fill gaps in
ambient monitoring for wet and dry
nitrogen deposition with emphasis first
on adequate wet deposition coverage,
second on ambient concentration
coverage (inorganic species), third on
dry deposition inferential modeling
coverage, and fourth, for dry deposition
micrometeorological measurements.
Research Needs:
1. Assess the applicability and limitations
of available data from National
Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends Network,
NADP/NTN, Atmospheric Integrated
Research Monitoring Network,
AIRMON (wet and dry), Clean Air
Status and Trends Network, CASTNet,
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
22
-------
Visual Environments, IMPROVE and
other networks (to be identified) which
operate with standard methods and
protocols in order to assess the
contribution of atmospheric deposition
in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The
assessment should address data gaps
specific to the Gulf of Mexico in
relation to developing improved
estimates of nutrient deposition for all
three areas of concern: the Gulf hypoxic
zone and MARB, harmful algal blooms,
and eutrophic effects in individual
estuaries.
2. Evaluate the feasibility of expanding
wet deposition measurements to include
organic nitrogen or an appropriate
surrogate. (This will be dependent on
advances in basic research on organic
nitrogen in the gas phase, in rainfall and
in aerosols, and defining the methods
and specific protocols for environmental
measurements.)
3. Gather basic monitoring data focused on
coastal land areas of the Gulf for wet
deposition of nutrients using
NADP/NTN protocols. Support
addition of NADP sites to the Gulf
coastal area, including National Estuary
Programs, and supplemented by
additional sites on coastal islands and
piers where possible. The addition of
several sites around the U.S. border of
the Gulf will provide geographic data
that is currently missing from the
national NADP/NTN data sets. Some
Gulf coastal sites can remain long-term
members of NADP/NTN, while short-
term sites should operate for at least 2 or
3 years. Evaluate the need for and
location of additional monitoring sites in
relation to local as well as regional
concerns for eutrophic effects. Assess
the utility of a hierarchy of site
selections to ensure that the largest sets
of observations are associated with the
most regionally representative sites.
4. Increase dry deposition measurements
in the Mississippi Basin to supplement
NADP/NTN and CASTNet programs. A
few additional dry deposition sites,
particularly in the western area of the
Mississippi Basin, with some spread to
north and south, will address (at least
partially) the uncertainty in the ratio of
wet to dry deposition, and provide field
checks on national-scale models of
atmospheric deposition. CASTNet-like
sites with a nutrient-only analysis list
may be sufficient and offer cost savings.
(See the basic suite of measurements in
(6) just below, in this Milestone.) Site
selection and network operation
activities should incorporate research
insights gained from co-located inter-
comparisons of dry deposition rates, as
calculated by existing inferential
methods used in the monitoring
networks and by state-of-the-art
micrometeorological techniques.
5. Develop monitoring in open waters of
the northern Gulf for wet deposition of
nutrients using NADP/NTN protocols:
install a small number of sites on
platforms or buoys, and if possible,
coordinate site locations to enhance
ongoing Gulf water circulation and
weather modeling to provide basic data
that is currently completely absent.
(Note that monitoring at buoys or other
isolated sites must be designed to
minimize interference from birds, and
possible impacts on the data must be
evaluated. Studies in marshes have
shown this to be a serious concern.) If
the GMP can assertively pursue and
obtain support for such sites, via
cooperation with Federal, State, or
commercial entities, then such sites
should be considered for use also as
"super-sites".
6. It is critical that some dry deposition
monitoring sites be established in the
coastal zone, once research
methodologies are refined to adequately
account for perturbations to dry
deposition induced by sea salt aerosols.
Or, where dry deposition measurement
sites are not feasible (due to site
limitations or funding inadequacies),
high-quality measurements should be
undertaken for ambient air
concentrations of inorganic gases and
aerosols. (A basic suite of inorganic
measurements should include: nitric
acid, particulate nitrate, ammonia,
particulate ammonium, sulfate, sodium,
and chloride.) Such ambient
23
-------
concentration data can provide valuable
information for verification of
atmospheric deposition models.
7. Obtain ambient concentration
measurements of inorganic species over
Gulf of Mexico waters, for the suite of
gases and particles in (6), above. Such
data can be combined with suitable
meteorological data to develop standard
estimation methods to assess dry
deposition rates to the Gulf waters.
Milestone (b): Collect atmospheric
chemistry and meteorological data of
sufficient quality, frequency and detail
to validate, on a local scale, the dry
nitrogen deposition inferential model,
to support meta-analysis of regional
atmospheric deposition trends, and to
calibrate a synoptic scale transport
model to achieve the desired tolerances
in the tested hypotheses.
Research Needs:
1. Improve methods of estimating dry
deposition of nutrient gases and aerosols
directly to water surfaces in estuaries
and near-coastal, northern Gulf waters.
Establishing deposition velocities over
open-water areas is a basic research
need, and should address daytime and
nighttime conditions in relation to Gulf
parameters of temperature, humidity,
warm waters, etc. Updated techniques
or model factors will help fill a
fundamental gap in knowledge and in
methodologies to calculate dry
deposition of nutrients on all US coasts.
The research may focus on basic
atmospheric processes, but should be
translated into updated methods -
whether for sampling ambient gases and
aerosols or modifications in measuring
micrometeorology at the deposition
sites.
2. Review the availability of weather data
(wind speed and direction, air and water
temperatures, rainfall, etc.). Ensure that
there are adequate data reporting
stations to satisfy the level of modeling
precision desired for coastal processes
such as land/sea breezes and sea salt
influences.
3. Assess the adequacy of sampling rate
and frequency of wet and dry deposition
observations. For example, many
current monitoring networks operate on
a weekly basis, while, for dry deposition
events, a frequency of greater that
diurnal may be necessary to prevent
biases arising from covariance of
pollutant concentrations and deposition
velocities, or to capture land/sea breeze
effects.
4. Characterize organic nitrogen, both in
ambient concentrations, and in wet and
dry deposition over terrestrial and
coastal environments and over the
northern Gulf near-shore open water.
Fundamental studies on the definitions,
methods and time scales of monitoring,
and methods of chemical analysis for
organic nitrogen are needed before
general field monitoring can begin.
Developing estimates for organic
nitrogen in deposition will be important
in the following areas. Studies over
land areas will be important in modeling
multi-compartment nitrogen fluxes in
the Mississippi River Basin. Studies
over coastal-land and near-shore water
areas will be important in modeling the
influences of organic nitrogen on algal
blooms and consequent water clarity
and oxygen demand in estuaries. Some
existing studies indicate that organic
nitrogen may be as much as 25% of
total nitrogen deposition to near shore
waters, so it should be considered in
direct deposition of nutrients to the
hypoxic zone and up-current areas.
5. Develop improved parameterizations of
ammonia dry deposition to various
landscape and vegetation surfaces
relative to North American conditions
(recent research has been done in
Europe). Also research the existence of
a compensation point (point at which
the ammonia flux reverses direction) for
vegetation typical of Gulf coast
ecosystems.
Milestone (c): Improve atmospheric
nitrogen deposition estimates from
conventional monitoring techniques by
at developing selected network sites
24
-------
(super-sites) at which would be
deployed: co-located, state-of-the-art
monitoring equipment and techniques
to address measurement uncertainties
or suspected weaknesses.
Research Needs:
1. Establish modeling protocols and
methodologies to extrapolate landscape-
specific point measurements of dry
deposition rates to regionally
representative estimates. That is, dry
deposition velocities are determined for
the specific surface/land-use at each
study site, so correctly combining
numerous measurements and
extrapolating to larger geographic scales
will require improvements in
techniques.
2. Further develop the multi-layer and
similar inferential models to include
size-segregated particle deposition and
size-dependent sea salt influences.
3. Coordinate studies on atmospherically
deposited nitrogen species with studies
on the formation of "red tides" or
similar blooms of harmful algae or
bacteria. Provide data on nitrogen
species and deposition rates to marine
biologists involved in coastal ecological
research whether in large-scale field
studies or in mesocosm experiments,
etc.
4. Assess the importance of nitrogen
evasion (movements of all nitrogen
compounds from the water into the air)
as a component of the overall nutrient
mass balance in northern Gulf waters.
(This information will be important for
Research Need (4) in Milestone (d),
below.)
Milestone (d): Couple atmospheric
with hydrogeological modeling in the
Mississippi River Basin to simulate the
biological, chemical and physical
processing of nitrogen including the
directional, biologically active (fixed)
nitrogen flux at the land/water, land/air,
and air/water interfaces. The goal of
this modeling effort would be to
develop a synoptic-scale spatially
allocated relationship between a non-
point source load on the watershed and
a delivered load to the receiving waters.
Similarly, couple Gulf hydrologic
models with atmospheric exchange
information, and with coastal and
estuarine circulations.
Research Needs:
1. Coordinate research aspects of
atmospheric deposition with the
Monitoring and the Modeling
Subcommittees within EPA's Gulf of
Mexico Program.
2. Assess the performance of
meteorological models that serve as the
basis for estimates of the distribution of
both wet and dry deposition over the
Gulf.
3. Support studies aimed at reducing air
quality model uncertainties. Modeling
is the principal tool for assessment and
policy development and consequently it
is important to understand the
limitations and minimize the
uncertainties associated with the
models.
4. Extend Gulf circulation models to
include not only mass exchange with the
atmosphere but also with estuary waters
and subsurface offshore discharges.
Assess the mechanisms for translating
deposition to both the water surface and
associated watersheds to an actual load
in the Gulf estuaries and associated
coastal ocean. The transport or
exchanges of nutrients or harmful algal
bloom organisms may be significant,
and the waterborne influences among a
series of adjacent estuaries, or between
the estuaries and the Gulf hypoxic zone
need to be assessed in relation to the
relative importance of atmospheric
deposition.
5. Assess the importance of model domain
boundaries. Air sources outside of the
continental U.S. may be contributing to
the air component of the nutrient load
reaching the northern Gulf. Portions of
Mexico and Central American counties
may be contained in the "airshed" for
the northern Gulf, but may not be
explicitly included in model domains
25
-------
developed for assessments within the
U.S.
6. Link Gulf water circulation and water
quality models at various geographic
scales with atmospheric circulation
models, relating climatic data to the
movements of Gulf waters and to the
biologic cycles. How far "up-current"
in Gulf waters, for example, will
atmospheric deposition of nutrients have
an influence on the hypoxic zone, in
addition to direct deposition to the
waters in the hypoxic-zone area. Over
what time and spatial scales will
deposited nutrients have influence on
red tides and related phenomena?
7. After achieving progress in items (5)
and (6) just above, consider whether
models or other synoptic evaluations of
the entire Gulf of Mexico and its
watersheds are needed to understand
water quality conditions in the northern
Gulf and specifically in the hypoxic
zone.
Goal 2. Assess the role that increases in
human and domestic animal population
densities in the Mississippi River Basin and in
States that border the Gulf of Mexico may
have on the direct and indirect atmospheric
nitrogen deposition to the Gulf of Mexico and
estuaries along the Gulf.
Milestone (a): Quantify the range of
effect of nutrient deposition which arises from
regions of urban and industrial development,
and intensive agriculture. These regions can
contribute more than average nutrient
deposition to a significant geographical area
downwind. Current deposition monitoring
sites are generally located to sample "average"
conditions, and relying only on such average
data can result in significant underestimation
of total deposition.
Research Needs:
1. Investigate the availability of emissions
inventories. Many of these are
developed in association with air quality
modeling for compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. However, not all of the
potential airborne nutrients are managed
in these efforts, particularly ammonia.
2. Improve the emission inventory for
ammonia. Quantify the annual net flux
of atmospheric ammonia from various
ammonia emission sources (for
example, crops, synthetic fertilizers,
automobiles, and livestock facilities).
3. Examine the "urban plume influence"
on total nutrient deposition, especially
direct deposition to northern Gulf
Waters through intensive, event-based
wet deposition studies coupled with dry
deposition measurements and mobile
platform (aircraft and ships)
chemical/meteorological measurements.
Assess the results and methods of this
approach as recently utilized in Lake
Michigan and Chesapeake Bay. Without
such information, the typical approach
to monitor deposition away from urban
or industrial regions can result in
underestimating total deposition. (A
year-around site in the northern Gulf
waters is not required, provided ship
and/or aircraft-based studies can be
arranged at more than one season for a
few years.)
4. Study the ambient concentrations and
the wet and dry deposition of ammonia
plumes from large livestock facilities.
This activity will assist in designing
monitoring networks to accurately
assess the nitrogen deposition from
these sources which are among the
major sources in the MARB. (Evaluate
these sources in comparison to
agricultural lands receiving intensive
fertilizer applications - see Research
Need (2) just above in this Milestone.)
5. Conduct regional modeling of nitrogen
compounds transport, dispersion,
transformation and deposition to
determine the relative importance of
local emissions versus regional scale
transport of nitrogen to coastal
watersheds and estuaries. Construct
airsheds for selected watersheds, based
on models.
6. Model the changes in atmospheric
nitrogen deposition with changes in land
use practices to assess the importance of
atmospheric deposition as part of the
"non-point load" which actually reaches
rivers. Such studies would probably be
geographically specific to several
26
-------
geologic/climatic regions within the
overall Mississippi River Basin.
7. Analyze trends in atmospheric
deposition at regional and synoptic
scales to evaluate the efficacy of
nitrogen reduction strategies being
installed under the national Clean Air
Act or other legislative initiatives.
Goal 3. Assess the significance of the
land-sea-air interface in estimating total
deposition amounts. Two coastal phenomena,
land/sea breezes and sea salt effects on
aerosols, will influence deposition rates,
especially dry deposition, sufficiently that
simple extrapolation of measurements made
inland to the coastal zone and near-shore
waters would result in significant errors in
estimating total deposition to estuaries, near-
coastal watersheds and near-shore Gulf
waters.
Milestone (a): Quantify the interactions
of reactive nitrogen species with sea salt and
the recirculation effect of the land/sea breeze
and the warm Gulf waters that together
promote higher nitrogen deposition rates
along the coastlines of the northern Gulf of
Mexico.
Research Needs:
1. Quantify the influence of sea salt
aerosols on dry deposition estimates
through co-located measurements of
particle size distribution/chemical
composition and trace gas
concentrations of oxidized nitrogen
compounds. The third generation gas
and aerosol partitioning models
(Aerosol Inorganics Model, for
example) can predict not only the
species phase but particle size mode, but
should be validated with data obtained
from the U.S. Gulf coastal lands and
near-shore open water environments.
Some current work is being pursued in
connection with the Chesapeake Bay
program and at Tampa Bay Estuary
Program, but this work needs to be
coordinated with additional studies, and
evaluated for possible use throughout
Gulf coastal areas.
2. Investigate with field studies the role of
land and sea breezes on nutrient wet and
dry deposition along the U.S. Gulf
Coast and over near-shore waters. This
will probably require samples being
taken at least twice per day. A full year
of sampling may not be necessary, but
seasonal effects should be studied.
Nutrient transport and deposition on
land and sea breezes is a fundamental
gap in knowledge and in methodologies
on all US coasts. Investigations of
land/sea breeze dynamics should be
coupled with studies of urban plume
impacts to account for urban plume
transport, chemical transformation, and
recirculation phenomena, and should
incorporate coupled chemical and
micrometeorological measurements,
including the deployment of vertical
wind profilers, and where possible,
coordinated aircraft-based chemical
measurements.
Goal 4. Quantify the atmospheric nitrogen
deposition, in terms of oxidized nitrogen,
reduced nitrogen and dissolved organic
nitrogen, to the Mississippi- Atachafalaya
River Basin (MARB), U.S. estuaries along the
Gulf of Mexico and their watersheds, and the
waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Research Needs:
1. Gather, index, and periodically analyze
public documents which address
research, monitoring, or modeling of
atmospheric deposition in the Gulf of
Mexico region and the MARB.
Actively contact all U.S. Gulf National
Estuary Programs, and NOAA, EPA
laboratories, Marine Fisheries Service
studies, and Federal and State parks and
wildlife reserves in the Gulf region, and
also canvas universities and independent
laboratories (e.g. Mote Marine Lab in
Florida) in the Gulf states to obtain
documents and reports of studies.
2. Actively collect copies of data sets of
past and ongoing studies of atmospheric
deposition which were/are performed in
the Gulf region and Mississippi River
Basin with EPA or NOAA support or
coordination. Assist transfer of these to
27
-------
EPA's central program to archive and
maintain data sets of environmental
measurements.
3. Conduct studies on atmospheric
deposition to the U.S. Gulf Coast
estuaries and their watersheds, evaluate
recent studies on atmospheric deposition
and refine the atmospheric deposition
components in the MARB nitrogen
loading calculations by Goolsby, et al.
(1999).
4. Seek support for developing or applying
synoptic-scale analysis methods
including modeling and meta-analyses
to combined data sets from several local
or regional programs.
5. Coordinate with international activities
in research on nutrient loading (from all
pathways), especially with countries
around the entire Gulf of Mexico.
Goal 5. The findings from research and
monitoring should be summarized and
interpreted concerning the sources, impacts
and relative importance of atmospheric
deposition to coastal water quality, and active
programs supported to distribute and share the
information with resource managers and with
the general public, as well as with researchers.
Research Needs:
1. Collate, analyze and interpret data and
other information on the sources,
impacts and relative importance of the
atmospheric deposition to coastal water
quality, as collected by this program and
others in the northern Gulf region, for
distribution to resource managers and to
researchers.
2. Establish and maintain regular and
active coordination with EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program and Great
Lakes National Program concerning
atmospheric deposition studies,
findings, and plans. Coordinate with
atmospheric deposition studies and
monitoring in the U.S. Gulf Coast
region being carried out under US
National Park Service and National
Wildlife Refuge support, as well as
other Federal and State programs.
Where possible, obtain detailed
knowledge of the data sets as well as of
reports or summary information.
References:
Castro, M.S., C.T. Driscoll, T.E.
Jordan, W.G. Reay, W.R. Boynton,
S.P., Seitzinger, R.V. Styles and J.E.
Cable, In Press. "Contribution of
Atmospheric Deposition to the Total
Nitrogen Loads to Thirty-four Estuaries
on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the
United States". In Nitrogen Loading in
Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric
Perspective. R.M. Valigura, M.S.
Castro, H.Greening, T. Meyers, H.
Paerl, and R. E. Turner (eds). Coastal
and Estuarine Studies Volume 57,
American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council, Committee
on the Causes and Management of
Coastal Eutrophication, R.W. Howarth,
Chair. (2000) Coastal Ocean Waters.
Understanding and Reducing the
Effectsof Nutrient Pollution, National
Academy Press, Washington, B.C., 405
Pgs.
Goolsby, D. A. (2000) Mississippi
Basin Nitrogen Flux Believed to Cause
Gulf Hypoxia, EOS Transactions, July
18,2000,81:321-327
Lynch, James A., Van C. Bowersox,
and Jeffrey W. Grimm, (2000). Acid
Rain Reduced in Eastern United States.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 940-949.
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N. (1998).
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics:
From Air Pollution to Climate Change,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1326
Pgs.
Nutrient Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Ms. Larinda Tervelt
Gulf of Mexico Program, MS
(228) 688-1033
Mr. Robert Fisher
NCASI, NC
(919)558-1989
28
-------
Expert Panel Members:
Dr. John M. Ackermann, Federal Co-
Lead
US EPA
6 IForsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404)562-9063
FAX: (404) 562-9010 or 9066
E-mail: ackermann.john(g),epa.gov
Dr. John Sherwell, State Co-Lead
MDDNR
Tawes Building B-3
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410)260-8667
FAX: (410)260-8670
E-mail: jsherwelligidnr.state.md.us
Dr. Robin Dennis
US EPA, (MD-80)
Atmospheric Modeling
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone:(919)541-2870
FAX: (919) 541-1379
E-mail: rdennis(gihpcc.epa.gov
Dr. Robert A. Duce
Depts. of Oceanography and
Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
TAMU-3146
College Station, TX 77843
Phone: (979)845-5756
FAX: (979) 862-8978
E-mail: rduce@ocean .tamu.edu
Ms. Holly Greening
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
Mail Station I-l/NEP
100 8th Avenue, S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 3 3 701
Phone: (727) 893-2765
FAX: (727) 893-2767
E-mail: hgreening(g),tbep.org
Dr. Kurt Gustafson
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
5333 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite #104
Sarasota, FL 34234
Phone:
FAX: (941)359-85846
E-mail: ••!••• . •• •.
Dr. Noreen Poor
College of Public Health
University of South Florida
Tampa Campus
Tampa, FL 33612
Phone:(813)974-8144
FAX: (813) 974-4986
E-mail: npooriglcoml .med.usf.edu
14. Habitat Focus Area - Emergent
Coastal Wetlands Research Topic
•f • ••-.;..:.;•••• ..; ..;. •. :;'-.•..,;-. T: The
importance of coastal emergent wetlands in
terms of productivity, faunal habitat, and
protection from storms is well known. Loss
and degradation of coastal emergent wetlands
are occurring at an alarming rate. In the Gulf
of Mexico (Gulf), there are 1,317,900 ha of
coastal emergent wetlands (Johnston et al.
1995). Loss rates vary from state to state and
are highest in Louisiana where rates have
been reported as 65 B 93 km^ yr (Barras et
al. 1994, Day et al. 1999). The loss in
Louisiana alone translates into 80% total
national loss of coastal wetlands (Boesch et
al. 1994). Losses result from both natural and
anthropogenic sources. Some known or
suspected causes of loss are sea level rise,
dredge and fill, salt water intrusion with
effects compounded by canal construction,
subsidence, a lack of sediments and/or
nutrients depending on location. For some
areas, including coastal Louisiana where there
is both the most wetlands and the highest loss
rates, high loss rates are projected to continue
for decades. Not only does this result in loss
of marsh area per se, but also results in loss of
habitat for myriad animals, critical reductions
in primary productivity and thus detrital input
to estuaries and near shore marine areas, a
loss in protection from storm surge, and
numerous other known wetland functions.
As a result, the health and sustainability of
our coastal emergent marshes and mangrove
forests, and the estuaries coupled to them in
the Gulf region are at significant risk.
Consequently, there has been an increasing
emphasis on habitat restoration in all regions
of the Gulf coastal zone, including the most
recent attempts to address the mammoth
problems in Louisiana through the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act (CWPPRA) and Coast 2050
29
-------
activities. The CWPPRA projects authorized
over the first eight years are anticipated to
create, restore, or protect 28,329 ha of marsh
during their 20-year life spans. When
combined with other restoration projects
developed under the Water Resources
Development Act, only 23% of the projected
50-year marsh loss may be prevented. If the
current land loss rates continue unabated, by
the year 2050 coastal Louisiana is estimated
to lose an additional 263,000 ha of marsh and
swamp even with current restoration efforts
(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation
and Restoration Task Force, LCWCRTF and
Wetlands Conservation and Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority,
WCRA 1998).
: However,
there is not a sufficient scientific
understanding of the nature and function of
emergent coastal wetlands to allow
unequivocal and accurate decisions by
scientists and managers in many restoration or
other management cases. This point is clearly
demonstrated by the unexpected recent
dieback of huge expanses of salt marsh in
Louisiana. During the summer of 2000, some
17,000 ac of marsh died with only stubble or
mud flat left and an additional 100,000 ac
appeared to be dying or severely stressed (La
Coast fact sheet). Most of this was centered in
the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary system but
dead or stressed marsh was reported in
western parts of the state and even in Texas
south of Galveston Island. While the event is
likely associated with the recent extreme
drought conditions, studies over the summer
have not been able to pinpoint the cause (s).
Further studies are planned and discussions of
the possible need for large scale restoration
projects are underway.
Research is required to quantify the extent
and nature of these critical wetland
ecosystems, the abiotic and biotic factors
influencing their structure and function, and
the effects of disturbance and invasive
species. In order to sustain these systems,
research is also needed in the fields of
emergent marsh restoration and assessment.
The research needs listed below should be
regarded as applying to coastal marshes of
various types (such as salt, brackish, fresh,
and flotant) and mangrove ecosystems.
: The research needs listed
below best address the objectives and sub-
objectives, and will provide a more complete
understanding of the ecosystems and thus
allow more rapid and complete evaluation of
unanticipated problems that arise in the future.
Research Goals. In order to address the
Gulf management objectives articulated
above, we have developed six broad goals and
list critical research topics that address gaps in
knowledge for the goals. Each of these goals,
and the research topic areas under them, are
intended to assist in attaining the following
overall goal: To develop a research program
that enhances the links of science to natural
resources management and land-use planning
for Gulf emergent wetlands.
Research Goal 1. Understand the status,
structure, and function of coastal wetland
systems and develop tools to evaluate these
systems over large spatial and temporal
scales.
1. Conduct landscape scale investigations
on the relationships among adjacent
wetland systems linked hydrologically
and by common faunal use. This will
likely necessitate further development
of remote sensing and GIS tools into the
study of emergent wetlands.
2. Develop and apply more fully aerial
photography, remote sensing, and GIS
tools for the assessment of long-term
change in the emergent wetland
landscapes throughout the Gulf.
3. Conduct long-term observational and
experimental field studies on emergent
wetland population and community
dynamics. Such studies are required to
enhance our understanding of how these
systems function and change over time;
as well as for documenting the
ecological factors underlying long-term
changes.
Research Goal 2. Understand the habitat
linkages of coastal wetland and attendant
estuarine systems.
1. Initiate studies designed to quantify the
linkages among emergent wetlands,
submerged systems, and fisheries. This
will include more complete work on
30
-------
detrital production, decomposition,
export, and trophic linkages, as well as,
direct use of habitats by juveniles of
fishery species.
2. Initiate Gulf-wide investigations (i.e.,
across state and national boarders) into
the use of emergent wetlands by
migratory species (e.g., birds, natant
fauna). Baseline data from such studies
are needed to measure trends in the
habitat function of emergent wetlands.
3. Improve our understanding of the
distribution and habitat requirements of
early-life stages of fishery species that
utilize emergent wetlands.
Research Goal 3. Understand the
influences of and interactions among
biogeochemical factors and environmental
stressors on emergent wetland systems and
habitat utilization; including short-and-long-
term temporal cycles and fluxes and inter- and
intra-year differences in wetland diversity,
productivity, and stability.
1. Analyze fully the separate and
combined effects of various
biogeochemical factors (e.g., salinity,
sulfide, nutrients, etc.) and soil features
on different wetland species and on
species-species interactions. This will
also be required for an understanding of
long-term wetland change.
2. Determine the effects of elevated carbon
dioxide on the different emergent
coastal wetland ecosystem structure,
productivity, succession, and rates of
carbon sequestration.
3. Evaluate the effects of pollutants such
as oil and mercury on emergent
wetlands where such pollutants occur.
4. Further quantify the ability of emergent
wetlands to absorb and naturally-
detoxify various contaminants.
Research Goal 4. Assess effects of and
develop predictive models of disturbance
(human and natural) on the productivity and
longevity of coastal wetland systems.
1. Conduct studies of plant-
herbivore/parasite/disease disturbance
relationships and document their effects
on productivity,
reproduction/colonization, emergent
wetland loss, and habitat value of
various emergent wetland types.
2. Initiate Gulf-wide assessments of
eustatic sea level rise, subsidence, etc.
and their individual and combined
effects on wetland loss rates. Enhance
modeling techniques to permit better
predictions of future trends and to
identify and rank geographic areas
where restoration may be needed
3. Analyze the causes and ecological
consequences (to productivity, genetic
diversity, erosion, habitat value, etc.) of
the die-off in Spartina alterniflora and
possibly other emergent wetland species
recorded in recent years in various
portions of the Gulf.
4. Document the effects of invasive plant
species (such as Phragmites and
Tamarix) and animal species (such as
nutria) on emergent coastal wetlands;
and develop predictive models of the
spread of invasive species and their
likely long-term ecological and
economic consequences in the Gulf
region.
5. Initiate a program for assessing the
potential for introduced species to
become invasive and to have adverse
ecological effects.
Research Goal 5: Develop research
programs to evaluate the success of coastal
emergent wetland restoration approaches,
especially emphasizing the importance of
reconstructing ecological functions; and,
evaluate innovative means for conducting
successful restoration.
1. Perform long-term studies on the
success of emergent wetland restoration.
Evaluations of plant survival,
productivity, genetic diversity, species
succession, habitat use, fisheries value,
functional equivalencies, soil
development, etc. are needed to justify
continued large monetary expenditures
on wetland restoration/creation.
2. Initiate further research on innovative
and/or low-cost techniques of emergent
wetland restoration and assessments of
optimal configuration.
3. Assess the effects of large scale
freshwater diversions on emergent
-------
wetlands and adjacent subtidal systems
and fishery species.
4. Determine the potential for Gulf-wide,
standardized, rapid assessment protocols
of wetland function, loss, and
restoration success.
Research Goal 6: Evaluate the utility of
various indicators of ecosystem vitality or
change. Determine the utility of such
indicators in decision support systems.
1. Development of Gulf-wide databases
and models for use in developing
natural resource decision making
systems.
2. Conduct research aimed at developing
indicators of emergent wetland
condition (extent and health).
References:
Barras, J. A., P. E. Bourgeois, and L. R.
Handley. 1994. Land loss in coastal
Louisiana, 1956-1990. U.S. Geological
Survey, National Wetlands Research
Center Open File Report 94-01. 4 pp.
10 color prints.
Boesch, D. F., M. N. Josselyn, A. J.
Mehta, J. T. Morris, W. K. Nuttle, C.
A. Simenstad, and D. J. P. Swift. 1994.
Scientific assessment of coastal
wetland loss, restoration, and
management in Louisiana. Journal of
Coastal Research Special Issue No. 20.
Day, J. W., G. P. Shaffer, L. D. Britsch,
D. J. Reed, S. R. Hawes, and D.
Cahoon. 1999. Pattern and process of
land loss in the Louisiana coastal zone:
An analysis of spatial and temporal
patterns of wetland habitat change. Pp
193 B 202. In, L. P. Rozas, J. A.
Nyman, C. E. Proffitt, N. N. Rabalais,
D. J. Reed, and R. E. Turner (editors).
Proceedings: Recent Research in
Coastal Louisiana: Natural System
Function and Response to Human
Influence. Publ. By Louisiana Sea
Grant College Program.
Johnston, J.B., M.C. Watzin, J.A.
Barras, and L.R Handley. 1995. Gulf
of Mexico Coastal Wetlands: Case
Studies of Loss Trends. In: LaRoe,
E.T., etal. (eds.) Our Living Resources:
a Report to the Nation on the
Distribution, Abundance, and Health of
U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Biological Service,
Washington, D.C. p. 269-272.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Task
Force and the Wetlands Conservation
and Restoration Authority (LCWCRTF
andWCRA). 1998. Coast 2050:
Toward a Sustainable Coastal
Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources. 161 pp.
Habitat Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Ms. Diane Altsman
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, MS
(228)688-1033
altsman .diane (giepa. gov
Dr. James Johnston
USGS NWRC, LA
(337) 266-8556
jimmy iohnston(g),usgs.gov
Expert Panel Members:
C. Edward Proffitt, Ph.D., Federal Co-
Lead
USGS B National Wetlands Research
Center
700 Cajundome Blvd.
Lafayette, LA 70506
Phone: 337-266-8509
E-mail: edward_proffirt(g),usgs.gov
Gregory D. Steyer, State Co-Lead
Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources
Coastal Restoration Division
P.O. Box 94396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396
Phone: 225-342-1452
Fax: 225-342-6801
E-Mail: gregs(gidnr.state.la.us
Keith A. Edwards, Ph.D.
Louisiana Environmental Research
Center
McNeese State University
P.O. 90220
Lake Charles, LA 70609
32
-------
337475-5257
keith(gjmail.mcneese.edu
Dan Moulton, Ph.D.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
3000 So. IH-35, Suite 320
Austin, TX 78704
512912-7036
dan.moulton(gitpwd.state .tx.us
Mike Shirley, Ph.D.
Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve
300 Tower Rd.
Naples, FL 34113
941417-6310
Michael. Shirlev(gidep. state. fl .us
Judy P. Stout, Ph.D.
Associate Vice President, Academic
Affairs
University of South Alabama
Admin 300
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
334460-6261
j stout@usamail .usouthal.edu
Irv A. Mendelsshon, Ph.D.
Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute
Center for Coastal, Energy, and
Environmental Resources
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7511
504 388-6425
imendeligjlsu.edu
Lawrence P. Rozas, Ph.D.
NOAA- National Marine Fisheries
Service
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
4700 Ave. U
Galveston, TX 77551-5997
Lawrence .Rozasigjnoaa.gov
William Streever, Ph.D.
USAGE Waterways Experiment Station
CEERD-ER-W
3909 Halls Ferry Rd.
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601 634-2942
STREEVWig) wes .army .mil
15. Habitat Focus Area - Seagrasses
Research Topic
/TM->- ,'••! ..w-v/.:,•:;;•:^,': Seagrass habitat loss
ranges from 20% to 100% over the last 50
years for most estuaries in the northern Gulf
of Mexico (Gulf). (Handley) Most of the
seagrass acreage loss can be attributed to
widespread deterioration of water quality,
including light attenuation, increased water
motion and human disturbances.
(h :.vv;;.-.-<.'.,',-!..,' ..•j;-,'i-...".-,v.';r:.': The coastal
zone of the Gulf is endowed with immensely
productive habitats whose ecological
functions enhance all of the Gulfs wildlife
and fishery resources. Seagrass communities
are among the richest and most productive
ecosystems in the world. They protect and
improve water quality, provide shoreline
stabilization, and are important habitats for
nursery and cover for an array offish, birds,
shellfish and other wildlife. Collectively,
seagrasses provide shelter and sustenance for
a variety of fishes, and invertebrates,
including the young of many commercially
and recreationally important stocks. In
addition, seagrasses are the sole food of one
waterfowl species (the redhead, Aythya
americana) and important foraging habitat for
several other waterfowl species, sea turtles
and manatees. The diversity and amount of
biomass produced in or dependent upon
seagrass beds are enormous. Submergent
seagrasses occupy over 323,760 hectares
(800,000 acres) within the estuaries and
shallow near-coastal waters of the Gulf
(Iverson and Bittaker, 1986). Approximately
95 percent of this acreage is in Florida and
Texas where seagrasses occupy about 20
percent of the bay bottoms (Thayer and
Ustach, 1981). Although often considered
continuous around the Gulfs entire periphery,
a combination of low salinity, high turbidity
and wave energy, and human disturbances
results in only scattered patches of seagrass,
mostly in bays from the Florida panhandle to
Laguna Madre, Texas.
The distribution of seagrass beds is limited
by light attenuation, high wave energy and
human disturbances. Two primary factors
affecting light attenuation are depth and
turbidity. Increased depth, resulting from
subsidence, limits the occurrence and density
of seagrass beds. Activities which increase
water turbidity, such as dredging, and
alterations in coastal watersheds that lead to
increased runoff have caused losses in
33
-------
seagrasses. Decreases in light reaching
seagrasses because of the stimulation of
growth of phytoplankton, epiphytes and
macroalgae resulting from nutrient
enrichment have causes even more
widespread losses of seagrasses. Lewis, et
al. (1985) noted that Tampa Bay had lost
about 80 percent of its original seagrass beds
by 1982. The sea grass beds which remain in
Tampa Bay, and other bays and nearshore
areas, are stressed and impacted by human
activities (Zieman and Zieman, 1989). For
example, propeller scars, prominent in many
sea grass meadows, may take years to heal by
revegetation. In Laguna Madre, seagrasses
have undergone large changes in species
composition as well as losses in area because
of human impacts. Decreases in seagrass
acreage can also be attributed to disease.
(Mass Mortality of the tropical seagrass
Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay (USA)
Mar Ecology Program Ser 71:297-299.) M.B.
Roblee, T.R. Barber, P.R. Carlson, Jr., M.J.
Durako, J.W. Fourqurean, L.K. Muehlstein,
D.Porter, L.A. Yarbro, and J.C.D. Zeeman.
1991.
Major Gulf Research Objectives and
Actions:
1. Assess the ecological status in terms of
areal and temporal extent and quality of
seagrasses and determine the trend in
extent and quality.
a. Quantify and map current seagrass
acreage in Gulf Coastal Waters.
b. Identify indicators that best describe
"quality" of seagrass beds and are
appropriate for small- (a seagrass bed, an
estuary) and large-scale (biogeographical
region, state, Gulf) monitoring and
assessment activities.
• What is the range of expected values
for seagrass indicators?
• What is the natural variability of
these indicators?
• What spatial and temporal scales are
needed to accurately establish values
for these indicators?
c. Describe the rapid assessment
techniques and sample designs that can be
used to routinely monitor seagrass beds at
various spatial scales.
2. Identify the factors which determine
establishment and persistence of
seagrasses.
a. Identify water quality and other
guidelines (e.g., nutrients, light,
chlorophyll a) that will protect and
preserve Gulf seagrasses.
• Quantify and map the geological and
historical seagrass acreage to determine
quantity and locations of declines.
• Conduct field and laboratory studies
to document cause-effects relationships
and describe stress thresholds for
effects.
Quantify the sources of human-
induced declines of seagrass habitats in
the Gulf and correlate with seagrass
bed condition to develop hypotheses
regarding cause.
• Document "significant" destruction
caused by biological stressors; identify
biotic agents; and define anthropogenic
interactions, if any.
b. Determine if interactions among
stressors limit persistence (or growth) of
seagrasses in areas that meet minimum
light requirements.
c. Define the water column and sediment
characteristics required for establishment
of seagrasses in areas to be restored.
d. Document and monitor restoration
success rates of existing and new seagrass
planting technologies.
3. Determine the critical factors which
determine natural structural and
functional characteristics of seagrass
habitats.
a. Determine the relationships among
primary and secondary productivity and
landscape features (e.g., patch vs
continuous habitat, large vs small
habitats), location within an estuary, and
association with adjacent habitats.
b. Determine if and how habitat function
(e.g., fish and shellfish utilization) differs
among different species and densities of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, SAV,
including seagrasses, macro algae, and
other aquatic plants.
Major Deliverables:
Report on Status and Trends of Seagrasses
in the Gulf 2004
Protocols for Mapping and Monitoring
Seagrasses 2002
34
-------
Water Quality Guidelines (Nutrient, Light,
Chlorophyll) to Protect and Preserve
Seagrass Beds
Water Quality and Sediment Characteristics
Required for Successful Establishment of
Seagrasses
References:
Handley, Lawrence R., Seagrass
Distribution in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico (visited September 3, 2002)
.
Iverson, R.L., and H.F. Bittaker. 1986.
Seagrass Distribution and Abundance
in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal
Waters. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci.
22:577-602.
Thayer, G.W., and J. F. Ustach. 1981.
Gulf of Mexico Wetlands: Value, State
of Knowledge and Research Needs. In:
Proceedings of a Symposium on
Environmental Research Needs in the
Gulf of Mexico, Key Biscayne, FL,
May 1981. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC.
Lewis, R.R. Ill, J. Durako, M.D.
Moffler, and RC. Phillips. 1985.
Seagrass Meadows of Tampa Bay - A
Review. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay
Area Scientific Information Symposium.
S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, RR. Lewis III,
and R.L. Whitman, Jr. (eds.) May 1982.
Florida Sea Grant Report No. 65, pp.
210-246.
Zieman, J.C. and R.T. Zieman. 1989.
The Ecology of the Seagrass Meadows
of the West Coast of Florida: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Biological Report 85 (7.25), 155 pp.
Habitat Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Ms. Diane Altsman
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, MS
Phone:228-688-1033
Email: altsman.diane@epa.gov
Dr. James Johnston
USGS NWRC, LA
Phone:337-266-8556
Email: jimmy iohnston(g),usgs.gov
Expert Panel Members:
Chris Onuf, USGS, Federal Co-Lead
Biological Resources Division
National Wetlands Research Center
Campus Box 339
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78412
Phone:361-985-6266
Fax: (361) 985-6268
E-mail: , ;
Ken Haddad, State Co-Lead
Florida Marine Research Institute
100 8th Avenue, SE
St. Petersburg, Florida 3370
Phone: (727) 896-8626
FAX: (727) 823-0166
E- mail: Haddad K(gidep.state.fl.us
Michael Beck
The Nature Conservancy
88 First Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, California 94105
Phone: (415) 904-9930
Fax: (415) 904-9935
E-mail: mbeck(gitnc.org
Ken Dunton
The University of Texas at Austin
Marine Science Institute
750 Channel View Drive
Port Aransas, TX 78373-5015
Phone: (361) 749-6744
Fax: (361) 749-6777
E-mail: duntonigjutmsi.utexas.edu
Virginia Engle
Environmental Protection Agency
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Phone: (850)934-9354
Fax: (850)934-9201
E-mail: engle.virginia@epa.gov
Larry Handley
National Wetlands Research Center
U.S. Geological Survey
700 Cajundome Boulevard
Lafayette, LA 70506-3152
Phone: (318)266-8556
35
-------
Fax: (318)266-8616
E-mail: larry handlev(giusgs.gov
Ken Heck
University of Alabama
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
101 Bienville Boulevard
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
Phone: (334)861-2141
Fax: (334)861-4646
E-mail: kheck(gidisl.org
William Kruczynski
USEPA
National Marine Sanctuary Office
P.O. Box 500368
Marathon, Florida 33050
Phone: (305)743-0537
Fax: (305)743-3304
email: kruczynski.bill(giepa.gov
Carole Mclvor, Ph.D.
USGS
S. Florida Ecosystem Study Group
Phone: (305)3486845
email: carole mcivor(g),usgs.gov
Cynthia Moncreiff
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
703 East Beach Drive (39564)
P. O. Box 7000
Ocean Springs, MS 39566-7000
Phone: (228) 872-4260 or 4201
Fax: (228)872-4204
email: Cvnthia.MoncreiffSiusm.edu
Mike Porrier
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
Warren Pulich, Jr.
Texas Parks & Wildlife
Resource Protection Division
3000 South IH-35, suite 320
Austin, TX 78704-6536
Phone: (512)912-7014
Fax:(512)707-1358
E-mail: warren.pulich(gitpwd.state.tx.us
Pete Sheridan
NOAA/NMFS Galveston Laboratory
4700 Avenue U
Galveston, Texas 77551
Phone: (409)766-3524
16.
Fax: (409)766-3508
E-mail: pete.sheridanigjnoaa.gov
Dave Tomasko
Tampa Service Office
7601 U.S. Hwy. 301
Tampa, Fl 33637-6759
Phone: (800) 836-0797 ext. 2206
Fax: (813)987-6747
E-mail:
dave .tomasko(g)swfwmd.state .fl.us
Kim Yates
USGS
Coastal Marine Geology
600 4th Street South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Phone: (727) 803-8747 x3059
E-mail: kyatesigiusgs.gov
Public Health Focus Area - Biotic
Pathogens Research Topic
<',',••'••,,• r.V',1/,."; .••/'<•.••,';•• /•'•"••:.•':•/;••>,';•: Coastal and
shoreline development, inefficient waste
water treatment facilities, animal feedlot
operations, and urban runoff and improper
disposal of human waste from boats all
contribute to fecal contamination of our
Nation's waters. Humans who swim and
recreate in water contaminated with fecal
pollution are at an increased risk of
contracting gastrointestinal disease;
respiratory, ear, eye, and skin infections;
meningitis; and hepatitis. Humans who
consumer fish and shellfish from these waters
are also susceptible to a wide range of
organisms with variety of outcomes including
mild to severe gastroenteritis, septicemia and
in extreme cases, death.
?Viv',"i'.i>"' ..-;v,7 /:;i:.'i>:-.:•.:••'; The objective
of this document is to present areas in which
research is needed to assist in either
identifying the causative organism in disease
outbreaks or decreasing the incidence of
disease related to exposure to biotic
pathogens. The document is broken down by
topic area and provides a brief explanation as
to the importance of each area.
1. Pathogen Indicators
Indicator organism(s) are a fundamental
monitoring tool used to measure both changes
environmental (water) quality or conditions
36
-------
and the presence/absence of hard to detect in
target (pathogenic) organisms. An indicator
organism acts as a representation of the
presence/absence of a pathogenic organism
surviving under similar physical, chemical
and nutrient conditions. For fecal
contamination, indicator organisms must: 1)
be consistently and exclusively associated
with the intestinal sources of the pathogenic
organism, 2) occur in greater numbers than
the pathogen, 3) be more resistant to
environmental stresses and persist for a
greater length of time than the pathogen, 4)
not proliferate to any great extent in the
environment, and 5) yield a simple reliable
and inexpensive method for detection,
enumeration, and identification of the
indicator organism. Indicator bacteria are
usually harmless, more plentiful and easier to
detect than pathogens.
EPA and FDA currently have conflicting
standards for similar bodies of water. EPA
published Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria - 1986, which recommended the use
of E. coli and enterococci to replace fecal
coliforms as the recreational water quality
indicator organisms. Fecal coliform bacteria
are used as an indicator to monitor shellfish
harvesting waters through the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). Also,
there is a concern that the risk associated with
pathogen indicators from nonhuman sources
may not be the same as that from human
sources. Given these points, there are several
research questions that need to be answered.
These include:
a. Are the current indicator
recommendations adequate or are new
indicators better at predicting disease
outcomes in human beings? Research in
this area should be focused at the
epidemiological association between the
indicator and disease outcomes.
b. Is there a single indicator which could
be used for both recreational and shellfish
purposes that would adequately protect the
public? Research should be focused on
providing sufficient evidence that a single
indicator organism could adequately
protect the public from disease due to
recreational contact and shellfish
consumption.
c. Is there a method available to rapidly
detect the indicator of interest? Water
quality and shellfish agencies must be able
to detect the indicator quickly to
adequately protect the public. Methods
which can accurately enumerate the
indicator in less than 24 hours should be
the goal of any research into this arena.
d. Is there a difference in the risk of
disease related to exposure from human vs.
nonhuman sources of indicator organisms?
Current data in this area is inconclusive.
Research in this area should attempt to
determine if there is a difference in the
disease outcomes due to various sources of
these organisms and routes of exposure.
2. Pathogenic Organisms
While the indicator organisms identified
above serve as a good tool for identifying the
presence of pathogenic organisms, some
organisms either a) do not associate with the
indicator or b) are accumulated over time in
finfish/shellfish tissues. Therefore, it would
be of interest to have methods available for
these types of organisms to provide an
additional level of protection for the public.
a. What organisms may be present at
levels that would cause disease endpoint in
humans when indicator levels are
acceptable? The Gulf of Mexico Program
Public Health Focus Team has already
identified Norwalk virus as one of the
agents of concern. Research in this area
should focus not only on the organisms
themselves but also on the dose of the
organism that would be necessary to evoke
a disease response.
b. Is there a method available to rapidly
detect the organism of interest?
Cultivation and detection of some
organisms can be quite difficult given the
requirements of the organism and/or the
matrix from which the organism is being
extracted i.e. shellfish tissue. Research in
this area should be focused toward rapid
and accurate detection of the causative
organisms identified above.
3. Pathogen Source Tracking
Identification of fecal bacteria sources is
necessary for accurate interpretation of the
indicators. Non-point source runoff from
forests, pasturelands, and urban areas can
carry the fecal material of domestic and feral
animals into recreational waters. Animal and
waterfowl have been recorded as the cause of
a beach advisories and closings. As
37
-------
regulatory agencies move towards conducting
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
many of these waterbodies, it would be of
interest to identify the true source of the
bacteria so that adequate reduction strategies
can be targeted to an area.
a. What are the best methodologies to
use to conduct source tracing? Currently,
source tracing methodologies include
ribotyping and restriction patterning.
Research should focus on which
methodologies produce consistent and
specific results.
b. Of the methodologies identified
above, what is the minimum dataset necessary
to construct a valid library of sources? All
methodologies require that representative
animals in the watershed be sampled to
assemble a library of bacterial types
associated with each animal. Research should
be focused on the actual number of animals of
a given species that need to be sampled to
give a valid representation of the microbial
flora associated with that species.
c. To what geographic extent can a
bacterial library be applied? Once a library is
constructed, it would be of interest to know
where such a library can be applied so that
reconstruction would not be necessary.
Research should focus on the variability of
microbial flora in animal species within a
watershed, in adjoining watersheds, and
elsewhere to resolve this question.
Public Health Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Dr. Fredrick Kopfler
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, MS
Phone:228-688-2712
E-mail: kopfler.fredigiepa.gov
Thomas Herrington
FDA, MS
Phone: 228-688-7941
E-mail: herrington.tom(g),epa.gov
Expert Panel Co-Leaders:
Joel Hansel, Federal Co-Chair
EPA REGION 4
Atlanta Federal Building 15TH Floor
6 IForsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: 404-562-9274
Fax: 404-562-9224
Email: hansel.joel(giepa.gov
Jeff Lotz, State Co-Chair
Associate Professor
Department of Coastal Sciences
University of Southern Mississippi
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 7000
Ocean Springs, MS 39566
Phone: 228-872-4247
Fax: 228-872-4204
email: j eff.lotzigjusm. edu
Tom Herrington
FDA
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Phone: 601-688-7940
Fax: 601-688-2709
Email:
(Washington)
Email: bigtom2@bellsouth.net (Home)
Angela Ruple
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Drawer 1207
Pascagoula, MS 39567
Phone: 228-762-7402 ext. 312
Fax: 228-769-9200
Email: aruple@triton.pas.nmfs.gov
Carol Dorsey
Alabama Dept. of Public Health
757 Museum Drive
Mobile, AL 36608
Phone: (251)344-6049
Fax:(251)344-6895
Email: caroldorsev@adeph.state.al.us
Dr. Joan Rose
University of South Florida
Department of Marine Science
Mail Code MSL119
140 Seventh Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone:(727)553-1130
Fax:(727)553-1189
Email:
38
-------
17. Public Health Focus Area - Toxic
Substances Research Topic
: Amount of toxic
substances and chemical compounds entering
the environment in the recent years decreased
significantly due to the great effort of
established federal, state and local programs.
However, as reported reductions of chemical
releases continue, the presence of new and
more persistent toxic substances rises a
concern today. The Toxic Release Inventory
data lists more then 600 chemicals and
chemical categories, many of them are
carcinogens, reproductive or developmental
toxicants.
The coastal region of the Gulf of Mexico
has experienced rapid economic and, as a
result, development growth. The industrial,
municipal, and agricultural activities
associated with this development contribute
toxic substances to Gulf waters from
operations, permitted discharges, stormwater
runoff, and accidental releases. According to
Toxic Release Inventory data (TRI 1998-
1999) all five Gulf of Mexico states are listed
in the top 25 states nationally for total
chemical emissions to the environment. The
Gulf of Mexico region has more permitted
point sources of pollution than any other
region in the US (USDOC 1990), and some of
the industrial and municipal facilities
discharge wastes directly into the waters of
the Gulf or the surrounding estuaries (Weber
et al. 1992). This direct exposure to hazardous
wastes is a problem particularly in estuarine
and other protected coastal areas where waste
inputs are usually concentrated and where the
dispersion and dilution, which occur rapidly
in the open ocean, are delayed by restricted
interchange with general oceanic circulation.
As persistence and concentrations increase,
certain elemental contaminants, synthetic
organic compounds, nutrients, and other
substances contained in wastes may reach
levels, which can cause undesirable
environmental effects.
There are two basic ways by which
chemical contaminants can affect marine
resources: 1) by directly affecting the exposed
organism's health and survival, and 2)
contaminating fisheries resources that other
species, including humans, may consume.
Fish and shellfish consumption is
generally the major route of human exposure
to toxic chemicals from the Gulf system. The
effects of many single toxic compounds are
fairly well established, however,
bioaccumulation rates vary significantly for
different contaminants and for different
organisms. It is difficult to establish the
potential degree of human health hazard
posed by their presence in seafood, the form
in which they exist, and the impact of other
coexisting chemical agents. The health effects
of exposure to complex chemical mixtures
and repeat intermittent exposures needs to be
studied.
To provide credible and balanced guidance
for protecting the valuable resources of the
Gulf of Mexico, there is a need to carefully
and clearly determine which of the biological
effects in our coastal waterways are due to
contaminants, and their relative importance.
Such information, combined with the
knowledge of the levels at which
contaminants have toxic effects in biota, is
crucial in providing rational guidelines for
establishing sediment and water quality
standards, and for setting criteria for natural
resource damage assessment and subsequent
restoration of degraded habitats. It is
important that research and scientific
assessment is integrated with policy and
regulatory activities to design and implement
a comprehensive strategy for managing and
protecting the Gulf of Mexico resources.
: Identify appropriate
approaches to reduce, control, and where
possible, eliminate the adverse impacts to
human health and the environment from toxic
substances and pesticides in the Gulf of
Mexico area.
Major Gulf of Mexico research objectives
and actions:
The following addressed research
objectives are identified with decreasing
priority.
1. Evaluate existing databases and promote
development of valid methods of data
collection and analysis.
a. Identify the contaminants of concern
with the most significant potential for
impact on human health and the
39
-------
environment to assist state and local
governments in making risk management
decisions,
b. Incorporate background information
into a toxic contaminants database to allow
assessing the extent and severity of
contamination; including quantifiable
information about sources of
contamination, surface water discharge,
atmospheric deposition,
c. Verify valid methodology and
procedures for sampling and analysis to
ensure adequate precision, accuracy and
consistency to allow comparisons across
the Gulf, including proper QA/QC
documentation to allow correct evaluation,
(priority: medium)
d. Review and develop criteria to evaluate
existing toxicity data with documentation
of organism's size, age, sex, physiological
stage of development and tissue type, and
to prepare an inventory report, (priority:
low)
2. Characterize factors, which support
exposure identification and risk
assessment.
a. Characterize chemical-specific risks to
provide a guidance to state health agencies
and Industry, and justify regulatory or site-
specific decisions,
b. Improve existing models of prediction
of environmental fate, duration and
route(s) of exposure to chemical
contaminants to ensure appropriate
implementation of a risk assessment
c. Identify effects of repeated exposure of
an individual organism/ target population
to contaminant with respect to level of
health hazard posed to a consumer from
the consumption of Gulf seafood,
d. Establish baseline values for chemical
residues and dose- responses to be able to
identify problems promptly and to support
assessment of ecosystem-level effects and
public health risks caused by exposure to
multiple toxic substances,
e. Include in an experimental design
physical, chemical and biological factors
to determine mean baseline values and to
understand toxicity changes with the
seasonal variability associated with those
parameters.
References:
Department of Commerce 1990,
Estuaries of the United States: Vital
Statistics of a National Resource Base.
NOAA, National Ocean Service
Toxics Release Inventory, 1998 and
1999
Weber M., Townsend R.T., Bierce R.
1992, Environmental Quality in the
Gulf of Mexico: A Citizen's Guide.
Center for Marine Conservation.
Washington DC
Toxic Substances Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Barbara Montwill, Federal Co-Chair
U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C.
CFSAN, Office of Seafood
200 "C" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20204
202-418-3158
Email: barbara.montwill(g),cfsan.fda.gov
Henry Folmar, State Co-Chair
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control Laboratory
1542 Old Whitfield Road
Pearl, MS 39208
601-664-3910
Email: Henry folmarigjdeq.state.ms.us
Expert Panel Members
Brian Cain
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
17629 El Camino Real, Suite211
Houston, TX 77058
Phone:281-286-8282
Email: Brian Cain(gjfws.gov
Peter Chapman, Ph.D.
US EPA Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Gulf Ecology Division
Sabine Island Drive
Glf Breeze, FL 32561
Phone: 850-934-9261
Email: Chapman.Peter(giepamail.epa.gov
Julia S. Lytle, Ph.D.
The University of Southern Mississippi
Gulf Coast Research Lab Campus
P.O. Box 7000
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
40
-------
Phone: 228-872-4265
Email: julia.rytle(giusm.edu
Richard Pierce, Ph.D.
Mote Marine Laboratory
1600 Thompson Parkway
Sarasota, FL 34236
Phone: 941-388-4441
Email: rich@mote.org
Terry L. Wade, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Environmental Science, Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group
833 Graham Road
College Station, Texas 77845
TAMU Mail Stop 3149
Phone: 979-862-2323 EXT 134
Fax: 979-862-2361
Email: terry(gigerg.tamu.edu
GMPResearch Topics
18. Invasive Species Focus Area - Invasive
Species Research Topic
Note: In recognition of the extensive past
efforts in assessing the scientific knowledge
and uncertainties related to Invasive Species
conducted by the Characterization Report
Workgroup, as ad-hoc working subcommittee
of the Gulf of Mexico Program Invasive
Species Focus Team, and for consistency, the
materials contained in this research needs
document were abstracted from "An Initial
Survey of Invasive Aquatic Species Issues in
the Gulf of Mexico Region ". Reference
should be made to this and referenced
predecessor documents for greater detail.
: The
transformation of the natural environment and
worldwide transport of people and cargo have
facilitated the introduction of invasive species
at a rate that overshadows natural rates of
species movement (OTA 1993, Mack et al.
2000). It's been estimated that about 50,000
invasive plant, animal, and microbial species
have been introduced into the U.S. (Pimentel
et al. 1999) and, of these, over 6,500 have
established populations (Williams & Meffe
1999). Only a subset of these established
invasive species directly threaten the diversity
or abundance of native species or the
ecological sustainability of occupied
ecosystems. It's been estimated that the
overall economic loss due to invasive species
is more than $138 billion per year (Pimentel
etal. 1999).
A subtropical climate and abundant
aquatic habitats make the Gulf region
naturally hospitable to invasive aquatic
species (Devine 1998, Cox 1999). The region
is even more vulnerable to invasive aquatic
species due to the magnitude and variety of
introduction pathways created by, for
example, i) large numbers of people, vessels,
and airplanes, and large volumes of cargo,
coming through multiple large-scale,
international ports and airports, ii) year-round,
cross-state recreational boating, fishing, and
other aquatic recreational activities, iii) the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi
River, which provide the 5 Gulf states with an
aquatic connection to more than half of the 48
states in the continental U.S. and iv)
substantial horticultural and aquarium trade
industries import, breed, grow-out, and
warehouse a large variety of invasive aquatic
species. Once established in large aquatic
ecosystems, eradication of aquatic invasive
species is almost impossible (Howells 1999,
Benson 2000).
: Aquatic invasive
species directly threaten native species and
ecosystems and regional and national
economic systems. Ecological impacts can
include i) loss of or declines in native species
due to competition for food and space,
predation, habitat alterations, and the
introduction of diseases and parasites, ii)
changes in ecosystem structure and function,
iii) rearrangement of tropic relations, or iv)
genetic effects through hybridization and
interbreeding (Mills et al. 1994, Williams and
Meffe 1999, Benson, 2000).
In March 2000, the Research
Subcommittee of the GMP Monitoring,
Modeling, and Research Committee, assisted
by the Invasive Species Focus Team Co-
Chairs, defined the Priority Research
Questions for the GMP's Invasive Species
Focus Area. These Priority Research
Questions were further refined by the ISFT,
which served as the Expert Panel, in June
2000.
41
-------
1. What methods, data, or models are
required to assess the potential human
health and/or ecological risks associated
with invasive species introductions?
a. What predictive associations/models
are required to assess species and
source locations that pose a high risk to
Gulf waters?
b. What laboratory and field methods,
data, and models are required to assess
both human health and ecological risks
associated with introductions of
invasive species?
2. What is the ecological and economic
extent and effects of invasive species in
the Gulf?
a. What invasive species are present in
the Gulf and what are their economic,
human health, and ecological effects?
b. What methods, models, and data are
required to detect and track subsequent
invasions and spread of invasive
species in Gulf watersheds and Gulf-
wide?
3. What invasive species are transported
to and released into Gulf ports from ship
ballast?
a. What methods are needed to monitor
compliance of ballast exchange in the
Gulf of Mexico?
b. What are the characteristics of
biological (taxa and quantity)
contamination of ballast discharges into
major Gulf ports?
c. What is the anticipated 10-year
shipping forecast for Gulf ports?
d. What methods are needed to detect
unknown species in ballast water
released into the Gulf, or to monitor
for worst case scenarios like human
pathogens and/or plant pathogens?
e. What are the ecological
vulnerabilities, associated with invasive
species, of particular Gulf areas subject
to shipping pressures?
4. What are the ecological risks associated
with the introduction of invasive viruses
into Gulf waters from aquaculture and
seafood processing? At the same time,
what are the risks associated with viruses
that enter aquaculture facilities from a
variety of sources, including stocked
shrimp, processing wastes carried into
ponds by birds, etc.
a. What simple biological/chemical
indicators are required to determine the
presence/absence of shrimp viruses in
environmental samples?
b. What biological indicators are
required to routinely monitor for the
presence of viruses in wild populations
of commercially important species?
c. What are the chemical and biological
characteristics of effluent from aquaculture
and seafood processing plants that might
affect the Gulf, or other areas receiving
aquaculture products?
5. What technologies might prevent and/or
control invasive species introductions?
a. What techniques are effective in the
shipboard treatment of ballast water?
b. What are the best management/treatment
practices to identify and control the release of
shrimp viruses and other microorganisms
from aquaculture and seafood processing
plants, or to other areas receiving aquaculture
products?
The following specific research needs
were defined by the ISFT Co-Chairs, and
refined by the ISFT in June 2000. They are
organized by generic topic areas, and listed
without regard to priority.
1. Risk Analysis
a. Determine what methods, data, or
models are required to assess the risk of
trade pathways and trade partner
sources associated with invasive
species introductions.
2. Prevention of New Introductions
a. Determine preventive strategies and
develop model control mechanisms.
b. Develop risk assessments for
potential and initial presence of
invasive aquatic species.
c. Inventory Gulf marine waters for
invasive species.
3. Reducing the Spread of Established
Populations
a. Develop basin specific and Gulfwide
quantitative databases to pinpoint and track
invasions and spread of invasive aquatic
species.
b. Conduct a Gulfwide status and trends
analysis on invasive species (aquatic and
terrestrial) to include, but not limited to,
species, geographic distribution, habitat
42
-------
types(s) invaded, impacts, rate of spread,
modes of spread, environmental requirements,
etc.
c. Develop monitoring protocols that can
be incorporated into existing water quality
monitoring to identify presence of unknown
species or changes in ecology that might be
attributed to an introduction. Data would be
made available for local follow-up or agency
follow-up, as appropriate.
d. Inventory Gulf marine waters for
invasive species.
4. Ballast Water: Management and
Treatment
a. Determine levels of research activity
on ballast water treatment
b. Determine what methods, data, or
models are required to assess the risk of
ballast water pathways and trade
partner sources associated with
invasive species introductions.
c. Develop mechanisms to ensure that
open ocean exchanges have been
performed (a USCG research project).
d. Develop mechanisms to regulate
ballast water discharge. Refine
methods/procedures for monitoring
compliance of ballast exchange in the
Gulf of Mexico.
e. Characterize biological contents
(taxa, levels) of ballast discharges in
major ports.
f Establish a long-term database (10+
years) of shipping activities of Gulf
Ports.
g. Determine the effectiveness of
ballast water exchange (90 percent for
commercial vessels and 2 times for
military vessels) in achieving percent
kill or removal of organisms in the
ballast water column and sediments.
h. Determine the effectiveness of
ballast water exchange (90 percent for
commercial vessels and 2 times for
military vessels) in preventing the
establishment of reproducing, self-
sustaining populations of invasive
aquatic organisms. The research
question here is what critical population
densities are needed for a successful
invasion (establishment).
i. Determine the effectiveness of
alternate compliance technologies
(ballast water treatments) in achieving
percent kill or removal of ballast
organisms and in the prevention of
established populations of invasive
aquatic species.
5. Ballast Water: Ecosystem Effects
a. Determine what methods, data, or
models are required to assess the risk of
ballast water pathways and trade
partner sources associated with species
introductions.
b. Determine the ecosystem
vulnerability to invasive aquatic species
of the major Gulf ports and adjacent
inland waters. (This might be done by
comparing environmental parameters of
Gulf ports with those of the primary
foreign ports of origin (ports where
ballast is collected) for the majority of
shipping at each Gulf port destination.)
c. Determine similar vulnerabilities for
aquaculture and water garden imports,
handling, marketing, etc. through the
Gulf region.
6. Shrimp Viruses
a. Develop and test Best Management
Practices (BMP) for identification and
control of shrimp viruses during the
delivery of seafood.
b. Develop simple probe(s) for
determining the presence/absence of
shrimp viruses.
c. Establish a monitoring program/protocol
to test for the presence of virus in wild
shrimp populations.
d. While the research needs represent a
broad area of research, those related to
shrimp viruses and ballast water, the first
two primary topics related to the Gulf of
Mexico Program's Invasive Species issue
area, are of greatest importance.
Major Deliverables: (None specified)
References:
"An Initial Survey of Invasive Aquatic
Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico
Region," Non-indigenous Species Focus
Team, Gulf of Mexico Program, Working
Draft Version 3.0, May 21, 2001.
[EPA855-R-00-03, September, 2000].
Benson, A.J. 2000. Documenting Over a
Century of Aquatic Introductions in the
United States. In: Claudi, R. and J.H.
Leach (eds.) 2000. Nonindigenous
43
-------
Freshwater Organisms: Vectors, Biology,
and Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida. Chapter 1, pp. 1-31.
Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Species in North
America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural
Systems. Island Press, Washington, B.C.
Devine, R.S. 1998. Alien Invasion:
America's Battle with Non-Native Animals
and Plants. National Geographic Society,
Washington, D.C.
Howells, R.G. 1999. Guide to
identification of Harmful and Potentially
Harmful Fishes, Shellfishes and Aquatic
Plants Prohibited in Texas. A publication
of Texas Parks & Wildlife Department,
Austin, Texas. Special publication number
PWD BK T3200-376 (11/99).
Mills, E.L., J.R. Chrisman, and K.T.
Holeck. The Role of Canals in the Spread
of Nonindigenous Species in North
America. In: Claudi, R. and J.H. Leach
(eds.) 2000. Nonindigenous Freshwater
Organisms: Vectors Biology and Impacts.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment),
United States Congress. 1993. Harmful
Nonindigenous Species in the United
States. Washington, D.C. 391pp.
Pimentel, D.L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D.
Morrison. 1999. Environmental and
economic costs associated with non-
indigenous species in the United States. A
publication of the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York. June 12, 1999.
Williams, J.D. and O.K. Meffe. 1999.
Status and Trends of the Nation's
Biological Resources. Volume 1. Chapter
"Factors Affecting Biological Resources-
Nonindigeous Species". Pages 117-129.
Invasive Species Focus Team Co-Chairs:
Dr. Herb Kumpf
NOAA/NMFS, FL
(850)234-6541
herb.kumpfgjnoaa.gov
Mr. Bill Holland
Gulf of Mexico Program, MS
(228) 688-3912
Expert Panel Members: Expert Panel
Members have not been identified.
Herb Kumpf (Federal Co-Lead)
NOAA, NMFS
Panama City Laboratory,
3500 Delwood Beach Road
Panama City, FL 32408
Phone: (850)234-6541
Fax: (850)235-3559
E-mail: herb.kumpfginoaa.gov
The Characterization Report Workgroup
Members for "An Initial Survey of Invasive
Aquatic Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region
included:
Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Louisiana Sea
Grant Program
Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Pam Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey
Bill Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program
Herb Kumpf, National Marine Fisheries
Service
Ron Lukens, Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission
Dan Roberts, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission
44
-------
APPENDIX A. RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Amone, Robert
Naval Research Lab., MS
Baynham, Linda
Governor's Ocean Studies,
LA
Carlton, John
Dept. Env. Mgmt., AL
Costa-Pierce, Barry *
Gulf Coast Research Lab.,
MS
Crozier, George
Dauphin Island Sea Lab.,
AL
Dagg, Michael
LA Universities Marine
Consortium
Deegen, Fred
Dept. of Marine Resources,
MS
Dyer, Norman
US EPA, Region 6
Ferry, Roland
US EPA, Region 4
Finch, Terry
DuPont White Pigment and
Mineral Products
Grimes, Jay
Gulf Coast Research Lab.,
MS
Haddad, Ken
Fl Marine Research
Institute, FL
Jones, Ken
Texas A&M University-
Galveston
Kindinger, Jack
U.S. Geological Survey, FL
Kumpf, Herb
Natl. Marine Fisheries
Service,
FL
Leming, Thomas
Natl. Marine Fisheries
Service,
MS
Longley William
TX Water Development
Board
Marcus, Nancy
Florida State University, FL
Matsumoto, Junji
Texas Water Development
Board
McKinney, Larry
TX Parks & Wildlife
Department
Montagna, Paul
U. TX Marine Sciences
Institute
Osgood, Kenric
NOAA Coastal Oceans
Programs
Powell, Gary
TX Water Development
Board
Raab, Daniel
Dupont Agri. Products, TX
Robertson, Andy
National Ocean Service,
MD
Roscigno, Pasquale
Department of Interior, LA
St. Pe, Kerry
Nicholls State University,
LA
Turner, Elizabeth
Coastal Oceans Program,
MD
Villareal, Tracy
The University of Texas
Wiesenberg, Denis
Gulf Coast Research Lab.,
MS
Wilhour, Raymond **
EPA, FL
* State Co-Chair of Research Sub-Committee
** Federal Co-Chair of Research Sub-Committee
45
-------
APPENDIX A. RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS
TECHNICAL EXPERT REPRESENTATIVES
Invasive Species
Kumpf, Herb
Natl. Marine Fisheries
Service, FL
Estuarine Hypoxia
Flemer, David
EPA, D.C.
Pennock, Jonathan
University of Alabama
Coastal Hvpoxia
Scavia, Don
NOAA, MD
Rabalais, Nancy
Louisiana U. Marine
HarmfuVNuisance
Algal Blooms
Greene, Rick
EPA, FL
Steidinger, Karen
FL Marine Research
Institute
Atmospheric Deposition
Ackermann, John
EPA, GA
Sherwell, John
Dept. Natural Resources,
MD
Emergent Coastal
Wetlands
Proffitt, Ed
USGS/BRD, LA
Steyer, Greg
LA Dept. of Natural
Resources
Seagrasses
Onuff, Chris
USGS/BRD, TX
Haddad, Ken
Florida Marine Research
Institute
Public Health - Pathogens
Hansel, Joel
EPA, GA
Lotz, Jeff
Gulf Coast Research Lab.,
MS
Public Health - Toxic
Substances
Montwill, Barbara
U.S. FDA, Washington,
D.C.
Folmar, Henry
DEQ, MS
Consortium
46
-------
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
EPA-855-R-03-003
http: //www. epa. go v/gmpo
May 2003
EPA-855-R-03-003
May 2003
------- |