1

Gulf Hypoxia Science Meeting

December 3, 1999

Meeting Notes

Meeting Outcomes

To explore in a fact-based manner four scientific

questions related to the causes of hypoxia:

Question #1: What is the history of total nitrogen flux (and its

constituent forms) from the Basin?

(Presenter: Don Goolsby)

Question #2: What is the relative role of terrigenous carbon

as a driver of hypoxia? (Presenters: Jon

Pennock and Don Boesch).

Question #3: What is the relationship of nitrogen inputs

(fertilizer, manure, atmospheric) to organic

nitrogen soil inventories and nitrogen outputs?

(Presenters: Mike Burkart and Don Goolsby).

Question #4: What effect does changes in freshwater flows

to the Gulf have on stratification and hypoxia in

the Gulf? (Presenter: Nancy Rabalais)

To identify the areas of convergence (where there is

general agreement among the scientific community) and

identify the essence of disagreements, why the

disagreements may be there and what it would take to

resolve them.
2

Agenda

8:00 - 8:15 Participants introduce themselves and clarify

meeting outcomes and expectations. “This

meeting will be successful if...” Cindy Zook

reviews meeting design and groundrules.

8:15 - 10:00 Presentation and discussion on Question #1: What

is the history of total nitrogen flux (and its

constituent forms) from the Basin?

10:00 - 10:15 BREAK

10:15 - 12:00 Presentation and discussion on Question #2: What

is the relative role of terrigenous carbon as a driver

of hypoxia?

12:00 - 12:15 Break (for working lunch).

12:15 - 2:00 Presentation and discussion on Question #3: What

is the relationship of nitrogen inputs (fertilizer,

manure, atmospheric) to organic nitrogen soil

inventories and nitrogen outputs?

2:00 - 2:15 BREAK

2:15 - 4:00 Presentation and discussion on Question #4: What

effect does changes in freshwater flows to the Gulf 

have on stratification and hypoxia in the

Gulf?

4:00 - 4:30 Wrap up - Participants identify insights and

observations from the day’s work and discuss

next steps and follow-up.
3

Participant Expectations

This meeting will be successful/worthwhile if...

1. Joe S-B - Hear resolution to some of the issues...potential actions.

2. Jim - Clarify agreement/disagreement and know what is needed in

research.

3. Doug - Present problem in Gulf...source of problem.

4. Victor - Gain better understanding of causes...natural processes vs.

man-induced processes.

5. Tim - Agreement on path for solution, shared responsibility and statedirected coordination.

6. Nancy - Put aside non-relevant issues and focus on key issues.

7. Bob - What are the real issues?

8. John B - Make the assessment process more transparent. We need

greater role by states in solving problems.

9. Bruce M - Clear direction about how to inform farm community.

10 Jim B - What will be expected of agriculture?

11. Mark A - Understand the issues and reach consensus.

12. Don G - Resolution of issues.

13. Mike B - Curious about the controversies regarding sources.

14. Dennis - Get clarity.

15. Jim L - Really deal with the 4 questions. Have a focus on what scientific

questions are critical and have process to move forward.

16. Joe E - Find out what we know and don't know.

17. Don S - Stay focused...be fact-based.

18. Bill H - Agree on importance of issue. Develop framework for better

understanding of science basis.

19. Jon P - Stick to scientific issues so we can move forward to policy side.

20. Don B - Measurably move beyond questions about sources and move to

solution.

21. Len B - Manage problem as a system vs. individual issues. Learn the

latest about scientists' view.

22. Jim P - Common understanding of what carbon and nitrogen are doing

down there.

23. Don P - Happy if we do all this! Focus on key scientific issues regarding

causes.

24. Tom P - It's already successful because we have the right "brain power"

in the room.
4

Question #1

What is the history of total nitrogen flux (and its constituent forms)

from the Basin?

Agreements

1. DIN has increased.

2. Total nitrogen has increased.

3. Total nitrogen has increased due to increase in DIN.

4. The most significant increase in DIN concentration and flux

occurred between 1963-1983.

5. There is no trend in DIN or total nitrogen flux since 1980; it's

highly variable depending on discharge.

6. PON has declined since the 1950's.

7. Mississippi River trends mirror trends in other watersheds

worldwide (increase in total nitrogen; stabilization in 1980’s

and 1990’s).

Follow Up Issues and Actions

1. Include Don Goolsby's latest findings in IA.

2. Add confidence intervals to IA.
5

Question #2

What is the relative role of terrigenous carbon as a driver of

hypoxia?

Agreements

1. The carbon that fuels hypoxia is produced over the shelf

waters and sinks primarily in the spring. It is the source of

most organic carbon that consumes oxygen in hypoxic zones.

(Nancy's research).

2. River-derived nitrogen is the most important, manageable

driver of increased organic carbon in the hypoxic zone.

3. Terrigenous carbon is a relatively small factor driving hypoxia

(nitrogen-driven carbon production is approximately an order

of magnitude greater).

4. Increased carbon production in the environment is consistent

with similar systems worldwide.

5. This discussion is irrelevant unless we intend to control the

amount of carbon.

Follow Up Issues and Actions

1. Role of terrigenous carbon is not widely understood. Use Don

Boesch's paper (edited) to more adequately explain the role of

terrigenous carbon.
6

Question #3

What is the relationship of nitrogen inputs (fertilizer, manure,

atmospheric) to organic nitrogen soil inventories and nitrogen

outputs?

Agreements

1. Worldwide, 20% of net human inputs get exported in rivers.

The Mississippi follows this pattern.

2. At the basin level, these are the sources of total nitrogen

delivered to the Gulf:

• Agriculture – 65%

• Municipal and Industrial – 11%

• Other – 24%

These results are consistent with Sparrow and Scope

analyses.

3. There is tremendous variability of nitrogen loads and forms at

the field level based on:

• Farming systems/management practices

• Climate

• Hydrology

• Soil and other physical characteristics.

4. It is hazardous to scale from basin level to field level and vice

versa.

Follow Up Issues and Actions

1. Find better ways of scaling.

2. Find better ways to deal with various agriculture sources of

nitrogen (manure, legumes, etc).

3. Find better ways to relate different land uses (forest,

agriculture, etc.) to nitrogen loads in streams.

4. Assure IA includes research needs.
7

Question #4

What effect does changes in freshwater flows to the Gulf have on

stratification and hypoxia in the Gulf?

Agreements

1. You have to have both nutrient loading and stratification for

Hypoxia.

2. There have been modest changes in total flow as well as the

Atchafalaya River diversion. These changes affect both

nutrient loading and stratification.

3. We do not have data on the changes in stratification caused

by the modest changes in total flow and the Atchafalaya River

diversion.

4. Compared to modest changes in flow, there have been 2x-3x

changes in nutrient loading since 1900.

5. If we choose to manage hypoxia by changing the flows within

the Mississippi River Basin (such as the distribution of flow

between the two main distributaries), there will be multiple

consequences, not all of which are known. Therefore, we

need to improve the scientific basis of decision-making

regarding river flow and engineering to meet multiple

objectives.

Follow Up Issues and Actions

1. We need to integrate hypoxia into discussions on changes to

river management throughout the Basin.
8

Next Steps for IA

1. Draft IA out for public comment - closes December 20th.

2. Working Group - Review and address public comments by

January 31, 2000.

3. Review within CENR agencies by end of February 2000.

4. Deliver IA to Task Force, President and Congress by March

2000.
9

Gulf Hypoxia Science Meeting

December 3, 1999

Session Evaluations Summary

No. of Submissions: (13)

1. Please indicate on the scale below your overall rating of the

meeting and your reason for the rating.

 1 2 (1) 3 (1) 4 (4) 5 (7) Highly Highly

 Dissatisfied Satisfied

Why? Comments:

1. Came to agreements! Cindy did an excellent job

bringing focus on points on agreement.

2. We achieved the major objective of the meeting.

3. Great discussion and great facilitation.

4. Excellent job of facilitating meeting and delivering

meeting summary in a timely manner.

5. Free exchange of information led rather quickly to

consensus. Diversity of interests and backgrounds was

excellent. We got rid of the red herrings.

6. Discussed to resolution the items on the agenda. Verbal

agreement at least by those who agreed. I suspect

silence by some was disagreement.

7. No real accomplishments were made. We had all this

from the first 6 reports.

8. Little new value added to integrated assessment

process. Most of time spent on old issues and red

herrings. Much of discussion driven by special interests

and not motivated by real scientific issues.

9. Meeting was well run and the facilitator kept things well

focused.

10-13. No comments.

2. The highlight and most significant part of the meeting for me

was:

1. Good interaction and focus on critical questions and

good facilitation.
10

2. Coming to common understanding and agreement.

3. Here was less dissension and more consensus than I

expected. We seemed to have settled 2 or 3 major

points of contention. Also, high level of technical

expertise and good group of participants.

4. The open discussion and the relatively strong consensus

on agreements.

5. Hard to say.

6. Making meaningful progress toward the goals in an

efficient and collegial manner.

7. Discussion on questions 1 and 2.

8. Hearing agriculture interests be frank about their

activities, what they were affecting. Good synthetic

thought by Cindy.

9. Reaching consensus/agreement on the questions.

10. Pretty well stayed on the data issues.

11-13. No comments.

3. If I could have changed anything about the meeting it would

have been:

1. To broaden the group to include a greater diversity of

the user group.

2. Have more of the skeptics included in the group.

3. Linking supporting documentation to recommendations.

4. The group was tired by question #3 and very tired by

question #4. Not sure what could have been done.

5. Fewer listeners and more scientists or managers with

real data to share and discuss.

6. To address relevant topics. To actually have crafted a

response to the IA.

7. Development of questions better focused on major

criticisms of CENR reports and IA draft.

8. Increased attendance by people who had disagreements

with reports 1-6.

9-13. No comments.
11

4. Other Comments?

1. Very well facilitated meeting.

2. I thought your mechanism of asking "Okay, so what data

or information do you have to bring to bear to that

comment?" was very effective. (i.e., Put up or shut up).

3. Great facilitation!

4. Meeting itself was well structured and well facilitated.

Facilitator had energy and worked hard to ensure

productive outcomes.

5. Great job in running the meeting!

6-13. No comments.
12

Final Participant List

Dr. Len Bahr

State Wetlands Authority Chairman

Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities Office of the Governor

625 N. 4th Street, Suite 1127

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Ph: 225-342-3968

Fax: 225-342-5214

Lenb@dnr.state.la.us 

James L. Baker

Iowa State University

Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering

219A Davidson

Ames, IA 50011-3080

Ph: 515-294-4025

Fax: 515-294-2552

jlbaker@iastate.edu

John Barrett

PO Box 97

Edroy, TX 78352

Ph: 512-368-2801

Fax: 512-368-2930

Jbtxag@aol.com

Victor Bierman

Limno-Tech

501 Avis Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Ph: 734-332-1200

Fax: 734-332-1212

vbierman@limno.com

Dr. Donald Boesch

Center for Environmental Science

University of Maryland

P.O. Box 775

Cambridge, MD 21613

Ph: 410-228-9250 x601

Fax: 410-228-3843

boesch@ca.umces.edu
13

Mike Burkart

USDA National Soil Tilth Laboratory

2150 Pammel Drive

Ames, IA 50011-4420

Ph: 515-294-5809

burkart@nstl.gov

Joe Engeln

State of Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

205 Jefferson Street

P. O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Ph: 573-751-9813

nrengej@mail.dnr.state.mo.us

Jim Giattina

Director, Gulf of Mexico Program Office

Building 1103, Room 202

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000

Ph: 228-688-1172

Fax: 228-688-2709

giattina.jim@epa.gov

Donald Goolsby

US Geological Survey

Mail Stop 406

Denver Federal Center

Lakewood, CO 80225

Ph: 303-236-5950 x209

Fax: 303-236-5919

dgoolsby@usgs.gov

William L. Hohman

USDA/NRCS

Wildlife Habitat Management Institute

Department of Animal Ecology, ISU

124 Science II

Ames, IA 50011

Ph: 515-294-8591

Fax: 515-294-2234

whohman@iastate.edu 
14

Bob Howarth

E311 Corson Hall

Cornell University

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Ithaca, NY

Ph: 607-255-6175

rwh2@cornell.edu

Doug Knauer

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Center

1350 Femrite Drive

Monona, WI 53716

Ph: 608-221-6354

Knaued@dnr.state.wi.us

Jim Lukens

National Center for Appropriate Technology

P.O. Box 3657

Fayetteville, AR 72702

Ph: 501-442-9824

jlukens@ncat.org

Dennis McKenna

Illinois Department of Agriculture

State Fairgrounds

Springfield, IL 62794

Ph: 217-785-4723

dmckenna@agr.state.il.us

Bruce Montgomery

Agronomy and Plant Protection Division

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

90 West Plato Boulevard

St. Paul, MN 55107-2094

Ph: 651-297-7178

Bruce.Montgomery@state.mn.us 

Jonathan Pennock

University of Alabama

Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Ph: 334-861-7531

jpennock@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
15

Jim Poterfield

Tech. Spec. Land, Water Res. & Forestry

American Farm Bureau

General Office

225 Touhy Road

Park Ridge, IL 60068

Ph: 847-685-8782

Fax: 847-685-8896

jimp@fb.com

Don Pryor

NOAA National Ocean Service

1305 East West Highway, Room 9127

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Ph: 301-713-3000 x127

Fax: 301-713-4353

don.pryor@noaa.gov

Tom Pullen

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mississippi Valley Division

1400 Walnut Street — P.O. Box 80

Vicksburg, MS 39181

Ph: 601-634-5851

Fax: 601-634-7880

tom.pullen@mvd02.usace.army.mil

Nancy Rabalais

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium

8124 Highway 56

Chauvin, LA 71344

Ph: 504-851-2836 or 2800

Fax: 504-851-2874

nrabalais@lumcon.edu

Don Scavia, Chief Scientist

NOAA National Ocean Service

1305 East West Highway, Room 13508

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Ph: 301-713-3060 x130

Fax: 301-713-4270

don.scavia@noaa.gov
16

Joe Schubauer-Berigan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nat’l Center for Environmental Assessment

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive

Cinncinnati, OH 45268

Ph: 513-569-7734

Fax: 513-569-7916

schubauer-berigan.joseph@epa.gov

Timothy C. Strickland, PhD.

National Program Leader, Water Quality

USDA-CSREES

Mail Stop 2210

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C., 20250-2210

Ph: 202-205-5952

Fax: 202-401-1706

tstrickland@reeusda.gov

Mark Anderson

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

manderso@ostp.eop.gov