Le Gulf. -The Draft Report does n not address any, oft the ¢ ecological or economic eonsequerioes

B. Specific Comments With Regard To Individual Draft Reports
Draft ‘Report 1: Characterization of Hypoxia oe

Draft Report 1 thoroughly analyzés the i interaction between nitrogen catering the Gulf of
Mexico via that Mississippi River and its relationship to the size and extent of the Dead

. Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The findings of the Draft Report 1 are clearly consistent

: . ‘with the finding in other watersheds that anthropogenic sources of nutrients have
pervasive ecological effects on shallow coastal and estuarine areas. See, Burkholder, _
IM. etal., Rupture ofa large swine waste holding lagoon in North Carolina, U.S.A.
Impacts on a coastal river and estuary, J. Environmental Quality (1 997); Justi et al.,

. Trends in oxygen content 1911-1984 and occurrence of benthic morality in the northern
adriatic Sea,. 24 Estuar. Coastal Shelf, Sci. 435-445 (1987) oon

Draft Report li is also consistent with the. findings ¢ contained in'a a repoit recently released
by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, John A. Downing, etal,
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Land and Sea Interactions, (June 28,1999) attached

’ ‘hereto as Appendix. 1 and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter the CAST °
‘ Report). The authors of the CAST Teport concluded that ‘flood and drought observations
support a strong connection between river nutrients and hypoxia and that" nitrogen i is the
tiver-bortie nutrient most relevant to phytoplankton production in the br broad marine '

, ‘Tegion contributing to hypoxia”. CAST Report, Chp. 2, Pa 8-12. ° ,

Draft Report 2: eoogia and Economie Canseguences of Hypoxia

We are deeply ‘condemned ‘with the conclusions stated within this Draft Report. Within the
Executive Summary, and elsewhere within the Draft Report, the authors note that "the pve Tap
body of published literature dealing with hypoxia was limited.": They also acknowledge :
that the lack of obvious detrimental ecological and economic effects does'not preclude
the possibility of ecological and economic disaster in the future. Yet, rather than finding _-
‘that there is insufficient data to reach a conclusion regarding i impacts, the'authors of Draft.
Report 2 state in fairly conclusive tertns that "there is no clear indication of hypoxic.
- effects in fisheries or fish populations i in the published literature or data evaluated" (p, :
50), and that the “economic assessment based on fisheries data . . ; failed to detect effects :
\ attributable to hypoxia (pp. 8, 52). In the emotionally charged enviroriment surrounding =
the Dead Zone issue the implication from Draft Report 2 that existing research does not Met TF
* support a finding of either ecological or economic harm takes on great significance,
possibly much greater than that intended by the authors. The authors of Draft Report 2.
must exercise caution in crafting their conclusions lest they b be interpreted as the result of. -
comprehensive analyses of significant relevant data a which, in the end, may drive ve policy Ws

: The MRP would also a assert that Draft Report 2is 5 far to circumscribed in its subject 5
matter.’ Draft Report 2looks ‘only at ecological and economic impacts of hypoxia ¢ on the -


The advantages of such an approach extends beyond the issue of nitrogen pollution,

ptoviding the additional benefits of flood control, increased wildlife habitat,
detoxification, erosion control and reduced sedimentation of water bodies -- objectives ©

consistent with other state and national policy i initiatives. :

We concur r strongly with the authors! emphasis on the need for strategic placement of

” wetlands and riparian areas in the watersheds. To successfully address the Dead Zone, |
strategy implementation must target those areas that export high rates of nitrate-nitrogen -
~ the areas where they will do the most good. Random placement of wetland and riparian
areas, while worthwhile, will not achieve the desired result of significant reduction in
nitrogen inputs to the Basin. ° : :

. ‘The recommended changes i in farm’ ponctions ibe i integration oft more perennial crops,
Teducing subsurface drainage, better timing of manure and fertilizer applications, and
_ hutrient accounting -- are also praiseworthy. “Most of these recommendations, while
requiring some adjustments on the farmer's part, will likely work towards their (the
_ farmers’) long-term economic interests through more efficient use of nutrients, reduction
of off- farm i input costs, and reduced pollution hazards for well and pond water.

3 The authors also poiit out the i importance of coupling cornprehensive monitoring to any
program of nitrogen mitigation. It should be obvious that there is a need to monitor ~ ’

"actions to see if they actually work and, ifso, how well. Yet, historically needed ‘-

monitoring has often not occurred. Accordingly, it is esséntial that the need for _

aa monitoring be highlighted and not merely presumed .

: We concur with Draft Report 5's conclusion that subsurface drainage (tiling) is a

.. significant contributor to and primary source of high nitrate loads in the Corn Belt states.

In the Midwest States there are about 50 million acres of intensively drained farmlands.

, _Most is drained through the use of subsurface tile. In fact, there has been a sigtiificant
"increase in tile drainage in recent years and it is likely that this trend will continue. In this -.
area elevated levels of nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in drainage water will be lost in’
tile-drained soil regardless of fertilizer management practices. This trend would appear to

~. explain why, despite purported decreases in the use of fertilizers on corn, no significant
decrease in nitrogen inputs to the Mississippi River has been observed — the increase in
tile-drained fields has | potentially offset any reduction in fertilizer use. Yet, despite the
-clear role that "tiling" plays in the levels of nitrogen entering the River, Draft Report 5
spends very little time discussion management of these drainage systems. Moreover, ._
research recommendations listed in the Draft Report fail to identify the need for. °
‘additional research on efforts to encourage producer adoption of managed drainage.
Given the importance of this issue, more emphasis must be accorded within the Final
Report to Tecommendations for management of tile drainage. .

_ Draft Report 5 also fails to ‘acknowledge the use 2 of cover crops a8 a means to reduce
“nitrate pollution, ‘The use of. noti-leguminous grasses as "catch crops" has long beena ~
merategy. for: sequestering » soluble ni ts and reoyeling them: for subsequent STOPS.



that proxies utilized were ssoogh* preface almost every discussion of data and analysis,.-
‘ The authors obviously thought this limitation in data was important in terms of the
ecological assessment for they qualify the ecological findings with the statement that
~ “[gliven the limitations of the ecological assessment....”. (p. 8):.We find it peculiar that .
no similar qualifying clause is associated with fii ndings regarding the absence of any -
economic impact. This is particularly curious when one considers that more is actually:
known about the ecological effects of hypoxia than is known about the potential and real
. economic effects at this point in time. ° For purposes of clarity, the Executive Summary :
* and conclusions of the Feport must t qualify; the fi findings regarding eéonomic impact or the
lack thereof. Al :

Moreover, the couchisions set forth within the Draft fi Report appear to fly in the face of

: the. conclusions reached in the CAST Report. The authors of the CAST Report concluded .
that "[b]ecause hypoxia blocks and eliminated access of. migrating juvenile shrimp to.” ;

offshore feeding grouiids, lost production is probably significant over as much as 50% of

“... the coastal shelf of Louisiana." The CAST report also found that the fact that overall °

Yield has shown no “striking trend" since the late 1970's "cannot be interpreted to mean
: “that the impact of Hyponiarhas brea phinimal." CAST Report Chp. 3, p.17. To. ‘the co.
contrary, ‘they conclude that. wee : : oo. 7 i ee
‘Although declines i in overall fisheries yields have not been dramatic over” :
-- the period of increased hypoxia: .. CPUE (catch per unit effort) data from -
the brown shrimp and white’ shrimp fisheries in the Gulf are consistent’
".. with the hypothesis of increased environmental inipact.. Decadal average .
__ CPUE's have declined continuously since ‘the 1960's, with the most rapid
_... ‘tate of decline between the 1980s and 1990s,.: A similar but less steep’
- decline has been observed in the white shrimp fishery . ... CPUEs in these |. .
~<) ~ fisheries have declined by more than 25% since the 1960s :. . Although. ©. ++
- ~~ declines in the shrimp industry may be:linked to changes other than se,
nar hypoxia, there is no current evidence of recruitment failure; thus, the trend
vis Consistent with ‘the hypothesis of. environmental i impact... Sous

“CAST Report at Chp: 3p p.18. “The authors of Draft hRepor 2 should scfly consider
. “these findings before finalizing 1 their ‘Report. °

The MRP. is also troubled that Draft Report 2 fails to adequately discuss the potential
_ economic impact of disruptions i in shrimp migrations. Draft Report 2: does look at the.
ecological impact of such migration disruptions and the economic impact of the possible

. «movement of shrimpers offshore. However, no consideration is given to the existence and
economic impact of east/west movement. Yet, it is undeniable that such an east/west
impact can have equally negative economic impacts. ‘A review of historical data reveals;

"no correlation between good shrimp production i in coastal Louisiana waters and landings -.. .°
‘in Texas. Recent data, however, indicate that years of strong inshore shrimp production i in

Louisiana’ coincides with increased laridings in Texas \: -@ersonal communication with: *:
Dr James Nance, National Marine Fisheries Service). “You can: ‘infer from this that *



of nitrogen pollution in lakes, rivers, and streams throughout the Mississippi River Basin ©
as it moves down the Basin. Nitrogen pollution has numerous economic costs to society,
For example, U.S. Environmental Protection data indicate that agriculture related
nutrients account for much of the degradation of water quality experienced i inrivers -
throughout the Basin and significant i impairment of lake acreage in assessed waters, Us 8.
Environmental Protection‘Agency, National Water Quality Inventory, 1994. -

_ Nitrate/nitrogen levels in drinking water sources also significantly increases treatment

costs incurred by drinking water treatment facilities. All of the econoinic impacts or costs
: of: nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi River Basin must be fully considered. .

“With regard to the analysis of ii impacts to the Guif, both the Executive Summary and the
- “Conclusions of Draft Report 2are misleading in their failure to acknowledge the possible
_ impact of hypoxia on- biodiversity. For example, the Report acknowledges that energy
pulses associated with hypoxia favor short lived opportunistic species, over larger, longer
“lived spécies that better aerate sediments helping to prevent the buildup of organic matter.
Yet, the Conclusion does not note these effects, nor does it discuss the significance of «
joss of biodiversity.. Instead the Conclusion focuses primarily on "fisheries" and fish . -
. populations." The body of the Report reveals significant i impacts to benthic communities -

: that serve as prey for economically i important species. Congress and the National Marine | °

Fisheries Service both recognize the importance fisheries habitat and prey species in

. sustainable fisheries. See 16 U:S.C. Sections 1801-1883:--Accordingly, the Conclusion.” :

. Must discuss impacts to prey species recognized in the text of the document. Moreover,
although noting possible impacts to prey, the Report fails to discuss the uncertainties -
* -regarding the impacts that hypoxic related changes in prey species and habitat have on
: ceonomically i important species. . :

In addition, the Report’ ‘s analysis of the i impacts. on fisheries i is to four ‘economically :
important species: brown shrimp, white shrimp, red snapper, and menhaden. Initially, the

: Executive Summary and Conclusions of the Draft Report should clearly note the limited

_ number of species subject to the analysis. Additionally, the authors should consider: =~
-inelusion of other potentially affected species that could provide additional findings. An
excellent example of this would be red drum or other Sciaenids. Red drum, determined
- . to be overfished by the National Marine Fisheries Service, is an economically important’.

. species that could be affected by hypoxia. Red drum generally feed off benthic: woes
organisms that aré subjected to hypoxic conditions. Additionally, juvenile and subadult _
red drum spend time in coastal wetlands before moving offshore as adults to spawn.

_ -Therefore, the diet and movement patterns of adult and Jarval red drum may be affected -

_by the aniaual occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf.” a : wan

The MRP is equally’ disturbed that the Executive Summary of thé Report makes an
apparent unequivocal finding that " [t]he economic assessment based on fisheries data ..
failed to detect effects attributable to hypoxia." (p. 8). The body of the Draft Report agtes
that in the absence of an existing ‘body of analysis, the study described here involved

-what should be viewed as an exploratory. or preliminary analysis of existing datato <2.
identify possible hypoxi ic effects. ‘Similarly, within the Draft Report comments regatding

athe many assumptions that were tnade, th the limited number of dasa seis Avalable, the fact eae



The Report.notes that SEAMAP data has not been analyzed. SEAMAP is one of the most

extensive fishery databases in the Gulf. It would behoove the authors of Draft Report 2 to
“conduct a full analysis of this substantial database prior to issuance of their final report. It

is quite possible that the SEAMAP data could provide answers to many questions

regarding the écological and economic impacts of. hypoxia that remain unanswered
‘within the Draft Report. :

Draft Report 3: Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi Ashita River : ;
Basin °

Draft Report 50 contains a thorough analysis. of historical streamflow and water quality.’
data, Although possibly the most controversial of the reports, Draft Report 3 includes an « -
analysis of all pertinent data and establishes conclusively that the states above the, . :
confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers are the major contributors of nitrogen to”
the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf. -The findings of Draft Report 3 are consistent
with the findings of the CAST Report. In fact, the percentages assigned within the two

.. Teports to the various sources of nitrogen are consistent. The CAST report notes that -

. agriculture has been implicated in 60% of the assessments of river water quality ,

degradation in the United States. The Report, in analyzing the size of major nitrogen

_Teleases, also concluded that 55% of the nitrogen used or released to the basin is’ _ :

“.., attributable to agricultural fertilizers, 26% from fixation by leguminous crops, 2% from
human sewage and industry, 3% from nonagricultural fertilizer use, and 15% from ©

~ anthropogenic nitrogen deposition through precipitation. ‘The authors of the CAST
‘Report thus conclude, much like the authors of the CENR Draft Report, that "{a]ithough

_ “may sources of nitrogen contribute to the problem, the sheer magnitude of N used in -*

agriculture makes it likely that the majority ¢ of increased N transported by the © Mississippi

_ River is of agricultural origin.

Draft Report 4: Effects of Reducing Nutrient Loads to Surface Waters Within the en
wean 4 Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico - canereae
Draft Report 5: Reducing Nutrient loads, especially nitrate-nitrogen, to surface
a water, groundwater, and the Gulf of Mexico. :

“In general, the findings and recommendations of Draft Reports 4 and $ are accurate and -
reflect both in-depth analysis and creative thinking. Although initial reactions from
some in the agricultural community have been negative, -we believe that the | -
recommendations of Draft Report 5 reflect a creative, comprehensive approach. The
Draft Report addresses all possible contributors to increased nitrogen levels to the Gulf,
including increases in nitrogen use, the rate of flow of water to the Gulf, levying,

| damming and channeling of the Mississippi River, and the loss of wetlands in southern -
Louisiana. The recommendations within that Report also seek to address significant =.

2c eontributors of i nitrogen through a combination of wetland restoration, establishment of ~

wh wetlands and Hiparian buffers as zones for denitrification, and § sequestration ‘of: nutrients.



w~X | =

MISSISSIPPI ; a

RIVERWISE

PARTNERSHIP.
Working for Our Farms, Our Fish, Our Future

- COMMENTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVERWISE PARTNERSHIP |
"+. ON THE DRAFT HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT REPORTS: = |.

The Mississippi Riverwise Partnership (MRP), a coalition of environmental, conservation ~

and sustainable agriculture groups that has formed to work on solutions to the Dead Zone ©.
-. in the Gulf of Mexico, submit the following comments on the Draft Hypoxia Assessment ° ~-*!
"Reports (hereinafter Draft Reports) issued by the President's Commitee on the” we :

; Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). er

‘A. “General Comments
Initially, the MRP woild like to thank the’ CENR fori initiating ‘such a comprehensive
effort to analyze the existing data and applied existing models of the watershed-gulf ©.
’ system. This assessment of peer reviewed data pertaining to the extent, characteristics, - ew
‘and causes and effects (both ecological and economic) of hypoxia i in the Northem Gulfof =. -:
México is an important first step in attempts to address nitrogen pollution within the es
-Mississippi ] River Basin that contribute to the Dead Zone. ‘These Draft Reports make a
‘important initial findings regarding the relationship between nitrogen and the Dead Zone, *-
-Sources of nitrogen entering the Mississippi River Basin; and potential strategies for...
reducing the levels of nitrogen reaching the Gulf. The Draft Repors also identify
" Empottant research needs. * we 5 oe

The CENR's integrated adsessment is an important first step; 5s, However, to 6 niake this effort :
~ worthwhile, the administration must ensuré that state and federal agencies use the 2."
: ‘conclusions and recommendations of the Draft Reports as the basis for an action agenda ~
- “to ‘address the root causes of nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi River Basin. Moreover,’ |
it is imperative that the research needs identified in the Reports be incorporated into oa eee
appropriate agency budget priorities and that full funding for all necessary research be* ..» cot
-appropriated by Congress. ‘The MRP looks forward to working with the CENR and the -
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Nutrient Reduction Task Force toe énsure that the =.
assessment is fully utilized. ~

: oo ~The Findings of the Fertilzer Institute Report, although not undermining the ;
: CENR Reports, should be discussed within the Final CENR Reports -

Recently a teport was completed for ‘the Fertilizer Institute entitied' "The Role of the |
. Mississippi River in Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia” (Environmental Institute Report 70, May.
; 1999) (hereinafter Fertilizer Institute. pa Claims have been’ made that the F getline

po on 3657 aps, AR 72702 plas sata ; Pinal mapidden@ ict xg


quality, increased wildlife habitat, and flood damage reduction. These in turn create
additional ecological and economic ramifications. A full analysis must be made of all of
the benefits of the recommended action throughout the Mississippi River Basin.



‘- additional benefits beyond the reduction. of nitrogen ‘pollution. ¥or'example, restoration.”

Considerable research has already been done on this technique, much of it using cereal _
rye and ryegrass--species adaptable throughout most of the Mississippi River Basin.

. Techniques for interseeding and overseeding these grasses have also been developed and ._.
there would be few barriers to implementation. In truth, cover cropping should, by now,

~ be well integrated into Best Management Practices for row crop Production. :
Unfortunately, that change is also too slow in coming. . :

Finally, Draft Report 5 i ignores the results of: studies that demonstrate the positive impact
that whole farming systems -- such as organic farming — can have on nitrogen pollution.
Organic farming is an approach to agricultural production that replaces pesticides, soluble
fertilizers and monoculture with biodiversity, cultural practices and inputs that are more ©”
environmentally friendly. Recently published results of'a 15-year study reveal that

“ nitrate leaching was 50% less under organic production systems than under the typical:

_ conventional system Drinkwater, L.E. et al. "Legume-based cropping systems have -. an
reduced carbon and nitrogen losses," Nature. Vol. 396 (19) pp. 262-265. (1998). ‘Another
recent publication reports the large increases in nitrate leaching found when several °- °
Illinois farm fields were converted from diverse organic rotations and management to -°
conventional corn and soybean production. Goldstein, W.A., et al." Impact of
agricultural management on nitrate concentrations in drainage waters" American, Journal
of Alternative Agriculture. : Vol.'13 (3) pp. 105-1 10 (1998), :

. Draft Report 6: Evaluation of Economic Costs and Benefits of Methods for
: Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of Mexico”.

The MRP is concerned with the findings of Draft Report 6. .As previously siated ‘with
‘regard to Draft Report 2, existing studies do indicate that there is both an economic and:
“ecological impact to the Gulf's resources as a result of the Dead Zone. The evaluation :: :
attempted by Draft Report 6 cannot be completed until a full indepe mnalys of those ve

impacts, both economic and ecological, are assessed. . Lite

Additionally, an analysis of the "benefits" of reducing; loads i in the Mississippi River :
Basin cannot be circumscribed:only to those "benefits to the Gulf of Mexico". Nutrients ...
are responsible for‘ significant pollution problems throughout the Mississippi River Basin. ”
and its tributaries. (See U.S. EPA, National.Water Quality Inventory (1994)). Reduction a,
of nitrogen will have benefits for these watersheds, as well as the Gulf. For example, :
national studies have found that the social benefits of decreasing agricultural nonpoint
nutrient flux exceed private costs by a substantial margin. “CAST Report, Chp. 6, p. 29.

. (citing Prato, T.. "Summary of MSEA Socioeconomic Research" (unpublished report)
Center for Agriculture, Resource and Environmental Systems, Univ. of Missouri (1995)). ane
The economic and social benefits of nitrogen reduction for local communities throughout
the Mississippi River Basin and its tributaries must be included within the analysis of :

. economic benefits of nitrogen reduction obnizined within the Final Report.

- Moréover, as previously discussed, the recommendations of Draft Report 5 would have.

. Of Wedand and riparian areas have clear implications f fori improvement of overall water:

i


historical migration to the offshore waters south of Louisiana. Absent other factors, this
change in migration pattern undoubtedly causes Louisiana shrimpers to travel greater .
distances in the Gulf. Increases in distance traveled concomitantly increase the costs of
doing business (i.e. gasoline, ice, etc:), and decrease profits. See CAST Report, Chp. 3, p.
18 (noting that increased levels of effort required to catch shrimp due to the effects of
hypoxia on ‘shrimp migration Patterns decrease net revenue to the fisheries, impacting
social welfare). . :

“The MRP also has concerns 5 rezaia the methodology ‘and conclusions reached in ‘the ,
Draft Report 2's analysis of the economic effects of hypoxia. It is difficult to analyze the
aggregate fisheries impact of degraded water quality by examining ‘landings or dockside
values. See CAST Report; Chp..3, p.18. There are also dangers in using CPUE to.

. ;, estimate stock size. Consistent landings or CPUE can be ‘clouded by governmental

- Management systems, increased technology; improved shrimp location data, or the.

_. grouping of shrimp due to hypoxia. ‘For example, if technology improves catch per unit
effort the model employed in Draft Report 2's analysis would assume higher stock size.
Yet, this assumption would clearly be erroneous. Additionally, a finding that fishery

: landings are constant is not an absolute indication that thé fishery is healthy. For :

- instance, with current increases in technology i it could be assuined that fisheries landings

. ‘would be i increasing. The fact that they are not could be an indication that shrimp .

° populations are declining or it could just as s easily | be the feault of management measures.

: Additional concerns vith the methodology employed include the selection of "control an
~- zone". The authors of the economic analysis note that statistical areas were grouped into.

. three ’Zonies: Eastern Louisiana , Louisiana , and Texas . The Eastern Louisiana and Texas

zones were used as a "kind of control" to distinguish between, effects due to hypoxia and
effects due to climate or other factors.“ There are obvious dangers in the use of these -.
“zones as controls. Significant differences in habitat, climate and geologic processes are
“found within each of thesé regions. These difference alone ‘may skew the analysis of
economic impacts caused by the dead. zone, -

The authors of Draft Report 2 acknb wisdge that evidends from other hjporie zones *

_ indicates that, in the face of worsening hypoxic conditions, at some point fisheries will.

“decline, pethaps precipitously. Shrimp’ ‘are an annual crop.. Changes in the stock of such;
annual species do not necessarily occur slowly, as is often found in more long-lived
“species. Instead, significant variations or reductions in stock size can occur in as little as

~ one season. A dramatic reduction in ‘stock size, ‘were it to occur, would inflict potentially

_ «devastating impacts on what is economically the most important fishery inthe Gulf of _

. “Mexico. Yet, Draft Report'2 includes no discussion of the impact such a potential
collapse would have on the fishery, the fishermen, or the: coastal communities dependent

- upon the fishery.’A simple review of existing economic data regarding the economic :

. \-value of the Gulf's shrimp fishery would reveal the magnitude of the economic impact of

2 x8uch’a collapse, Such an analysis must be included within Draft Report 2 if the potential ue
economic ramifications of the Dead Zone are to be fully iinderstood. rence



leaching should. Jead t to new policy recomniendations i in the Draft reports — that open air
lagoons and other liquid manure systems used by CAFOs be banned. .

Draft Topic 3 Paper acknowledges that i its assessment of manure’s contribution within the -
- Nitrogen Yield Models and the Total Phosphorus Yield Model are based on considerable

uncertainty.-Draft Topic Report 4 calls for more ‘esearch on the i impacts of large-scale -

confined animal feeding operations. The best way of ensuring better data availability ~

(and to make CAFOs accountable for the pollution they cause) is to require CAFOs to

monitor and report on their water quality, much like other point sources.. Yet, Draft’.

Topic Report 6 infers that water quality monitoring i is not tecommended for polluted

_ runoff sources.

’ Given the inadequate’ attention to lagoon failures; groundwater contamination, andthe. .

. . data uncertainties that even the authors of the’ papers acknowledge, it is clear that CAFOs

- are contributing miore pollution to the Gulf of Mexico than is calculated in these draft *

“ papers. In his presentation on Draft Report Topic 6 Dr. Otto Doering asserted that the-.

~ threat of nutrient pollution was more significant than the calculations of manure suggest.

“He further indicated that this was due to the concentrated industrial manner in which’
animals are now raised and their wastes disposed. “Dr. Doering’s conclusion finds ~

“ , Support in recent publications. See, Dr. Doering's conclusion finds support in recent

publications. See, e.g. Carey, et al.."The Role of the Mississippi River in Gulf of Mexico
‘-Hypoxia" p. 27. | Environmental Institute Report 70,-May 1999); Clean Water Network
* and Natural Resource Defense Council. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to
<. Prevent Pollution, 1 from Livestock Waste @ecember 1998). :

. There a are alternatives to the livestock production that ‘do not rely on a the confinement of -
“ animals (and manure). These systems often utilize composting, pasture-based systems,
and may redistribute the livestock back to the farms where the feed is being produced SO.
“ the manure can be economically and ecologically used as a fertilizer. This re-opens the _
‘option for sustainable nutrient cycling. Some altematives also feed perennial forage

~ .-erops to the animals; the growth of perennial’ ‘crops was acknowledged in the Draft: .

Reports Topics 4 and Sas auseful means for reducing nutrient pollution.

In sijeamary; “the ‘draft papers should be revised to remedy the lack of attention given to.
‘lagoon failures, to’ address groundwater contamination from lagoon seepage and land
application practices, and the data uncertainties that even the authors of the papers

. acknowledge." Expanding the discussion of these’ topics | will make clear that CAFOs are
contributing more pollution to the Gulf of Mexico than is calculated in these draft papers. .
‘As a result, support for sustainable livestock’ ‘systems 1 must be akey policy ©
recommendation in the draft papers. In addition, the papers” policy recommendations

“should include banning open-eir lagoons and other liquid manure systems 1 used by:

. CAFC ‘Os in order: to cress $s lagoon breaks, ae and leaching.” ; ;



applied i in excess of agronomic rates, Helpful recommendations are made throughout the
draft papers calling for soil testing and injection of manure below the surface. Draft .
Topic Paper 4 also suggests that there may be critical areas in which continued manure
’ applications should be Testricted (p.23). Nearly all the draft reports call for the
application of manure at agronomic rates, but Draft Topic Report 6 comes to the
questionable conclusion that land application rates should be based ona nitrogen, rather
than a Phosphorus standard. (p. 70). : : .
One of the most glaring. omissions in the papers regarding feedlot is issuies is the future to i
” recognize the damage caused by CAFO lagoon failures, Topic Report 6 states that while
the authors understand that leaks from pits and lagoon cause water quality problems, they
will not be considered in the analysis. Instead, “it i is assumed | that all n manure Storage: ,
; units were ‘constructed efficiently” (p. 61). : :

Rather than basing a model on such an ‘erroneous assumption, the drat tepires should
highlight the lagoon failures that have occurred..\For example, in Iowa, in a period from ©
1992 to 1997, there were 51 mamuire spills i into‘Iowa streamis, rivers, and lakes serious °
-.° enough to prompt financial penalties. Overflowing manure storage lagoons were the wile

source of the biggest spills (lowa Department of Natural Resources Database, 1997), In

‘the first quarter of 1998, 15 out of 22 randomly inspected manure lagoons in ‘western
Illinois were caught illegally discharging wastewater into streams. (Illinois. * ahve tes

_ Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)." In Missouri between March 1997: and July

* "1998, one company, Premium Standard Farms, had at least 20 spills of hog waste,: ’
‘totaling more than 250,000 gallons of animal waste. (Izaak Walton League press release,

-. 6/17/99).. EPA's Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science Division has created a.
‘database of spills and other incidents from feedlots that shows dozens of fish kills and
other pollution problems from lagoons. (http:/www.epa govlost/guide/feedlots/envimpet.pdf). 2
the Clean Water'Network and the Izaak League of America are also assembling data that. oa

~ shows fish kills from lagoon ‘spills and other sources. ‘To fully account for all nutrient
loading i into the Gulf of Mexico, the sontribution of Tagoon failares: must be included.

: Another pollution i impact resulting from the use of open-air goons is the conitibution to
. _ atmospheric deposition. To its considerable credit, the Draft Topic 3.Report States that “a
"-. significant portion of the N in animal manure is lost during manure storage, handling, and:
application,” and the Draft Topic Report 4 notes that the ammonia that is mineralized
--” -from manure and other confined animal operations i is one oft two sources that cause e the ad
ammonium in atmospheric deposition ¥ oY ley

‘CAFO lagoons also leach manure into the groundwater, an ‘impact that i is largely ignored eid
"in these analyses, An Towa State University study found that 72% of the lagoons studied mae

‘were seeping more than allowed by the state seepage standard of 1/16 inch of seepage t
loss a day. The report went on-to say, “Since some basins were not full at the time-of *

‘:- measurement, further analysis will be needed to adjust these rates upward to reflect the - :
“seepage that might reasonably be expected when ail basins are operating at full ‘depth.”...

. (Dr. Melvin, Iowa State University; “Preliminary Report: Measurement of. Seepage from.

. Barthen Waste Storage Structures” 1999.) Accounting for the lagoon’



: Institute ‘Report somehow undermines the findings of the CENR Draft Reports. These

Claims are unfounded. A careful review of the Fertilizer Institute Report reveals that there
is no significant conflict between the conclusions reached in that Report and those

_reached within the CENR Draft Reports. ‘In fact, the Reports agree on most issues.

Common findings include: 1) a relation between phytoplankton production in the Gulf

and nutrients exported from the Mississippi River; 2) the identification of agriculture as
the single most significant contributor of nitrogen to the Mississippi River; and 3)a
finding that anthropogenic changes in the Mississippi River basin watershed, including _
significant loss of wetland habitats, increased levying of the River, and increases in © *
precipitation have influenced nutrient flux from the watershed. The sole purported
disagreement between the Fertilizer Institute Report and the CENR Draft Reports is a”

_ » disagreement implied within the Fertilizer Institute Report itself regarding changes in’ -

-nitrogen flux in the lower Mississippi River over the past 30 years. However, a careful
"reading of both reports makes clear that both Reports actually reach similar conclusions.
‘Both Report find that, although mean annual Aitrogen | flux has tripled in the last 30 years,
little change in the annual N flux has occurred since the late 1970's or early 1980s, The
“only disagreement being whether nitrogen flux ‘stabilized in 1979 or the early 1980s.

a, Thus, the conflicts between the two reports are more fictional than real.,

In ‘the opinion of the’ MRP, “rather than uadermining the CENR Draft Reports, the’ -
Fertilizer Institute Report confirms the need for a ‘comprehensive strategy, such as that -

reflected in Draft ‘Report 5's recommendations. Those recommendations call’ for reforms’ mae

in agricultural practices, including needed changes in manure management, restoration of

riparian and wetland areas, reform of U.S. Corps of Engineers' approaches to flood control, °: =. .

* careful design and operation of the lower Mississippi River; and reduction of Point sources, :

including strict requirements “for ‘tertiary. treatment for all new “POTWs..- These. °

- recommendations address all of the anthropogenic changes in the Mississippi Basin posited . .

_ by the Fertilizer Institute Report as possible contributors to the Dead Zone in the Gulf and -

~~ thus are ‘fully’ supported ‘by that Report. Nonetheless, to-avoid-claims that the CENR °° -
Reports are incomplete, ' we would ask that the findings of The Fertilizer. Institute fe Report be :

‘ fly analyzed Prior to Finalization of the CENR Reports.” :

- 2. : Insufficient. Attention is Given to the Polition Caused by Concentrated
i "Aantal Feeding Operations se :

CAF Os can coutribute to nutrient pollution through their emissions of ammonia and the ©
often excessive and concentrated application of manure onto the land. Additionally,
- “CAFOs often utilize enormous lagoons to store their waste and these lagoons often break.»
br spill into surface’ waters, or leach into ) ground and surface waters. Pollution problems -
/ are compounded since these operations ‘tend to concentrate around processing plants, with .

the result that certain counties and regions create more waste than the environment can’

. possibly absorb, To its credit, Draft Topic Report 6 acknowledges that the increased
di ~

1 feature of nearly ail of the rat ‘papets is is acknowledgment that manure is
OMe over applied to the land and i isa aes contributor to the hypoxia in the Gulf