refers to reducing use, not reducing nutrient loss. Much of the controversy
surrounding the CENR effort stems from the interchangeable use of the terms
“nutrient loss,” “nutrient use” and “reducing nutrients.” The integrated
assessment and the action plan must use these terms more precisely, and
define which one constitutes the goal. We support the goal of reducing
nutrient losses. That does not require use reductions. We strongly urge that
this report be revised with a critical eye towards the use of proper terminology
for the following concepts: nutrient inputs to the soil, edge-of-field nutrient
load lost to the river, and nutrient loss reductions.

Further, there is no evidence that reducing use results in greater efficiency.

In fact, we have presented evidence that efficiencies have been increased
without reducing use. Use reductions employed across the board without any
consideration of site-specific practices will reduce productivity and in all
likelihood reduce, not enhance, efficiency. We continue to maintain that use
reduction, as opposed to best management and conservation practices, does
nothing to slow the loss of nutrients, sediments, and other nonpoint source
pollutants to waterbodies. The report in this paragraph is reaching beyond
the data for some benefits of reducing nutrient use across the board. They do
not exist and this paragraph should be modified.

. We note the following excerpts:

P. 6 — Scientific investigations over the last several decades indicate
overwhelmingly that hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico is caused
primarily by excess nutrients delivered to those waters from the Basin, in
combination with stratification of Gulf waters. (emphasis added)

Pp. 14 — While information gaps still exist and several factors discussed below
may contribute to hypoxia, the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that
inputs of nitrogen from the basin is the primary factor driving hypoxia.

p. 19 — Analysis of river discharge data and sediment cores from the
Louisiana shelf in the Mississippi River delta bight indicate that eutrophication
and hypoxia in the northern Gulf increased coincidentally (emphasis added)
with increased in nutrient loads from the Mississippi River.

p. 24 — It also describes the consequences of excess nutrients, the probable
primary cause of hypoxia. (emphasis added)

p. 27 — Evidence described in the previous chapter indicates that high nutrient
loads, particularly nitrogen, from the basin is a primary cause of hypoxia in
the Gulf of Mexico. (emphasis added)



MARB will be to decrease concentrations and shift the composition of
nutrients in its rivers and streams.” Yet by p. 41, it says, “The complex nature
of nutrient cycling and transport with the MARB and Gulf of Mexico make it
difficult to predict specific improvements in water quality that will occur for a
given reduction in nutrient inputs.”

We request two modifications to this chapter. First, on page 44, there is a list
of federal programs that have and can improve water quality conditions. As
previously stated, there is an even longer list of private sector initiatives that
have and can improve water quality conditions. We ask that an effort be to
catalog and include those private sector programs, as the action plan should
be built on both private and public programs that are currently in place and
work.

Second, the last line on page 46 reads “Better estimates of cost savings to
agricultural products from reduced fertilizer nutrient inputs are needed.”
Please strike this sentence. As we have argued, the only water quality goal
here is reduced nutrient loss, not reduced use. There is no evidence that
reduced use improves water quality. The data needed is data about
applications above recommended, agronomic rates rather than the assertions
about the incidence of this practice.

Summary

The scientific assessments, culminating in this integrated assessment, have
failed to establish a factual basis for the sole hypothesis considered, which is
that increased nutrient loadings are responsible for increased hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico. We believe there is evidence in the assessments that there
are multiple factors driving this phenomenon and that nutrients are one of
many contributing factors. Therefore, an action plan addressing only one
factor is a prescription for failure. The action plan must carefully consider the
multiple contributors, the affordability and consequences of addressing each
of the contributors, the potential for leveraging existing public and private
water quality improvement initiatives and establishment of reasonable goals.

At the same time, we believe there is ample justification, notwithstanding Gulf
hypoxia, for private and public entities to work together to reduce nutrient loss
from America’s farms. The conclusions in the assessment that reach beyond
the science and the punitive policy recommendations in the assessment
ignore and fail to build on the successes that are currently being achieved.



. Page 8, first full paragraph. The final sentence reads “nutrient impairments to
water quality in the basin are unlikely to improve without some changes in
current activities.” What basis is there for this statement? Indeed, if residual
nitrogen in the basin is trending down, there appears to be a basis for
expecting nutrient impairments will decline. This statement fails to recognize
current agriculture best management and conservation practices. Also, this
statement fails to heed its own conclusion that “environmental responses . . .
likely will be slow, possibly requiring decades ... “ (p. 42.)

. Page 8, second paragraph: Why will increases in food production and
population lead to greater nutrient losses? Indeed, in the past 40 years
population has increased, food production has increased, and nutrient losses
appear to be declining based on the downward trend in residual losses and
the greater efficiencies gain in input use. The implication seems to be greater
food production demands greater fertilizer use, which adds to nutrient losses.
This is not so. Increased fertilizer use, with good management practices,
leading to greater food production can lead to less nutrient loss. This seems
to be taking place already, based on data presented in the IA. Again, the
report refuses to acknowledge ongoing, successful research, education and
implementation of conservation programs.

. Same paragraph: “If experiences in other systems are applicable to the Gulf
of Mexico . . .” Experiences in other systems are not, in fact, applicable.
There is a great deal of discussion about how collapses of fisheries in the
Black Sea, Baltic Sea and other waterbodies are a precursor for what will
happen in the Gulf. Yet the hydrology, oceanography, land uses in the basin
and other characteristics are quite dissimilar. If these “other experiences”
continue to be cited, please supply scientific evidence of why the comparison
is valid.

. Page 7, second line: The most effective actions for reducing inputs of nitrogen
to water include “reducing application of nitrogen fertilizer (particularly) above
recommended rates.” We are troubled by lack of definition or discussion
about recommended rates. We do believe that farmers and their private or
public advisors need flexibility to determine scientifically and agronomically
defensible rates on a field-specific basis. Reduction of nitrogen fertilizer is
effective ONLY when applications exceed recommended rates. The use of
the word “particularly” seems to leave room for reducing rates even when less
than recommended rates are used. Generally, the result of reducing use from
less than recommended rates will be loss of productivity and profitability for
the farmer, and could even lead to additional losses to the environment.
Please remove the word “particularly.”

. Page 9, last paragraph: “Other potential benefits of nutrient reduction
activities include more efficient use of organic and inorganic fertilizers . . .
lower fertilizer costs . . .” In this instance, the term “nutrient reduction” clearly



This is a scientific assessment. “Cause” is a scientifically precise term. !s
nitrogen the primary cause, the primary factor, the probable primary cause or
the primary cause of hypoxia? We suggest the loose interchangeability of
these terms is inappropriate in a scientific assessment, and reflects the
admitted uncertainties contained in the assessments. We ask for more
uniformity of the terminology used, and that it go only as far as the science
allows. There is no data provided in this or the previous six reports to show
causality between nitrogen inputs to the river and the hypoxic zone. We
believe there is consensus that nitrogen does appear to be a “contributing
factor.” The report should be revised to use this term consistently throughout.

10, Page 21. The discussion about nutrient loads, and particularly figures 2.5A,
should not treat inputs to land the same as point sources. We ask that
“municipal and industrial,” “atmospheric ammonia,” and “atmospheric nitrate”
be treated separately in the text and graphically. These are direct inputs into
water. All the others are land applications and in no way reflect water
loadings. Some additional scientific research should be undertaken to
determine a universal unit for nutrient loads entering the river, and the report
should be rewritten with some modeled or estimated data for edge-of-field
nitrogen inputs from land runoff. We urge the authors to use nitrogen
residuals (figure 2.6) as the best indication of potential amounts for river
loads.

11. Page 28, the discussion about “increased loading scenario”: The text
provides an admission that increased fertilizer use may be necessary to
provide food for a growing population. We reject the implication — based on
data in the integrated assessment — that increased fertilizer use necessarily
increases loadings and drives hypoxia. Residual nitrogen in the basin has
decreased as fertilizer use has increased.

Further, since you accept the assumptions that population will increase and
food demand will increase, why recommend an across-the-board 20 percent
reduction in nitrogen use? The economic assessment that recommends a 20
percent use reduction fails to deal with the population and food production
consequences alluded to here.

In the final paragraph, there is discussion of increased stream flow in the
basin. Does increased flow into the Gulf increase stratification, and what
effect does that have on hypoxia?

The discussion about “No Load Change” Scenario”:
There is no such scenario in the United States. Again, the report refuses to

acknowledge ongoing, successful research, education, and implementation of
best management agriculture and conservation programs. Fertilizer use is



Every day we work with farms to implement practices to reduce nutrient loss
and make our farmer customers more efficient. We believe those efforts are
working, and the integrated assessment contains evidence that those efforts
are working. We strongly suggest the subsequent action plan be built on
these current successes and not resort to new regulation.

| Ag

Sincerely,

ary D. Myers

GDM/vb



N/ The Fertilizer Institute

Gary D. Myers
Preview!

December 20, 1999

Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Working Group

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Room 9127

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

RE: Comments on the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia
In the northem Gulf of Mexico

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Fertilizer Institute (TFl), on behalf of its member companies, is pleased to
submit these comments on the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Working Group's
Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

TFI is a voluntary, non-profit trade association of the fertilizer industry. TFl's
nearly 250 members manufacture over 90 percent of the domestically produced
fertilizer. TFl's membership includes producers, manufacturers, distributors,
transporters and retail dealers of fertilizer and fertilizer materials. TFl's members
are committed to working with farmers to make them more efficient in their input
use, and therefore, have a strong interest in helping farmers implement practices
that make them more efficient and also reduce nutrient losses.

The integrated assessment (IA), as a summary of the six scientific assessments,
carries the same strengths and weakness of the original work. While there
appears to be a great deal of reaching for definitive statements, taken as a whole
the report makes it clear that the causes and consequences of hypoxia are not
well understand, and a great deal of further research is needed.

The lack of definitive science, however, is not a reason or an excuse for inaction.
The goal of reducing nutrient losses is supported by the fertilizer industry.
Indeed, the fertilizer industry is on the front lines of working with farmers to
reduce nutrient losses each day.

S01 Seoond Street, NE emyers@tfiorg
DEC 20 199 Washington, DC 20002 wee iforg

202.675.8250
202.544,0125 fox



decreasing per unit of production, meaning farmers are becoming more
efficient. EPA’s Section 319 program continues to assist states in minimizing
the impact of nonpoint source pollution on waterbodies. By refusing to build
on existing, voluntary, incentive-based programs to address nonpoint source
pressures in order to justify a command-and-control legacy, the authors run
the risk of undermining these ongoing efforts as the uncertainty surrounding
future regulatory programs force unintended resource allocation,

12. Page 29, second paragraph: Again, without evidence of the comparability of
the Kattegat, Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas, this is a false comparison and
should be removed.

13. Page 31, first line: Simulations with a quantitative water quality model
indicate that dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll concentrations on the
Louisiana Inner Shelf do appear to be responsive to reductions in nutrient
loadings. . . however, there are large uncertainties in the magnitudes of these
responses.” This statement does not seem to carry the same certainty as the
conclusion on page 10: “The conclusions provide a solid foundation on which
to build an appropriate response strategy.

14. Page 34: We continue to object to the discussion about insurance rates of
nitrogen. The first bullet point in the middle of the page reads “Reduced
applications of nitrogen fertilizer — This is estimated to offer the greatest
potential reduction of nitrogen loading. BY reducing ‘insurance’ rates of
nitrogen fertilizer . . .”. The last statement is footnoted, and the footnote
informs the reader that data on insurance applications “are sparse.” True,
data is sparse. In fact, there is none presented here, and the original
assessment contained anecdotal examples from one region of one state.
Thus, the sweeping conclusion that reducing this practice offers the greatest
potential reduction of nitrogen loading is speculative and should be removed.
It appears from evidence presented in comments that the incidence of
nitrogen applications exceeding recommended rates only happens when
farmers fail to credit manure and legume nitrogen. In commercial fertilizer
only systems, nitrogen applications are below recommended rates. Thus, the
most effective way of dealing with so-called “insurance” applications is not
with an across-the-board reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use, but in education
and outreach to farmers to help them better account for all sources of
nitrogen available to their crops through the use of comprehensive nutrient
management plans and other best management practices.

15. Page 41. We are supportive of the chapter on adaptive management. We
agree with the additional research and monitoring needs. But this very
accurate and reasonable outline of additional research needs to better
understand the phenomenon belies the certitude contained in the preceding
portions of the assessment. For instance, on p. 31 the IA asserts “The most
direct effect of action to reduce nutrient loading to surface waters in the



The fertilizer industry has been instrumental in raising the agronomic knowledge
base of expertise farmers have to draw on through its support of and participation
in the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) program. The fertilizer industry has provided
a great deal of technical and financial resources to encourage farmers to
implement conservation buffer strips. Fertilizer distribution companies have
developed numerous nutrient management planning tools to help farmers make
judicious use of each pound of nutrient they apply. The fertilizer industry has
worked to bring the tools of technology to bear on U.S. farms to allow farmers
access to information that helps them better manage all their inputs, including
nutrients. We have worked to help our farmers reduce their nutrient losses
because in so doing, our farmers are more efficient, more productive and more
profitable. At the same time, the environmental impact of farming is reduced.

The integrated assessment provides strong evidence that these efforts are
working to reduce nutrient losses. Figure 2.6 shows that in the past 45 years —
the time frame of rapid increases in U.S. fertilizer use — residual nitrogen has
trended downward. Increases in outputs have risen faster than increases in
inputs, leaving LESS residual nitrogen, which is subject to runoff, and leaching.

We note the continued lack of scientific agreement on causes and
consequences, and we applaud and support the research and monitoring needs
that are outlined. We strongly urge the authors of the final report to address the
issue of consistent units in nitrogen loads to the river, as discussed in detail
during the fifth meeting of the MR/GM Watershed Task Force. We also
encourage scientists, in their public statements, to reflect the uncertainties
contained in the assessment. Most importantly, we urge that the action plan
build on the successes that have been achieved at reducing nutrient losses, and
discard the regulatory options outlined in the assessment. The assessment
outlines some of the federal programs — Conservation Buffer Program,
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Conservation Reserve Program, etc. —
that have contributed to this success. As outlined above, there is a vast array of
private sector efforts that have also played a large role in reducing nutrient
losses. These public and private successes should be built upon to achieve
greater loss reductions.

To this end, the entire CENR process continues to suffer from the lack of the kind
broad participation required in section 603 (c ) of Public Law 105-383. It
continues to be a federally driven process of public personnel only. We urge the
Committee, even at this late date, to open the process and bring in private sector
individuals — scientists, farmers, retail dealers and other — who have hands-on
experience at implementing measures that reduce nutrient losses. Without this
input, the action plan is doomed to be limited to federal, top-down regulatory
approaches that have limited reach and limited chance of success.



At the same time, we continue to ask for access to the blind peer reviews of the
six scientific assessments. Clearly, the scientific assessments form the basis for
policy recommendations contained not only in the assessments but in the action
plan as well. Lack of access to the full range of scientific opinion on these issues
is a debilitating disadvantage in our effort to evaluate the science and provide
meaningful input.

Specific comments

The integrated assessment is largely an attempt to buttress the pre-determined
conclusion. Examples:

1. Page 6. “Scientific investigations over the last several decades indicate
overwhelmingly that hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico is caused
primarily by excess nutrients delivered to those waters . . . in combination with
stratification of Gulf waters.”

As the references appear only to list work done in the current decade, we are
unaware of investigations done over several decades. Please provide further
information on the historical work implied in this term.

2. Top of page 7. The first paragraph lists three key changes in the basin during
this century: 1) channelization of the river; 2) alterations in the landscape;
and 3) a “dramatic increase in fertilizer nitrogen input into the Mississippi
River drainage basin.

We continue to protest the clear implication that there is a correlation between
increased fertilizer use and the hypoxic zone. We request that this item 3 be
deleted. In the alternative, we ask that a fourth item be listed here: 4) “A
dramatic increase in nitrogen removal from the basin in the form of increased
crop production.” The increase in fertilizer nitrogen input is irrelevant to the
discussion unless considered in tandem with resulting crop production. As is
pointed out later in the integrated assessment, production has increased
faster than inputs, meaning residual nitrogen has trended down.

3. Page 7, paragraph three. The clearly stated conclusion of the second
scientific assessment was that “economic analysis of fisheries catch data did
not demonstrate statistically significant effects attributable to hypoxia.” So
why does this paragraph begin with the unsupported statement “fisheries are
affected by this large hypoxic zone? We ask that the last sentence be made
the first sentence in this paragraph, as that is the true conclusion of the
scientific assessment. Also, no evidence is presented in this or previous
documents to indicate that the decline in brown shrimp catch is correlated
with hypoxia.