Page 5
August 13, 1999

federal interagency review. We request a clear written explanation of the
Administration’s proposed process, including a discussion of the roles and
responsibilities of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task
Force, comprised of federal, state, and tribal representatives, and the Inter-Agency
Task Force on Harmful Aigal Blooms and Hypoxia, established under P.L. 105-383
and comprised exclusively of federal agency representatives.

e Avssuccessful process to develop a consensus Action Plan will need to draw on far
more than the members of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force. It will be essential to meaningfully engage potentially effected
stakeholders. In addition, the basin states that do not border the Mississippi River
will need to become involved. Given the vast geographic scale and the wide range
of interests involved, this will be a tremendous challenge and is one of the reasons
that we believe a sound process will likely extend beyond the current schedule,
which calls for submitting the Action Plan to Congress on August 29, 2000.

© In developing the Action Plan, we would urge consideration of Gulf hypoxia in the
context of other water resource and land management issues and activities. Given
the complexity of hypoxia and the enormous spatial scale in question, there are
important interrelationships with other water resource and land management issues
and initiatives. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of
revising the Missouri River Master Manual, which governs operation of the
Missouri River reservoir system and thus has the potential to alter the Missouri’s
contributions to the Mississippi River. As another example, Illinois and Minnesota
are working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and local landowners through
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program on major initiatives for the Illinois
and Minnesota Rivers. These efforts hold the promise of substantially reducing
sediment, pesticide, and nutrient loadings from basin tributaries. The Action Plan
must not be developed in isolation from such considerations.

e The Action Plan should consider multiple spatial scales and preserve the flexibility
to pursue locally appropriate measures. Quite simply, there will be no one-size-fits-
all solution. The problem is too complex and the conditions throughout the basin
are too varied. However, there are many successful local partnerships already in
existence and we should look for opportunities to foster and build upon these. In
addition, we should pay particular attention to those measures that hold promise for
improving water quality within the Mississippi River Basin as well as in the Gulf of
Mexico.

Again, we sincerely appreciate the scientific report teams’ considerable efforts and the fine
work of many federal agency staff in coordinating the six reports. We thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the reports and look forward to being involved in the
development of the Integrated Assessment. Illinois, lowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin also look forward to collaborating with other members of the Mississippi


Page 4
August 13, 1999

¢ The Integrated Assessment should clearly set forth what is known and what is not
known scientifically regarding Gulf hypoxia. It should not include conjecture and
most definitely should not draw policy conclusions. To go beyond the identification
of policy alternatives and related analysis of the social, economic, and ecological
impacts of those alternatives would undermine the collaborative, consensus-based
process for developing the Action Plan that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) outlined at the June 30-July 1, 1999 meeting of the Mississippi River/Gulf of
Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (Task Force).

© Given the need to consider additional information and consult with the Task Force,
the current Integrated Assessment schedule, which calls for initiating the 60-day
public comment period on September 20, 1999, should be revised. There simply is
not sufficient time between now and September 20 for the Hypoxia Working Group
to review the comments on the scientific reports, solicit additional data, subject that
data to credible scientific review, draft the assessment itself, and provide Task Force
members with a review opportunity. While we acknowledge that such a revision
would further delay the process, we would repeat what we have said on several
previous occasions — i.e., it is essential to take the time to establish an open and
credible process. Failure to do so will, in the states’ opinion, ultimately result in
longer delays.

A sound Integrated Assessment that clearly describes what we know and do not know
about Gulf hypoxia, its causes, and the technical and economic feasibility of potential
solutions, will be a critical building block for the Action Pian. Indeed, we envision the
Action Plan as essentially the policy reaction to the science that is presented in the
Integrated Assessment. With that in mind, the five states would like to offer the following
observations regarding that Action Plan:

« We were heartened to hear EPA Assistant Administrator Fox’s remarks regarding
the Action Plan at the Task Force’s recent meeting in Memphis. The states believe
quite strongly that, to be viable, any Action Plan must be the product of a true
partnership and represent the partners’ consensus perspectives. We also believe that
the process would benefit greatly from a clear and formal articulation of this
commitment to a collaborative, consensus-based process. Under P.L. 105-383,
responsibility for submitting the Gulf hypoxia Action Plan ultimately rests with the
President, who is charged with developing the plan in conjunction with the
Governors of the affected states. But it is not clear precisely what role the
Administration envisions for the Task Force in this process. Assistant
Administrator Fox’s April 15, 1999 letter to Task Force members asks them
“to assume responsibility for preparation of the plan,” while Assistant to the
President Lane’s December 22, 1998 letter to EPA Administrator Browner suggests
that the Task Force develop a proposed plan that would be subject to subsequent


Page 6
August 13, 1999

River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force and the wide range of potentially
affected stakeholders to craft a consensus-based Action Plan that will meet the needs of the
Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico.

Sincerely, .

Ansles 5 Wz ios be Spend
Gordon Wegwart Kevin Szcodronski

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Iowa Department of Natural Resources
On behalf of the UMR State Members Chair, Upper Mississippi River Basin
of the Mississippi River/ Gulf of Mexico Association

Watershed Nutrient Task Force

cc: Representative Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure

Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure

Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation

Senator Emest F. Hollings, Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries

Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of
Commerce

Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, Associate Director for Environment, Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Members of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Representatives and Alternates


Upper

Mississippi River

Basin Association

ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN

August 13, 1999

Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Working Group
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
WS 13446 SSMC4

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Dear Members of the Hypoxia Working Group:

Pursuant to the “Notice of Availability of Topical Scientific Reports for an Integrated
Assessment of the Causes and Consequences of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico” published
in the May 4, 1999 Federal Register, please accept these comments conveying the
consensus perspectives of the Upper Mississippi River states’ members on the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force and the Governors’ representatives
to the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. These comments are supplementary to,
but are in no way a substitute for, the five states’ individual comments. By way of
background, the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin
established the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association in 1981 to coordinate the state
agencies’ river-related programs and policies and to work with federal agencies on
regional issues.

Because of the relatively short comment period and the complexity of the issues at hand,
we would note that the states have not had an opportunity to fully coordinate review of
these scientific reports both among the state agencies and with potentially affected
stakeholder groups. Thus we urge the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources’ (CENR) Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Working Group to review and carefully
consider the comments offered by the individual states and agencies, as well as concerned
stakeholders within our states.

First, we would like to acknowledge that the six scientific report teams have made
significant contributions to our collective understanding of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
and related issues. Moreover, we certainly recognize, as do the report authors themselves,
that the teams labored under substantial constraints in terms of time, resources, and
available data. That being said, however, the states have a number of perspectives and
concerns to share regarding the reports themselves as well as the future of the process that
has been established to address the problem of Gulf hypoxia.

415 HAMM BUILDING

408 ST. PETER STREET

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
TELEPHONE: 651-224-2880
FACSIMILE: 651-223-5815


Page 2
August 13, 1999

The Scientific Reports

The states’ individual comments will address the specifics of the six scientific reports in
greater detail. However, as a group of five states, we would like to affirm that the reports
include significant findings relative to the nature, causes, and potential remedies for Gulf
hypoxia. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that there are significant
uncertainties acknowledged by the report authors themselves. Among these uncertainties
are the following:

e The ability to link changes in Gulf water quality to specific changes in nutrient
loading is limited “due to lack of information on controlling physical, chemical and
biological processes, and to natural variability in hydrometeorological conditions in
the northern Gulf of Mexico.”

¢ We do not know “whether hypoxia leads to higher productivity during productive
periods, or simply a reduction of productivity during the oxygen-stressed period.”

© The lag time between reductions in nitrogen inputs in the basin and reductions in
nitrate loading to the Gulf is “unknown, but may be several years, or longer.”

 Itis difficult to estimate the cumulative effects of implementing various land
management practices on a large watershed scale, and “experiences at selected sites
and smali watersheds should not be linearly extrapolated to estimate changes in
nutrient deliveries and transport over large areas.”

© Several of the scientific reports describe hypoxia as a nitrogen-driven phenomenon
in the Gulf, yet modeling done for Topic Paper 4 indicates that the differences in
water quality responses to “nitrogen and phosphorus loading reductions were
generally not large.”

¢ The administrative, monitoring, verification, and regulatory costs of the various
nutrient reduction strategies discussed in Topic Papers 5 and 6 have not been
estimated, but are acknowledged to be important factors. Similarly, information
about economic and social impacts is presented only in aggregate form for the
region and nation, while the Topic Paper 6 authors concede that the local and
individual impacts would be highly variable.

We are not highlighting these uncertainties as a criticism of the scientific reports per se.
Indeed, it is to the authors' credit that they explicitly acknowledge these and many other
significant uncertainties. All of the reports frequently identify limitations in the available
data and models, and five of the reports include specific sections identifying extensive
additional research needs.


Page 3
August 13, 1999

However, particularly in light of these many uncertainties, it is critical to articulate what is
known, and not known, about Gulf hypoxia, its impacts and causes, and potential ways of
addressing those causes. Scientific judgments and analysis of future scenarios, including
response options, should include uncertainty assessments. While it is important to
understand the social, economic, and ecological feasibility of a range of policy options as
well, the scientific reports and subsequent Integrated Assessment should not convey the
mistaken impression that policy makers are predisposed to specific solutions before the
public has had an opportunity to help shape policy recommendations. Recommendations
that go beyond the scope of the charge to the report teams should not be included in the
Integrated Assessment. The reports clearly show the potential for environmental impact
resulting from low dissolved oxygen in the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, the analysis
of Gulf fisheries data does not presently show a demonstrable economic effect attributable
to hypoxia.

While we believe that some form of action will ultimately be needed, we also believe that
time should be provided for the public to review the scientific information, provide
supplemental information critical to an adequate Integrated Assessment, and participate in
crafting an action plan in response. Public policy makers will need such citizen and
stakeholder input as they consider what actions may be warranted and the timing of those
actions. Given the lack of public involvement and the remaining scientific uncertainties,
it is, quite simply, far too early for responsible public policy makers to be reaching
conclusions regarding whether to pursue specific actions for the purpose of addressing
Gulf hypoxia. Development of a hypoxia action strategy rightfully belongs in the public
sphere, where alternatives can be openly debated and carefully considered.

The Process

Looking forward, we believe it is imperative that the states and others be more involved in
development of the Integrated Assessment and Action Plan.. More specifically, with
respect to the Integrated Assessment, we recommend the following:

© The CENR should direct its Hypoxia Working Group to establish an open process
for the Integrated Assessment. This should include acknowledging and carefully
considering all comments received on the scientific reports. All written comments
on the six reports should be made publicly available on the Internet and in hardcopy
form. In addition, we respectfully request a written response to our joint comments
and to the other comments that the states submit on an individual basis.

e CENR should provide ample opportunity for the states and others to submit relevant
data that are not reflected in the scientific reports. The findings and conclusions of
the six reports should be evaluated in light of this additional information. A
balanced and comprehensive consideration of differing scientific perspectives is
vital to the ultimate credibility of the Integrated Assessment.