You are here:
External Peer Review of the Draft Region 4 Report, Evaluation of the Role of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Causing or Contributing to Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf, August, 2004
Impact/Purpose:
To assess the validity of the conclusions made in the Region 4 Report and evaluate what issues should be included in the reassessment of the Hypoxia Action Plan of 2001.
Description:
EPA scientists in Region 4 (Atlanta) conducted a review of data and information regarding hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. This Region 4 staff assessment concluded that phosphorus, rather than nitrogen, may be the limiting nutrient controlling Gulf hypoxia. An unauthorized draft of the report was released in January of 2004. This report, because of its controversial conclusion regarding the role of phosphorus in Gulf hypoxia, caused a significant amount of concern among stakeholders. After considerable internal review by Region 4 EPA scientists, the Region released a significantly revised version of the draft report for a broader internal EPA review in April 2004. The report was revised based on the broader EPA review and released to the Hypoxia Task Force in August 2004, as an informational document with the specific purpose of encouraging discussion and posing questions for the reassessment of the Action Plan. The draft report, "Evaluation of the Role of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Causing or Contributing to Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf, August, 2004," had not at that time been subjected to external peer review. The Coordinating Committee of the Task Force, in coordination with the MMR, examined several options for the external peer review. These groups concluded and the Task Force agreed that adapting the process employed by EPA to seek expert reviews of internal scientific and policy papers would allow for appropriate input from the Task Force while maintaining an independent and impartial review. EPA's Office of Science and Technology (OST), Health and Ecological Criteria Division (HECD) retains a contractor for the specific purpose of peer review. These peer reviews are performed following the guidelines contained in the EPA Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review (2000; http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/htm/peercov.htm). This external peer review and the public scientific input process conducted during the external peer review have now been completed. All relevant documents for this review including the Draft Region 4 Report, Peer Review comments, and EPA response can be viewed at the following url: http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/new.htm An additional EPA Science Inventory record that is related to the findings of this peer review is record # 133526.