U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–516PS 2003

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS

AND HYPOXIA: STRENGTHENING

THE SCIENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 13, 2003

Serial No. 108–8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

NICK SMITH, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

ZOE LOFGREN, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

ERIC WEBSTER Subcommittee Staff Director

MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member

MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member

SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member

ELYSE STRATTON Majority Staff Assistant

MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 13, 2003

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Prepared Statement by Senator George V. Voinovich from the State of Ohio,

U.S. Senate ........................................................................................................... 11

Witnesses

Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Dr. Wayne W. Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences; Associate Director, Environmental Sciences

Ph.D. Program, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29

Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39

Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington State Department

of Fish and Wildlife

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55

Discussion

Input on the Proposed Bill .................................................................................. 57

Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms ..................................................... 59

Research and Possible Treatments for HABs .................................................... 60

Potential Environmental Effects of Treatment Technologies ........................... 61

The Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia ............. 63

Page

IV

Appendix 1: Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to PostHearing Questions

Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

Biography .......................................................................................................... 68

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................. 69

Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Biography .......................................................................................................... 72

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................. 74

Dr. Wayne W. Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences; Associate Director, Environmental Sciences

Ph.D. Program, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Biography .......................................................................................................... 80

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 82

Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts

Biography .......................................................................................................... 83

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 85

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................. 86

Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington State Department

of Fish and Wildlife

Biography .......................................................................................................... 90

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 91

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................. 92

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Dr. Robert E. Magnien, Director, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources .......................................... 96

Draft of Bill to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act of 1998 ....................................................................................... 99

Copy of Title VI, Public Law 105–383, November 13, 1998 ................................. 106

(1)

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA:

STRENGTHENING THE SCIENCE

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:30

a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.

Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Harmful Algal Blooms and

Hypoxia: Strengthening the Science

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 10:00 am the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards will hold a hearing to receive

testimony regarding research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Subcommittee will also review the assessments produced by the Harmful Algal Bloom

and Hypoxia Task Force and the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur in aquatic environments when conditions trigger an increase in the abundance of plankton that produce toxins detrimental to

aquatic life and to humans. HABs have been estimated to cost the U.S. economy

as much as $50 million per year due to closure of fisheries and beaches and treatment of human illness from exposure to toxins. Hypoxia, caused by the decomposition of algal blooms (although not necessarily by a harmful algal bloom), is a condition where oxygen levels in an aquatic environment have been depleted to levels unable to support marine life. As such it disrupts the food webs that support fish and

shellfish growth and causes economic and ecological damage of its own. The Subcommittee is reviewing the research provisions of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA) as it looks to reauthorize

HABHRCA, which expired in 2001.

The Subcommittee plans to explore several overarching questions, including:

(1) What is the state of the science in understanding the causes of harmful

algal blooms and hypoxia? To what extent should future research efforts

focus on freshwater vs. marine blooms? What research and development efforts are needed to enable better prediction of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia?

(2) What are the current impacts on the Nation from harmful algal blooms and

hypoxia? What research and development efforts are needed to develop

methods to control and mitigate those impacts?

(3) How successful was the 1998 Act in coordinating the agendas and resources

of federal agencies to address the problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? How should the Act be amended to improve these efforts?

Witnesses:

Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Dr. Wayne Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology, Department of

Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.

Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.

Mr. Dan Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Shellfish Lead, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

4

Summary of Issues:

Under the 1998 Act the Task Force was required to produce two reports assessing harmful algal blooms and hypoxia at a national scale, however they

were not required to provide nationwide action plans for following up on

recommendations in those reports. While the national assessments are useful,

the natural next step would be to develop nationwide research and management

plans based on the information contained in the assessments.

Outbreaks of harmful algal blooms affect more than twice as many areas

as they did in 1970, and the reasons for this increase in occurrences are

unclear. Potential explanations include: natural causes, such as dispersal through

storms and ocean currents; human-related causes, such as nutrient pollution; increased monitoring and identification of toxic phytoplankton; the introduction of

new toxic algal species from ballast water; and, in the Great Lakes, the proliferation

of invasive species such as zebra mussels which alter nutrient dynamics in the

lakes. It is estimated that the average economic impacts from harmful algal blooms

total $50 million per year in the U.S., although some individual severe algal blooms

have cost that amount alone.

The quality of technology for detecting, modeling and predicting harmful

algal blooms could be improved with focused research funding. For blooms

producing pigments, such as red or brown tides, visual observation is often sufficient. But detecting an increase in algae before it reaches a harmful mass, or detecting harmful algae that do not produce pigments, requires sophisticated lab analysis

in combination with observing systems in the water and on satellites. The technology exists, but the time from sampling to lab analysis is long and the expense

remains quite large. Less cumbersome, cheaper, faster, and automated detection

techniques would greatly benefit managers in responding to events more efficiently,

such as when a resource manager needs to decide about issuing shellfish consumption warnings.

Funding for research on developing prevention, control and mitigation

methods for harmful algal blooms has not been appropriated in the past.

There was an authorization in the 1998 Act for funds for a merit-reviewed research

program on prevention, control and mitigation methods for harmful algal blooms,

but little has been done at the federal level to facilitate research on this topic.

NOAA has never requested funds for this purpose. There are two published reports

with plans for this type of research, one authored by SeaGrant and the other by

the Coastal Ocean Program (both part of NOAA). These plans could be used by

NOAA to develop a research program for this area.

Water quality data collection and reporting is not consistent among different Federal and State agencies, reducing the effectiveness of the data

for modeling of hypoxia. Successful modeling and monitoring to determine the

presence and scope of a bloom requires the use of detection and assessment techniques in a systematic way, something that has not occurred in a consistent manner

to date. To develop dependable models, scientists need reliable data from both freshwater and marine sources. Major federal sources of water quality data include

USGS, which provides water quality data on rivers and streams through its stream

gage network; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which collects data from

state surveys of lakes and coastal environments; and NOAA, which utilizes ocean

and coastal observing programs with water buoys and satellite data to assess water

quality. There have been no formal, effective efforts to coordinate the data collection

methods so that the information can be easily consolidated and shared.

Efforts to understand freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in locations such as the Great Lakes have not been as extensive as research on

marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Great Lakes have recently experienced an increase in the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, causing substantial decline in water quality. The reasons for this phenomenon are poorly

understood, although one proposed explanation is that invasive species such as

zebra mussels are altering nutrient behavior in the lakes.

Background:

Algae are microscopic, single-celled organisms present in aquatic environments.

Under normal conditions these organisms are benign and serve a critical role as energy producers at the base of aquatic food webs, supporting the growth of higher

organisms. Under certain circumstances, however, the population of a single algal

species or several related species will rapidly increase in abundance, creating what

is referred to as an ‘‘algal bloom.’’ Algal blooms have many adverse effects on ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

system and human health. ‘‘Harmful algal blooms’’ are blooms of algal species that

produce toxins detrimental to humans and marine life. ‘‘Hypoxia’’ refers to the depletion of oxygen to levels unable to support marine life, a condition which often

occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria.

Harmful Algal Blooms

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have occurred throughout recorded history, however

in the past 30 years the rate of occurrence and the duration of harmful algal blooms

have increased substantially. HABs present a major threat to aquatic environments

and to human health because of the toxins released during the events. These compounds can kill or injure large quantities of marine life that come in direct contact

with them. Also, toxins can accumulate in animals that are not susceptible and

cause illness when they are later consumed by other animals and humans who are

susceptible to the toxins. For some toxins, consumption of a single contaminated

clam or mussel can be enough to cause illness. Humans may also be directly harmed

by skin contact or inhalation of spray from toxin-contaminated water. To protect the

public when harmful algae or toxins have been detected, State and local governments close beaches to swimmers and shellfish beds to commercial and recreational

harvesting, and may have to recall already harvested shellfish. Average economic impacts from HABs total $50 million per year in the U.S., although severe single events have cost that amount alone to localities. The economic

impacts of HABs include consideration of the costs associated with conducting research and monitoring programs; short-term and permanent closures of harvestable

shellfish and fish stocks; reductions in seafood sales; mortalities of wild and farmed

fish, shellfish, and submerged aquatic vegetation, and coral reefs; declines in tourism; and treating human illness. Since HAB events are increasing in frequency and

duration, the annual economic impact will likely grow if the HAB problem is not

addressed adequately.

Hypoxia

Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria in the

water. The decomposition process consumes oxygen, creating an environment in

which plants and animals cannot survive. Concern about hypoxia has focused primarily on the Gulf of Mexico, where a hypoxic zone the size of New Jersey appears

each summer and persists for much of the season. This renders the affected area,

which normally contains some of the most valuable fisheries in the United States,

essentially lifeless. Most recent analysis of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone indicates

that the size of the zone continues to grow each year. Other areas of the country

that experience chronic hypoxia include the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound,

and Sarasota Bay.

Many experts agree that the major cause of hypoxia is nutrient pollution in coastal areas. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates the regional and national

scale of this problem. The Mississippi River Basin includes drainage from 31 states

and carries farm chemicals, treated sewage discharge, storm water runoff, and pollutants from factories and refineries to the Gulf. Given the economic importance and

large geographic distribution of the pollutant sources this presents a challenging,

national management problem.

Hypoxia can be caused by any type of algal bloom, not only by blooms of toxinproducing algae. Macroalgal, or seaweed, blooms also can lead to hypoxia. Numerous factors, including nutrient pollution and introduction of invasive species from

ballast water, cause macroalgal blooms. The result of these seaweed blooms can be

shading or smothering of other organisms that need sunlight to survive, habitat degradation, and a significant decrease in available oxygen as the seaweeds decompose.

Macroalgal blooms have been particularly troublesome in coral reef ecosystems

where the slow-growing corals cannot keep pace with rapidly growing marcroalgae.

Congressional Action

In 1997 an outbreak of Pfiesteria piscicida focused public and Congressional attention on algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and was partly responsible for

prompting the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA).

The Act established an interagency task force on HABs and hypoxia. Four reports

were required from the Task Force: National Harmful Algal Bloom Assessment, Gulf

of Mexico Hypoxia Assessment, Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, and a National

Hypoxia Assessment. The first three were published; the last is finished and currently awaiting publication. NOAA coordinated the three assessments while EPA coordinated the Gulf of Mexico Action Plan. A Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was established to implement the Gulf of Mexico Action

Plan. This Task Force consists of Federal, State and local stakeholders and meets

regularly to discuss the implementation process.

6

Additionally, HABHRCA authorized funding for HAB and hypoxia research

through NOAA. In particular the Act supported the Ecology and Oceanography of

Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program that the Administration had launched

in 1996. This program supports basic research necessary to understand HABs and

produce models to forecast bloom development, persistence and toxicity. Grant applications are solicited from universities, private research institutions, and federal

agencies and awarded through a merit-reviewed system. NOAA coordinates

ECOHAB with the participation of the EPA, the National Science Foundation

(NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Office of Naval

Research (ONR).

In January 2003, Sen. Snowe (R–ME) and Sen. Breaux (D–LA) introduced S. 247,

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. It was referred to

the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The bill authorizes average

annual funding at $26.5 million over the next three years for continued HABHRCA

activities, local and regional HAB and hypoxia assessments, and the development

of a prediction and response plan.

Rep. Ehlers has drafted a Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments bill

that builds on the Senate bill. The witnesses have been asked to provide written

comments and suggestions on the draft amendments bill. It would authorize average

annual funding at $28 million over the next three years for continued HABHRCA

activities, an assessment and research plan for freshwater harmful algal blooms,

and a research plan for developing prevention, control and mitigation methods.

Questions for witnesses:

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their written testimony to the Subcommittee.

Questions for Dr. Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service,

NOAA.

(1) How has the passage of HABHRCA advanced our understanding of HABs?

Why have we not made much progress on methods for prevention, control

and mitigation for HABs?

(2) What were the major findings and recommendations from the assessments

produced by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Task Force and how has

NOAA followed-up on the recommendations? What role, if any, does the

Task Force currently play in addressing the problems of harmful algal

blooms and hypoxia?

(3) One of the major priorities identified at a recent Coastal Ocean Program

(COP) workshop was to understand the recent decline in water quality in

the Great Lakes. Why has NOAA not supported much research in this area

in the past? Would that change if NOAA formally recognizes the new priorities for Great Lakes research?

(4) Please provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization bill.

Questions for Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, USGS.

(1) What are the challenges faced by researchers in developing useful monitoring and modeling techniques of the Mississippi River Watershed and

what can we learn from these challenges for such efforts in other watersheds?

(2) What are the short-term and long-term goals of the Mississippi River/Gulf

of Mexico Task Force? Is it on-schedule for achieving these goals?

(3) To what extent are federal research programs focused on the appropriate

issues to be most effective in understanding hypoxia?

(4) Please provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization bill.

Questions for Dr. Wayne Carmichael, Professor, Aquatic Biology and Toxicology,

Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton, OH.

(1) Please provide a brief overview of the most pressing water quality issues

that exist today in the Great Lakes regarding the increase in occurrences

of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. To what extent is there a scientific

consensus for why this is happening? What research is needed to better understand and to help reduce the impact of algal blooms on the Great Lakes?

7

(2) To what extent is research on freshwater harmful algal blooms funded by

private entities and what benefit does it provide them? To what extent are

federal research programs focused on the appropriate issues in order to be

most effective in understanding harmful algal blooms?

(3) What technologies exist or could be developed in the near future to monitor

for and to control and mitigate harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes?

(4) Please provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization bill.

Questions for Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist, Biology Department,

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.

(1) To what extent are we closer to answering the questions of how and why

HABs occur than we were in 1998?

(2) What is the next step that marine harmful algal bloom research should take

to improve our understanding of HABs and better predict their occurrence?

To what extent are federal research programs focused on the appropriate

issues to be most effective in understanding HABs?

(3) How has research regarding harmful algal blooms been used to develop useful management tools for resource managers? What could the Federal Government do to facilitate such development?

(4) Please provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization bill.

Questions for Mr. Dan Ayres, Coastal Shellfish Lead Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(1) What kind of activities does the state of Washington undertake to monitor

for HABs? How does the state respond when it detects an HAB event?

(2) What new technologies would improve your ability to predict and respond

to HABs? How would you utilize such technologies on a day-to-day basis?

(3) To what extent have federal programs assisted you in monitoring for and

responding to HABs?

(4) Please provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization bill.

8

Chairman EHLERS. Let us call this hearing to order. Knowing

that some Members of the Subcommittee have another markup to

attend, I condensed my opening statement for the first markup.

However, now that we have finished that markup, I want to say

a few words about the activities of our Subcommittee. Last Congress, the Subcommittee was very busy. We focused our energy in

a bipartisan manner on the issues upon which the American public

demanded action and on which we could make a difference. As a

result, we passed important legislation dealing with, to name just

a few items, cyber security, research on voting standards and

equipment, reforms to the Sea Grant Program, improving manufacturer supply chains, improving the flood warning system, and improving science at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I expect that we will be just as busy, if not busier, this Congress.

We will review issues such as, again, just to name a few, legislation

to reauthorize and improve the Harmful Algal Bloom Research Program, legislation to reauthorize the Transportation Research and

Development Programs created under the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century, climate change research, the laboratory

programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

which I know is near and dear to Mr. Udall’s heart, and science

programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the

Invasive Species Program that we just dealt with a few moments

ago.

Now I am pleased to begin today’s hearing on Harmful Algal

Blooms and Hypoxia. Many of you may be more familiar with these

blooms as red tides or brown tides, which are more common terms

for these events. What many of you may not realize is that harmful

algal blooms and hypoxia are a significant threat to human health,

commercial fishing, and recreational water use throughout the

United States.

Harmful algal blooms actually encompass a wide variety of

events. They occur in both marine and freshwater environments.

These dense mats of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic life

and to humans, some of which are so potent that eating just one

contaminated mussel could make you ill, resulting in anything

from mild nausea to paralysis, and even death in some cases, depending upon the species causing the bloom.

Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by

bacteria in the water. This process depletes oxygen to levels so low

they cannot support aquatic life, which decreases fisheries production and can produce nasty odors that make the water undesirable

for recreational use—dead fish and foul smelling water tend to

drive away tourists.

It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50 million a year, while hypoxia causes severe conditions in many locations, including the Gulf of Mexico, where a ‘‘dead zone’’ the size

of New Jersey develops each summer. That is not to imply that

New Jersey itself is a ‘‘dead zone’’ however. I want to make that

clear.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems

closer to my home, the Great Lakes, where these events are more

frequently fouling the water. In the past 30 years, major advances

were made to improve Great Lakes water quality, but recently, sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
9

entists have observed an increase in both harmful algal blooms and

hypoxia. The reasons for this are unclear, but may be related to

invasive species changing the way nutrients are cycled in the lakes.

In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia

Research and Control Act. The Act created a task force to examine

these problems, and it issued three reports, and we are still waiting for the fourth. Additionally, the 1998 Act authorized funding

for research and monitoring activities related to harmful algal

blooms and hypoxia.

This hearing will examine the state of science in understanding

the causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, as well as the impacts on the Nation from these problems. First, we will have an

overview of the Task Force reports and the research coordinated

through NOAA under the 1998 authorizations. Then we will hear

about more specific activities related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and challenges faced by scientists in monitoring and modeling

this problem. Next we will hear about freshwater harmful algal

blooms, a concern of mine, since the Great Lakes have recently experienced an increase in harmful algal bloom events. Then we will

hear about advances in understanding harmful marine algal

blooms and about how all this research has helped local resource

managers respond to the problem. Finally, we will ask the witnesses to comment on draft legislation I have been working on to

reauthorize the 1998 Act. And of course, our ultimate objective is

to modernize the Act as we go through the reauthorization process

and make it more effective.

It is my hope that by the end of the Hearing, we will have

learned how our understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia has improved in the past five years, defined what research

priorities are needed for the future, and receive suggestions for improving my draft legislation. I thank our distinguished panel for

being here today and I look forward to their testimony.

I will now recognize Congressman Udall, the Ranking Minority

Member, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Now that we have finished the markup, I am pleased to begin today’s hearing on

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Many of you may be more familiar with these

blooms as red tides or brown tides, which are more common term for these events.

What many of you may not realize is that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are

a significant threat to human health, commercial fishing, and recreational water use

throughout the United States.

Harmful algal blooms actually encompass a wide variety of events. They occur in

both marine and freshwater environments. These dense mats of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic life and to humans, some of which are so potent that eating just one contaminated mussel could make you ill, resulting in anything from

mild nausea to paralysis, and even death in some cases, depending upon the species

causing the bloom.

Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria in the

water. This process depletes oxygen to levels so low they cannot support aquatic life,

which decreases fisheries production and can produce nasty odors that make the

water undesirable for recreational use—dead fish and foul smelling water tend to

scare away tourists.

It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50 million a year, while

hypoxia causes severe conditions in many locations, including the Gulf of Mexico,

where a ‘‘dead’’ zone the size of New Jersey develops each summer (not to imply

that New Jersey itself is a ‘‘dead zone,’’ however).

10

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems closer to my home,

the Great Lakes, where these events are more and more frequently fouling the

water. In the past 30 years major advances were made to improve Great Lakes

water quality, but recently scientists have observed an increase in both harmful

algal blooms and hypoxia. The reasons for this are unclear, but may be related to

invasive species changing the way nutrients are cycled in the lakes.

In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and

Control Act. The Act created a Task Force to examine these problems, and it issued

three reports and we are still waiting for the fourth. Additionally, the 1998 Act authorized funding for research and monitoring activities related to harmful algal

blooms and hypoxia.

This hearing will examine the state of science in understanding the causes of

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia as well as the impacts on the Nation from these

problems. First, we will have an overview of the Task Force reports and the research coordinated through NOAA under the 1998 authorizations. Then we will

hear about more specific activities related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and challenges faced by scientists in monitoring and modeling this problem. Next we will

hear about freshwater harmful algal blooms, a concern of mine since the Great

Lakes have recently experienced an increase in harmful algal bloom events. Then

we’ll hear about advances in understanding harmful marine algal blooms and about

how all this research has helped local resource managers respond to the problem.

Finally, we will ask the witnesses to comment on draft legislation I have been working on to reauthorize the 1998 Act.

It is my hope that by the end of the hearing we will have learned how our understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia has improved in the past five years,

defined what research priorities are needed for the future, and received suggestions

for improving my draft legislation.

I thank our distinguished panel for being here today, and I look forward to their

testimony.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman has discussed, harmful algal blooms along our coastlines have drawn increased attention over the past decade due to the increased closure

of fisheries and recreational restrictions that they have caused.

Public attention first focused on this problem back in the ’70’s and

’80’s when the increasing frequency and intensity of freshwater

algal blooms were having a major impact on our water quality.

Back then we identified the source of the problem, which led to reductions of phosphates in detergents and nutrients from point

sources. In addition, we expanded sewage treatment to control nutrients and other pollutants. And I have been disturbed, as I know

the Chairman has, to learn that the problem has returned with increasing frequency today, harming the environment and public

health.

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has brought us

new understanding and appreciation for the dimensions and complexity of these phenomenon. We have made some progress in identifying harmful species and in providing timely information to fisheries and recreational managers to prevent human health problems. Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in developing and implementing management strategies or technologies to

reduce the frequency or the intensity of the blooms. I hope that our

witnesses today will be able to provide us with suggestions about

how we can build upon the current program and better translate

the findings of this research into long-lasting solutions that will return our aquatic systems to a healthy state. I would also like their

suggestions on how to improve communications between the research community and water resource managers.

In the west, we recognize that water is a valuable and essential

resource. In fact, the saying in the west some of you are familiar

11

with is whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. But

we care very deeply about doing everything we can to maintain the

quality of our waters and the health of our aquatic ecosystems. So

I, too, want to thank our witnesses for joining us, and I look forward to your testimony.

I will yield back whatever time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing.

Harmful algal blooms along our coastlines have drawn increased attention over

the past decade due to the increased closure of fisheries and recreational restrictions

that they have caused. Public attention first focused on this problem back in the

seventies and eighties when the increasing frequency and intensity of freshwater

algal blooms were having a major impact on our water quality.

Back then, we identified the source of the problem, which led to reductions of

phosphates in detergents and nutrients from point sources. In addition, we expanded sewage treatment to control nutrients and other pollutants. Now the problem has returned with increasing frequency, harming the environment and public

health.

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has brought us new understanding and appreciation for the dimensions and complexity of these phenomenon.

We have made some progress in identifying harmful species and in providing timely

information to fisheries and recreational managers to prevent human health problems.

Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in developing and implementing

management strategies or technologies to reduce the frequency or the intensity of

the blooms.

I hope that our witnesses today will be able to provide us with suggestions about

how we can build upon the current program and better translate the findings of this

research into long-lasting solutions that will return our aquatic systems to a healthy

state. I would also like to hear suggestions on how to improve communications between the research community and water resource managers.

We in the West recognize that water is a valuable and essential resource. We

must do everything that we can to maintain the quality of our waters and the

health of our aquatic ecosystems.

I thank all of our witnesses for participating this morning and I look forward to

hearing your testimony.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the Ranking Member for his statement. If there are no objections, all additional opening statements

submitted by the Subcommittee Members will be added to the

record. Without objection, so ordered.

Senator Voinovich of Ohio has also shown great interest in this

issue and held a field hearing concerning hypoxia in Lake Erie last

August. He wished to testify in person at this hearing, but unfortunately, he is chairing a hearing of his own at this particular time.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that his statement be added to

the record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Good morning. I want to first commend Chairman Ehlers on holding this important hearing and thank him for the opportunity to provide a statement. I wish that

I could be present, but I am currently holding a hearing as Chairman of the Clean

Air Subcommittee on air quality and transportation programs. I look forward to reviewing the statements of the witnesses in detail and thank them for taking time

out of their busy schedules to participate in this hearing.

Today’s hearing is about two very serious problems: harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Unfortunately, our understanding of these occurrences is limited and inadequate. This has prevented us from effectively dealing with these costly and grave

problems.

12

Algal blooms are a concern because they can produce toxins in the water, which

can negatively impact the environment, economy, and public health. While this was

first considered only a regional problem, harmful algal blooms are now reported by

almost every coastal state. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) claims that these blooms may have caused coastal resources and communities to lose more than $1 billion directly in the last two decades.

Additionally, algal blooms can cause hypoxia or depleted oxygen levels in water

when they die and are decomposed by bacteria. This decomposition process consumes oxygen, creating an environment in which plants and animals cannot survive.

A hypoxic zone the size of New Jersey that appears regularly each summer in the

Gulf of Mexico is a prime example of this devastating condition. Each year, this area

becomes essentially lifeless. The Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and Sarasota

Bay are other areas that experience chronic hypoxia.

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act of 1998 was created by Congress to improve our understanding of these problems and identify ways to address

them. The Act established an interagency task force and required four reports on

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia nationally and specifically for the Gulf of Mexico.

The Act also authorized important finding for research through NOAA.

I am interested to hear from the witnesses about the effectiveness of the Act to

coordinate federal efforts, the state of the science, remaining research and development needs, and suggestions for legislative improvements. I am also very interested

to know what is being done or should be done in terms of research on freshwater.

On August 5, 2002, 1 conducted a field hearing of the Environment and Public

Works Committee to examine the increasingly extensive oxygen depletion in the

central basin of Lake Erie. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ‘‘dead zone.’’

Anoxia over the long term could result in massive fish kills and bad-tasting or badsmelling water.

As is the case in our coastal waters, hypoxia in Lake Erie has been linked to decaying algal blooms which consume oxygen at the bottom of the lake. In the past,

excessive phosphorus loading from point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants and farms were greatly responsible for the blooms. This acceleration

of biological production is called eutrophication. Since 1965, the level of phosphorus

entering the Lake has been reduced by about 50 percent. These reductions have resulted in smaller quantities of algae and more oxygen into the system.

In recent years, overall phosphorus levels in the Lake have been increasing, but

the amount of phosphorus entering it has not. Scientists have been unable to account for the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake. One hypothesis is the influence of two aquatic nuisance species—the zebra and quagga mussels. Although

their influence is not well understood, they may be altering the way phosphorus cycles through the system.

Another way zebra mussels could be responsible for oxygen depletion in Lake Erie

is due to their ability to filter and clear vast quantities of lake water. Clearer water

allows light to penetrate deeper into the Lake, encouraging additional organic

growth on the bottom. When this organic material decays, it consumes oxygen.

Although invasive species may be an important factor in Lake Erie’s dead zone

problem, science has been unable to explain why the hypoxic zones are forming or

what can be done to address them. Over the last 30 years, we have made remarkable progress in improving water quality and restoring the natural resources of our

nation’s aquatic areas, and we need to prevent any backsliding on this progress.

Lake Erie’s ecology has come a long way since I was elected to the state legislature in 1966. During that time, Lake Erie formed the northern border of my district

and it was known worldwide as a dying lake, suffering from eutrophication. Lake

Erie’s decline was covered extensively by the media and became an international

symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I remember the British Broadcasting Company even sending a film crew to make a documentary about it. One

reason for all the attention is that Lake Erie is a major source of drinking water.

Seeing firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region,

I knew we had to do more to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. As a state legislator, I made a commitment to stop the deterioration of the

lake and to wage the ‘‘Second Battle of Lake Erie’’ to reclaim and restore Ohio’s

Great Lake. I have continued this fight throughout my career—as County Commissioner, state legislator, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and United States

Senator.

It is comforting to me that 36 years since I started my career in public service,

I am still involved, as a member of the United States Senate and our Committee

on Environment and Public Works, in the battle to save Lake Erie.

Today in Ohio, we celebrate Lake Erie’s improved water quality. It is a habitat

to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource to the area’s tourism, transportation,

13

and recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water for many Ohioans.

Unfortunately, however, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to improve

and protect Ohio’s greatest natural asset.

I have had a love affair with the Great Lakes—and in particular, Lake Erie—all

my life. In terms of my public service, one of my greatest sources of comfort and

accomplishment has been my work to help clean up and protect the environment,

particularly Lake Erie.

The Lake Erie dead zone is a reoccurring problem as it is in the Gulf of Mexico.

We must focus our resources on understanding this phenomenon before it becomes

widespread throughout the Great Lakes. The Lakes are extremely important to the

Nation in terms of their ecologic, economic, and public health benefit. I believe that

we need to research harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in both marine and freshwater.

I am pleased to be working with Chairman Ehlers to reauthorize the Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act. We both have concerns about the coastal waters of the U.S. and the Great Lakes. The draft bill that has been distributed for

comments would authorize funding, an assessment and research plan for freshwater

harmful algal blooms, and a research plan for developing prevention, control, and

mitigation methods.

I know that Senators Snowe and Breaux also have introduced a bill to reauthorize

the Act, and I look forward to working with them. Reauthorization of the Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Control Act is imperative to making progress to stop

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia from occurring on our coasts and in our Great

Lakes. Again, I thank Chairman Ehlers for his leadership on this issue and for inviting me to provide a statement.

Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. At this time, I would like to introduce our

witnesses. First we have Dr. Donald Scavia, the Chief Scientist at

the National Ocean Service, which is part of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration. Next we have Dr. Charles ‘‘Chip’’

Groat; he is Director of the United States Geological Survey. Third,

Dr. Wayne Carmichael, a Professor of Aquatic Biology and Toxicology at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, one of the many

states I have lived in. Fourth we have Dr. Donald Anderson, who

is a Senior Scientist in the Biology Department at the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. Our final witness will

be introduced—will receive a special introduction by Congressman

Baird, and I recognize him for that purpose.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank my Chairman, and I want to welcome Dan

Ayres, who is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Shellfish Unit.

He has been studying the harmful algal bloom problem as part of

our Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom Program. The kind of

issues you raise, Mr. Chairman, are precisely the kind of things

Mr. Ayres studies.

Let me give you one example, a little bitty coastal community

which currently suffers almost double digit unemployment depends

for much of its revenue on clamming. And a harmful algal bloom

has been off our coast for the last six months and the whole razor

clam season has been shut down. This is one of the main sources

of annual revenue, and you have got all these small mom and pop

hotels out there who depend on the influx of tourists from Seattle,

Tacoma, and Vancouver, coming out to the coast. When that algal

bloom comes in, that just shuts the economy of that community

down, and some of these folks, literally, may not recover.

So again, just like invasives, it is an issue that seems to be an

esoteric sort of pointy headed intellectual scientific thing, but it has

real economic consequences, and if you can die from it, it has pretVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
14

ty darn serious consequences as well. Mr. Ayres is an expert, I am

glad he is here, and I thank the Chairman for his time.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for that introduction, and I hope

you weren’t making a derogatory comment about pointy headed intellectual scientists.

Mr. BAIRD. As a Ph.D. neuropsychologist, myself, my friend, that

would include both of us. I resemble that remark.

Chairman EHLERS. That is right. As the witnesses have presumably been informed, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes

each. Anything beyond that can be entered into the written record.

And after your five minutes each, Members of the Committee will

also each have five minutes to interrogate you. We will start our

testimony with Dr. Scavia.

STATEMENT OF DONALD SCAVIA, CHIEF SCIENTIST, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Dr. SCAVIA. Good morning. I am Don Scavia, the Chief Scientist

for NOAA’s National Ocean Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the issues of Great Lakes and coastal

ocean harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and the reauthorization of

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.

Your opening remarks, as well as others on this panel, have

given more detailed information on the extent and scope of these

harmful blooms and hypoxia, so I will simply add that these issues

are now among the most pressing in all of these coastal and Great

Lake states. Also, before summarizing our accomplishments, I want

to start by saying that this Act—we call it HABHRCA because we

can’t pronounce it either—has helped focus our science programs.

We have integrated our intramural and extramural programs, particularly, through our National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,

to maximize the effectiveness of the appropriations associated with

this Act.

Implementing HABHRCA has also generated significant cooperation among federal agencies, state programs, and academia.

Through this coordinated effort, we have made progress in our ability to detect, monitor, assess, and in some cases, predict both harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. We look forward to working with you

and your staff on reauthorizing to further strengthen the science

behind this Act.

I would like to now summarize our accomplishments to date in

this Act. In May of 2000, the National Science and Technology

Council delivered to Congress an assessment of hypoxia in the Gulf

of Mexico. This assessment examines the factors that contribute to

the development of Gulf hypoxia and evaluates potential management options as key scientific input to the action plan that is also

called for in this Act. This action plan was delivered to the Congress in January of 2001 by the Mississippi River Nutrient Task

Force, which is composed of eight federal agencies, nine Mississippi

Basin states, and two Indian tribes.

In balancing the environmental, social, and economic needs of

this enormous watershed, the action plan established goals for reducing the aerial extent of hypoxia in the Gulf, for restoring and

protecting the waters of the 31 basin states, and for protecting the

15

social and economic fabric of the communities across that basin. Efforts are now underway to begin implementing that plan.

In February of 2001, the NSTC delivered a ‘‘National Assessment

of Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms’’ to the Congress. This report assessed what was truly known at that time about the impacts and

potential causes of harmful algal blooms and potential approaches

for reducing, mitigating, and controlling them.

This Act also called for the national assessment of coastal hypoxia, and as you mentioned in your opening remarks, that has not

yet been delivered to the Congress. The Task Force delayed this assessment to take advantage of the findings of the Gulf of Mexico

assessment, a NOAA eutrophication survey, and the National Research Council’s ‘‘Clean Coastal Waters’’ report. With those studies

now complete, the Task Force has drafted its assessment and submitted it for final clearance. We anticipate delivering this assessment to Congress in the fairly near future.

Section 605 of the Act also authorized scientific activities that afford us the opportunity to address, in part, the eight objectives outlined in the 1993 National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful

Algae, as well as to extend our work in hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, our laboratories and centers have developed molecular probes to improve harmful algal bloom detection, characterized the chemical structures of some of the toxins created by these

organisms, developed the ability to detect and track red tides with

satellites, and added insight into the physiology and environmental

toxicology of Pfiesteria.

NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program leads two related inter-agency

competitive peer review programs, the Ecology and Oceanography

of Harmful Algal Bloom or the ECOHAB Program, and the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom or the

MERHAB Program. ECOHAB has isolated factors that regulate

some of these harmful blooms, developed biophysical models that

form a critical base for HAB forecasts, applied remote sensing, molecular, and biochemical tools for detecting and tracking blooms,

and for targeting state monitoring and management efforts in support of Dr. Anderson’s national database and website where research findings are shared amongst scientists and with the public.

MERHAB has put new tools in the hands of State and Tribal

monitoring programs and will continue to test and refine these and

other technologies for cost effective early warning detection of

harmful algae and their toxins. In the Coastal Ocean Program we

have also expanded efforts to monitor, model, and predict the dynamics and impact of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia in support of implementing the action plan, and we are now working with the academic community and other federal agencies to implement a new

national research program on coastal and Great Lakes hypoxia.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Committee is particularly interested in how these issues impact the Great Lakes. Over the past

several years, NOAA has supported efforts that should help the scientific community address these problems. Our funding of Great

Lakes Coast Watch and the Great Lakes Forecast System should

provide important tools for the community. In addition, the recently completed study on the impacts of episodic events in Lake

Michigan and new efforts to monitor and assess harmful algal

16

bloom impacts in the lower Great Lakes are bringing additional

focus and resources to these efforts.

Most recently, we supported a workshop in Michigan to help define priorities for additional efforts in the Great Lakes, and it is

here that the re-emergence of Great Lakes hypoxia was highlighted. We will continue to work with the Great Lakes scientists

and managers to design appropriate programmatic responses to

these issues.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions from you or

the Members. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Scavia follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD SCAVIA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Donald

Scavia, Senior Scientist of NOAA’s National Ocean Service. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s role in addressing national issues surrounding harmful

algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia in the Nation’s Great Lakes and coastal waters,

and the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. My

testimony today does not address reauthorization of the Act. NOAA is currently reviewing the draft bill, and will provide comments in the future.

Others on this panel will provide more detailed information on the scope and extent of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and hypoxia. So, I will simply report that

HABs are increasing in abundance and intensity in Great Lakes and coastal waters.

Harmful Algal Blooms occur in the waters of every coastal and Great Lake State

and have been responsible for an estimated $1 billion in economic losses over the

past few decades. These blooms have decimated the scallop fishery in Long Island’s

estuaries; have led to seasonal closures of various shell fisheries on Georges Bank,

from North Carolina to Louisiana, and throughout the Pacific Northwest; may have

contributed to the deaths of hundreds of manatees in Florida, sea lions in California, and other marine mammals, including dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. HABs have also caused significant respiratory and other illness in coastal residents and vacationers. There are several causes of harmful algal blooms. Some are

natural, but others are human-induced, and on-going research continues to identify

and distinguish these causes.

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act brings together

the critical issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia—or low oxygen syndrome—

because excess nutrient loads can be responsible for the general overgrowth of algae

in many coastal ecosystems. And while not all algae are toxic, the death and subsequent decay of massive non-toxic blooms can lead to severe oxygen depletion (e.g.,

oxygen levels low enough to cause significant ecological impairment) in the bottom

waters of estuaries and coastal environments.

While significant attention has been paid in recent years to the enormous hypoxic

area off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, NOAA’s recent National Eutrophication

Assessment has revealed that at some time each year, over half of our nation’s estuaries experience natural-caused and/or human-induced hypoxic conditions. Thirty

percent experience anoxia (e.g., areas where all of the oxygen is absent) resulting

in fish kills and other resource impacts. In addition, hypoxia in the Great Lakes is

re-emerging as a problem. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are now among the

most pressing environmental issues facing coastal states.

To address these important issues facing the Nation’s coastal communities, the

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 called for development of three scientific assessments and an action plan; and authorized a suite

of scientific programs to help support efforts to prevent, control, and mitigate the

impacts of HABs and hypoxia. In response, NOAA and our Federal, State, and academic partners have made considerable progress in the scientific understanding, detection, monitoring, assessment, and prediction of HABs and hypoxia in Great Lakes

and coastal ecosystems. These advances are helping coastal managers undertake

short- and long-term efforts to prevent and mitigate the detrimental effects of these

phenomena on human health and on valuable coastal resources. My remarks outlining these accomplishments are organized around the key sections of the original

Public Law.

17

Sec 604(a)—Assessment of Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

The National Science and Technical Council, through the Inter-Agency Task Force

on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, delivered the report, ‘‘Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,’’ to the Congress in May 2000. The

assessment examined the distribution, dynamics, and causes of Gulf hypoxia; its ecological and economic consequences; the sources and loads of nutrients transported

by the Mississippi River system to the Gulf of Mexico; the effects of reducing nutrient loads; methods for reducing nutrient loads; and social and economic costs and

benefits of such methods. This integrated assessment provided the scientific underpinning for the subsequent Action Plan to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico

hypoxic zone.

Sec 604(b)—Plan to Reduce, Mitigate, and Control Gulf Hypoxia

The Action Plan was delivered to the Congress in January 2001 by the Mississippi

River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, which is composed of eight

federal agencies, nine Mississippi Basin States, and two Indian Tribes. The Action

Plan was based on the Integrated Assessment required by this statute, as well as

other scientific and public input and consultations required by the law, gathered

through seven public meetings. In balancing the environmental, social, and economic needs of this enormous watershed, the Plan established three goals:

• Coastal Goal: By the year 2015, reduce the five-year running average extent

of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers.

• Basin Goal: Restore and protect the waters of the 31 States and Tribal lands

within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin.

• Quality of Life Goal: To improve the communities and economic conditions

across the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin.

To connect the environmental endpoint goal for the Gulf of Mexico to actions within the basin, the Action Plan also recognized the need to reduce nitrogen loads by

at least 30 percent. This Watershed Task Force is currently creating sub-basin committees that are to be led by States and tasked with developing implementation

strategies. This approach was chosen by the Watershed Task Force with input from

the States to best meet local needs. The action plan highlights that there are a variety of options available to meet the overall goal and each has associated costs and

benefits that vary by locale. The Watershed Task Force has also drafted a Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy to ensure that actions taken over the next

decade to reduce hypoxia are guided by the best science.

Sec 603(b)—National Assessment of Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms

The National Science and Technical Council, through its Inter-Agency Task Force

on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, produced the report, ‘‘National Assessment

of Harmful Algal Blooms in US Waters.’’ The assessment, delivered to the Congress

in February 2001, examines the ecological and economic consequences of harmful

algal blooms; alternatives for reducing, mitigating, and controlling harmful algal

blooms; and the social and economic costs and benefits of such alternatives. Highlights from the assessment include:

• HAB events threaten human health and marine mammals, contaminate local

fish and shellfish, and depress coastal tourist and recreational industries.

• HAB events are increasing nationwide. There are more toxic species, more

events, and more areas affected than 25 years ago.

• Natural events (e.g., storms and ocean currents), as well as human activities

(e.g., excess nutrient loads), appear to contribute to this increase.

• Management options are limited at this time, with the focus on diligent monitoring. Recent advances in both molecular and remote-sensing detection

methods are promising.

• It may be possible to prevent some HABs by controlling nutrient inputs, or

to control blooms with clays to precipitate or viruses to attack the algal cells.

More research is needed to determine the effectiveness and the potential environmental impacts of these methods.

While the analyses in this report have helped shape subsequent investments in

our research and monitoring programs, there is still much to do.

Sec 603(c)—National Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia

The Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia delayed development of this assessment to take advantage of the findings and recommendations of the Gulf of Mexico Integrated Assessment, outlined above, the NOAA EuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

trophication Survey, and the National Research Council report, Clean Coastal Waters. With those studies now complete, the Task Force has drafted the assessment

and has submitted it for final clearance. The assessment outlines status and trends

in coastal hypoxia, its causes and consequences, methods available to reduce its occurrence, and the science needed to reduce uncertainties in future assessments.

Once final clearance is achieved, we will deliver the report to the Congress.

Section 605—Authorization of Appropriations

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 also

provided authority for NOAA to make progress in addressing some of the eight objectives outlined in the 1993 National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae.

It also extends NOAA’s efforts related to Gulf hypoxia. Most of the efforts authorized by this Act are implemented by NOAA through competitive, peer review to engage the best scientists to focus on these important issues.

In our laboratories and through the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal

Blooms program (ECOHAB), NOAA and our partners have investigated factors that

regulate the dynamics of HABs and the mechanisms by which they cause harm. We

have produced coupled bio-physical models that form a critical base for building

HAB forecasts; applied technology from remote sensing, and medical science, to the

detection and tracking of algal species and their toxins to help states target their

monitoring and management efforts; and developed a national database where research findings are shared and made available to scientists and the public. Through

the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms program (MERHAB),

NOAA puts these new tools within reach for the routine monitoring efforts of States

and tribes in several U.S. coastal regions. MERHAB partners are testing and refining these technologies for reliable, cost-effective detection and monitoring of harmful

algal species and their toxins. Through the Coastal Ocean Program, we have expanded efforts to monitor, model, and predict changes and impacts of hypoxia on

Gulf of Mexico resources. The following paragraphs highlight accomplishments in

the five areas of statutory authority:

HAB Research and Assessment Activities in NOAA Laboratories—NOAA’s laboratories have focused on two key impediments to effective HAB management: 1) the

lack of sensitive, toxin-specific assays and toxin standards for research and field application, and 2) an understanding of how the physiology of these organisms affect

toxin movement through the food web. Results from investments in these laboratories have led to developments that are now aiding coastal scientists and managers

with critical, timely information on the occurrence of HAB and other toxins. Recent

accomplishments include:

• Identification of the chemical structures of some key HAB toxins;

• Development of toxin- and species-specific detection probes and assays that

will significantly enhance HAB research, monitoring, and management;

• Increased understanding of bio-physical processes controlling red tides originating in the Gulf of Mexico that have traveled in the Gulf Stream as far

north as North Carolina; and

• Added insight into physiology and environmental toxicity of Pfiesteria species.

Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB)—Administered

by NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program, ECOHAB is run cooperatively with the National Science Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of Naval Research. ECOHAB

seeks to understand the causes and dynamics of HABs; develop forecasts of HAB

growth, movement, landfall, and toxicity; and produce new detection methodologies

for HABs and their toxins. Projects selected for support must successfully compete

in a peer-review process that ensures high-level scientific merit. Some highlights of

ECOHAB’s large-scale regional studies include:

• The Florida project is testing the hypothesis that the iron in Saharan dust

clouds may stimulate red tides in the Gulf of Mexico. Iron in this dust may

stimulate growth of nitrogen-fixing algae, ultimately providing a new nitrogen

source for red tide organisms. Using satellite sensors, which can detect dust

clouds, it may be possible to forecast these offshore red tide blooms.

• The Long Island Brown Tide study has correlated this organism’s unique

physiology and ecological niche with the series of complex environmental conditions that precipitate these blooms, showing that its ability to grow in conditions of high dissolved organic nitrogen allows it to occupy a particular

niche in phytoplankton bloom succession.

19

• The Gulf of Maine project has described the critical life-history stages of the

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) species, documented its dependence on environmental oceanographic conditions and is nearing completion of a biophysical model for simulating and ultimately forecasting the distribution of

the species responsible for PSP Gulf of Maine.

• A new large-scale regional effort will begin this year to develop a model of

bloom formation and movement in the Pacific Northwest based on physical

and biological factors controlling blooms of domoic-acid producing organisms

that cause amnesic shellfish poisoning.

Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB)—Also administered by NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program, MERHAB works through existing

Tribal, State, and regional monitoring efforts to transfer research results to local

monitoring jurisdictions for early detection of HAB events. Projects selected for support successfully compete in a peer-review process that ensures high-level scientific

merit and resource management relevance. Highlights of program accomplishments

to date include:

• Support for regional HAB mitigation efforts include developing early warning

systems along the Olympic coast; providing rapid, cost effective, and highly

sensitive toxin detection methods to the Quileute Tribe to help reduce public

health risks of coastal Native Americans from California to Alaska; and incorporating continuous, real-time monitoring of inaccessible and remote coastal

habitats into Chesapeake Bay and Florida state HAB monitoring programs.

• Similar, recently-initiated efforts seek to augment state HAB monitoring and

response capabilities in the Great Lakes, Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of

Maine; and are currently testing the feasibility of new detection methods in

coastal waters of Texas, Florida, and Virginia.

• New techniques have enhanced Pfiesteria bioassay laboratories in Florida and

North Carolina and improved access to expertise, laboratory facilities, sampling platforms, and remote sensing imagery by local and federal agencies responding to unexpected HAB-related events, such as die-offs of sea lions, bottle-nose dolphins, and manatees;

• Support through the Alliance for Coastal Technologies and the Small Business and Innovative Research program has brought together scientists, state

managers, and the private sector to overcome impediments of adopting new

technologies.

Research on HAB Prevention, Control, and Mitigation (PCM)—While research on

HAB prevention and control has received only limited attention to date, some advancements have been made in: using clay to scavenge HAB organisms from the

water column; identifying natural Pfiesteria predators; using viral agents for suppressing brown tide organisms; and using bacterial agents that may ultimately

prove useful in controlling red tide organisms. While research on prevention and

control has been limited, there have been significant ECOHAB and MERHAB investments to develop tools that help mitigate HAB impacts. For example:

• New remote sensing tools are used to track Florida Gulf coast HAB movements and provide the first-ever HAB forecasts for Florida resource managers. These tools are also being tested in Texas waters and off the West

Coast.

• Biophysical models for the Gulf of Maine and the west Florida Shelf will enhance this ability to forecast HAB movement and landfall providing early

warnings.

• New analytical capabilities for rapid and inexpensive detection of algae and

toxins, including molecular probes for Pfiesteria, moored detectors for species

responsible for Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, optical detectors on moorings and

autonomous gliders to detect and map red tide species.

Hypoxia Research and Monitoring—In the 1990s, through support from NOAA’s

Coastal Ocean Program, the scientific community documented the distribution and

dynamics of the hypoxic zone over the Louisiana continental shelf. These model simulations and research studies produced considerable evidence that nutrient loading

from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River system is the dominant factor in driving

hypoxia and that the duration and extent of hypoxia in the region is far greater

than it was historically. These efforts provided the primary data and information

for the six technical reports and the Integrated Assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia and the Action Plan produced under Sections 604(a) and

604 (b) of this statute.

20

The Coastal Ocean Program initiated a new study in the Gulf in 2000 to improve

our understanding of, and ability to forecast the effects of changes in ocean conditions and river nutrient loads on hypoxia and its effects on Gulf productivity. These

studies are providing a consistent and sequential series of long-term data that document the temporal and spatial extent of hypoxia, and are collecting the hydrographic, chemical (including nutrient), and biological data related to the development and maintenance of hypoxia over seasonal cycles. Studies focus on relationships among nutrient fluxes, nutrient ratios, phytoplankton species composition, and

carbon production and flux are being conducted and augmented with efforts to

model changes in oxygen budgets and the effects of the hypoxic zone on fisheries.

These studies are a key component of the Task Force’s monitoring, modeling, and

research strategy supporting the Action Plan.

While the focus to date has been on hypoxia on the Louisiana and Texas continental shelf, we have recently supported development of a consensus science plan

for addressing hypoxia issues nationally. We have begun discussions with that academic science community and other federal agencies on implementation of a potential joint national program.

Efforts in the Great Lakes

We understand this subcommittee is particularly concerned with issues related to

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in the Great Lakes. I would like to outline recent

accomplishments from our related Great Lakes efforts and suggest where we may

be going in the near future.

Support in the early 1990s from the Coastal Ocean Program (COP) helped move

the Great Lakes Coastal Forecast System from research to operations. This system,

developed by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and

the Ohio State University for forecasting local winds, waves, water levels, and currents, is now being run routinely for forecasts in Lake Erie and now casts in all

five Great Lakes. Discussions are underway for incorporating it into NOAA’s operational run streams. Early COP support also developed the Great Lakes

CoastWatch Program, which is now run out of GLERL. CoastWatch produces remotely sensed environmental data and products to support Great Lakes environmental science, resource management, and decision-making.

These early efforts provided key tools that were subsequently used in two fiveyear, multi-million dollar regional efforts supported through a joint COP-NSF Coastal Ocean Processes program. From 1998 through 2002, COP and NSF, with support

from GLERL and EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office, sponsored the Episodic Events-Great Lakes Experiment (EEGLE) program in Lake Michigan and the

Keewenaw Interdisciplinary Transport Experiment in Superior (KITES) in Lake Superior. The EEGLE program produced information and models of storm-related release, redistribution, and impacts of biologically important materials (sediment, nutrients, contaminants) at the whole-lake scale. The companion KITES study focused

on the Keewenaw Current and its role in the transport of these biologically important materials along the Keewenaw Peninsula.

In FY 2002, COP’s MERHAB program initiated a new five-year, multi-million dollar effort to develop an improved monitoring system for toxic cyanobacteria in the

lower Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. This enhanced ‘early warning’ system will

be based on transferring state-of-the-art HAB research products into local management tools. This tiered system uses a series of indicators or alerts to trigger more

intense monitoring and response protocols to provide maximum protection to the

public.

To guide future investments in Great Lakes research and monitoring, COP recently sponsored a Great Lakes Research Issues Workshop at the University of

Michigan to identify major Great Lakes issues that fit within the goals and mandates of COP and HABHRCA. Scientists from U.S. and Canadian agencies, academia, and the private sector outlined current issues and identified those requiring

the most immediate research attention. While the report from that workshop has

not been finalized, it appears that the consensus of that community is that the recent degradation of water quality and habitat warrants most immediate research attention.

This ‘‘re-degradation’’ of Great Lakes water quality, which is surprising in that

it is a problem that most thought was solved decades ago, is especially evident in

Lake Erie where harmful algal blooms, and hypoxia, and phosphorous concentrations have increased in recent years despite decreased phosphorus loads. The origins

and fate of nutrients in the Great Lakes seem to be operating under a potentially

new paradigm. This situation raises fundamental questions about interactions between land and lake production, including land-lake margin processes, benthic-peVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

lagic coupling, episodic events, species introductions, physical-biological coupling,

long-term weather and climate changes, and ecosystem resiliency.

We will continue to work with the Great Lakes community to define and develop

a new set of tools to address these re-emerging issues, with a focus on developing

ecological forecast models that account for the new ecological state of the Lakes.

Concluding Remarks

The impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems, resources, and economies are as great now as they were in 1998. Reauthorization and revision of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control

Act is timely and warranted.

We have not had sufficient time to review and provide comment on the draft bill

provided in the invitation to testify at this hearing. However, we will provide those

comments soon, and we look forward to working with you and your staff on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any

questions that you or other Members may have.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, and I neglected to

mention that you do have warning signs in front of you in the little

box. Green is the first four minutes, yellow during the fifth, and

red means the trap door could open at any moment, so I just wanted to let you know. Dr. Groat.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GROAT, DIRECTOR, UNITED

STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Dr. GROAT. I want to thank the Subcommittee for providing the

U.S. Geological Survey the opportunity to present testimony this

morning and to acknowledge that the Department of the Interior,

as well as the USGS, supports strongly the research and assessment activities that are included under HABHRCA, not only because the problem continues, but because the problem continues to

expand. And as you noted, the Great Lakes are facing threats and

the Chesapeake Bay is not without concerns about both algal

blooms and hypoxia.

You provided me some questions to answer, so I am going to

frame my testimony in connection with those questions, and the

first had to do with the challenges faced by researchers in developing useful modeling and monitoring techniques for the Mississippi River watershed and what are the priorities there. The

major challenge faced in the Mississippi River Basin, and if not

throughout the area of concern, is developing and implementing

modeling tools that allow us to predict the effects and to mitigate

the effects of nutrients on hypoxia and algal bloom. Driving the

models has to be sufficient monitoring data. We have to understand

the landscape and what is going on. And if there is one overriding

concern in supporting our understanding of these phenomena, from

the point of view of the USGS involvement, it has to be the monitoring situation, and I will close with a couple of comments on that.

Clearly, models have to be developed and made more sophisticated

if we are able to use them as effective tools, not only for understanding the phenomena, but also for informing decision support as

needs to be done. Models driven by monitoring, good models have

good data, not only to form the models but also to validate them.

So here, again, monitoring raises its head as an extremely important function.

22

One of the challenges we face in monitoring is the fact that much

of the data, while much of it is gathered by the U.S. Geological

Survey, much is also gathered by other agencies, and we have inconsistencies in how that information is gathered and reported,

which does not support integration in a very effective way into

some of the models.

And in a modeling sense, it is particularly important that emphasis be placed on watershed level monitoring, because it is in the

watersheds that the control strategies are going to be developed in

terms of the effects of nutrients on systems both local and as they

move down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. So we

need research to improve the performance of these models and

their responsiveness to inputs for monitoring and other factors.

Let me combine my answers to the second question, which deals

with short and long-term goals of the Mississippi River Hypoxia

Task Force, and the third question, which is as to what extent federal research programs are focused on the appropriate issues. I

think the national needs, in a broad sense, have been spelled out.

A group consisting of NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and

the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Department of Agriculture put

together a report that is in press that summarizes the scientific

community’s opinion on what the key research needs are, and that

report, entitled ‘‘Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters—Priority

Topics for Integrated National Research Program for the U.S.,’’ is

in press.

However, implementation is the key, and we have to do an awful

lot of work not only in defining needs, but also in defining how we

carry out meeting those needs. Within the Monitoring Modeling

and Research Workgroup of the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico Task Force, those priorities are being addressed and there is a

workgroup. That workgroup is co-chaired by the USGS and by

NOAA. So here, not only are the priorities being discussed, but this

strategy will set the priorities for implementation of the priority

needs and making sure we have the results that are needed in the

Mississippi River Basin area.

Let me close with a couple of comments about monitoring, again.

We understand the problem in the Mississippi River Basin on the

basis of a broad monitoring network that let us know what water

quantity and quality inflows were into the Mississippi River system, and, as it moved down into the Gulf of Mexico, what those

flows were into the Gulf of Mexico. The monitoring network that

allowed that to happen has shrunk in the past decade to a considerable extent. We had data from approximately 125 sites during

the early 1990’s when this framework was put together for understanding the situation. Only about 20 percent of those are still active.

During the 1980’s, we monitored nutrient loads at 42 of 133 watersheds in the basin. Right now, we are only working about 12 of

those stations. The cost of inflation, the other stresses and demands placed on our monitoring system has caused us to apportion

our resources throughout the country, and as a result, we have

fewer monitoring activities in the Gulf of Mexico Basin than we

would like to have. Now, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that we have pulled back. We have really made very strategic

23

decisions about where monitoring is most important to support the

needs of the research program and we are maintaining those stations. But clearly, in the sense of validating models, as I pointed

out before, but perhaps even more importantly, in implementing

the management strategy, monitoring is essential. We rely on

adaptive management to deal with problems of this kind. Adaptive

management implies adaptation. It implies that we have data and

research upon which to make those adaptations. Monitoring is the

real core for providing that information. So from a research point

of view and from a management point of view, we feel the monitoring strategy has to be broadened to be implemented in a very

serious way.

In summary, the harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are affected

by human activities in broad areas that affect runoff into coastal

waters. Monitoring, modeling, and research activities related to

sources and causes of inland runoff in recurring harmful algal

blooms and hypoxia in coastal waters are both key components of

any solution. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to acknowledge

and support both coastal and inland monitoring, modeling, and research. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Groat follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GROAT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to comment on assessing the detrimental effects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on coastal communities, the federal agenda for scientific research on harmful

algal blooms and hypoxia, and reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. This testimony discusses research and other activities under the existing law and responds to the three questions provided by the Subcommittee. A draft reauthorization bill has been received from the Committee. The

testimony does not address the bill, which is under review, but we will be happy

to work with the Committee on the bill, and to provide formal comment when it has

been introduced. I want to thank the Subcommittee for inviting the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) to participate in this hearing on this important issue. Hypoxia and

harmful algal blooms are serious problems that adversely affect important ecosystems in coastal and lake States by causing stress or death to bottom dwelling

organisms that cannot move out of the hypoxic zone.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) supports the research and assessment activities included in the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act

of 1998 (HABHRCA). Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia continue to be an important and growing issue in coastal waters across the Nation. Also, the geographic

scope of our concern has grown. Thus, DOI would support continuation of the InterAgency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia, in which DOI is a member, if the National Science Council decides to continue it. The Task Force provides

a key forum for exchange of information, joint planning, and coordination of federal

agencies that contribute to our understanding of the causes and effects of hypoxia

and harmful algal blooms. The Task Force also considers the effect of policies and

practices that can mitigate those conditions.

In response to the call for action by HABHRCA, the Mississippi River/Gulf of

Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force guided publication of the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (referred to as the Integrated Assessment)

in May 2000, and the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (referred to as the Action Plan), in January 2001.

This Task Force, in which the Department participates along with other federal

agencies and State and Tribal governments, continues to play an important leadership role in implementation of its Action Plan, which emphasizes incentive-based,

voluntary efforts for reducing nonpoint source contamination. This Task Force also

encourages States, Tribes, and Federal agencies that are establishing priorities for

watershed restoration to consider the potential benefits to the Gulf of Mexico, benefits that otherwise might not have been considered. The Task Force is essential to

implementation of the management strategy to address important water-quality

issues in the Mississippi Watershed and the northern Gulf of Mexico. It is an imporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

tant management model for addressing coastal water-quality issues influenced by

large watersheds that comprise multiple States and varied land use, climate and geographic terrain.

An over abundance of nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay, the Nation’s largest estuary, contributes to excessive algal blooms and poor dissolved oxygen conditions.

These conditions have adversely affected the health of fisheries in the Bay. The

Chesapeake Bay Program partners, which includes the states in the Bay watershed

and the Federal Government, are enhancing nutrient-reduction efforts to improve

water quality conditions and thereby reduce the occurrence of algal blooms in the

Bay. The USGS is providing science and models of nutrient sources and their delivery to the Bay. The DOI resource managers are developing plans to accelerate and

better target the nutrient-reduction actions based on the USGS findings.

Research, monitoring, and modeling related to nutrient and water-quality loads

to coastal waters from the landscape are essential elements of identifying current

and potential problem areas, understanding the linkages between human actions

and the occurrence of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, and designing and evaluating the performance of management strategies to mitigate those conditions.

The first question posed by the Committee is: ‘‘What are the challenges faced by

researchers in developing useful monitoring and modeling techniques of the Mississippi River Watershed and what can we learn from these challenges for such efforts in other watersheds?’’ Along with data and information from research and monitoring, models and other analytical tools provide the scientific information needed

for sound resource management decisions. The major challenge faced by researchers

developing and implementing modeling tools is the lack of suitable monitoring data

that provide the basis for understanding the natural and human-induced changes

in flow and chemical loads to coastal and receiving waters.

Models provide predictive understanding by interpolating and extrapolating from

existing measurements. Concepts and computer codes for useful water-quality models exist, but such models require monitoring data for calibration and validation.

Moreover, long-term monitoring data serve as the ultimate basis of model performance. Models extrapolate data from sites representative of varying land use and climatic conditions to provide a broader understanding of the sources and causes of

adverse water-quality conditions, such as excess nutrient loads, which can cause hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. Models also extrapolate information on the relative

performance of alternative management actions from representative sites enabling

the design of watershed-wide management strategies. However, these models are

limited by the availability of data from monitoring and research studies that describe the recent and historical responses of receiving waters to natural and humaninduced changes in water-quality conditions.

Data that are collected are not always available in a consistent manner or with

consistent framework. Water-quality monitoring data are being collected by a wide

range of Federal, State, Tribal and local government agencies. Through USGS efforts to identify all water-quality data useful for analyses in the Mississippi River

Watershed, we found that data often are collected through different programs that

use a variety of collection methodologies to support varying specific objectives. Unfortunately, that same variety makes these data inadequate for use in watershedwide analyses of the effect of adverse water-quality conditions on downstream waters. Simply put, they cannot simply be ‘‘rolled up’’ to provide our answer. However,

existing monitoring efforts could be better coordinated to provide data that have

consistent data-collection frequency and protocols, quality assurance, and data storage and reporting practices that will make them suitable and available for use in

large-watershed analyses.

Historical monitoring data provide the basis for understanding how important

water-quality parameters, for example, nutrients, metals or organic contaminants,

change over time. They improve our ability to understand the response of our waterways to natural and human-induced stresses. Furthermore, these data provide a

baseline from which the effectiveness of future management actions will be measured. Both historical and baseline data are essential for development of sound modeling and decision-support tools. Design and implementation of monitoring networks

should anticipate these data needs even in locations that currently are not adversely

affected.

The development of watershed level modeling and decision support tools is still

in its infancy. We need models with improved accuracy and reliability, and better

decision support tools to help decision makers. Research is needed to improve the

performance of models, particularly on a watershed basis, and to document the

causal relationships between water quality in dynamic river and coastal systems

and biological productivity of plants and animals that live in these waters.

25

The second question posed by the Committee is: ‘‘What are the short-term and

long-term goals of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Task Force? Is it on-schedule

for achieving these goals?’’ The Action Plan of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico

Watershed Nutrients Task Force, titled Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and

Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, defines three long-term goals

and 11 short-term actions.

The three long-term goals are:

Coastal Goal: By the year 2015, subject to the availability of additional resources, reduce the five-year running average extent of the Gulf of Mexico

hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers through implementation of

specific, practical, and cost-effective voluntary actions by all States, Tribes, and

all categories of sources and removals within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River

Basin to reduce the annual discharge of nitrogen into the Gulf.

Within Basin Goal: To restore and protect the waters of the 31 States and Tribal lands within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin through implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction actions to protect public health and

aquatic life as well as reduce negative impacts of water pollution on the Gulf

of Mexico.

Quality of Life Goal: To improve the communities and economic conditions

across the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, in particular the agriculture,

fisheries and recreation sectors, through improved public and private land management and a cooperative, incentive based approach.

(The Action Plan, p. 3, is available on the Internet or in hard copy upon request,

http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/planintro.htm.)

Publication of these goals was important progress for the Task Force and demonstrated a consensus among the Federal, State and Tribal members for moving forward together with common goals across a watershed that spans a significant part

of the Nation and the associated spectrum of interests and priorities. The scientific

uncertainty related to the time lags in the response of the watershed to management action makes it difficult to anticipate when improvements will be realized.

However, continued monitoring, research, modeling, and adaptive management actions taken in response to the findings will maximize chances for achieving these

goals.

The 11 short-term actions and an associated timeline as defined by the Action

Plan are listed at the end of this statement and are intended to guide progress toward achieving the long-term goals. The short-term actions include advancing a subbasin management implementation strategy by formation of sub-basin committees

and development of nutrient reduction strategies; landowner assistance plans for

voluntary actions to restore, enhance or create wetlands and vegetative or forested

buffer strips; and assistance plans for agricultural producers, landowners, and businesses for voluntary implementation of best management practices. The short-term

actions include advancing monitoring and research strategies for both the Mississippi River watershed and the Gulf of Mexico to support adaptive management,

as well as, reassessing progress toward reducing nutrient loads and the size of the

hypoxic zone every five years.

Progress has been made on a number of these actions. Although the original

timeline has not been rigidly maintained, the Task Force has been actively pursuing

its goals. Since publication of the Action Plan, the Task Force has met twice, in February and December 2002. It has formed workgroups to address management implementation, management actions (nonpoint source, point source and restoration), finance/budget, and monitoring modeling and research issues. The USGS and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) co-chair the monitoring, modeling and research workgroup, which is preparing a Monitoring, Modeling and Research Strategy for the Task Force to support management implementation. This

document will establish a framework for achieving the short-term actions related to

providing the scientific information needed to guide adaptive management in the

Mississippi River Watershed and northern Gulf of Mexico.

The third question posed by the Committee is: ‘‘To what extent are federal research programs focused on the appropriate issues to be most effective in understanding hypoxia?’’ Research issues related to hypoxia cover a very wide range of

scientific areas. USGS is involved in only one subset. However, coordination of federal research on hypoxia is a recognized priority by involved agencies. Recent coordination was spurred by HABHRCA and the corresponding activities of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force. Through these activities, federal scientists and other experts have worked together to identify research

26

priorities that resulted in the Integrated Assessment and the associated six technical reports.

Satisfying one of the Action Plan’s short-term actions, an interagency plan was

developed by NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), USGS, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that summarizes the scientific community’s views

of key research needs for better understanding and managing of coastal nutrient

pollution. This interagency plan is titled ‘‘Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters—Priority Topics for an Integrated National Research Program for the United States’’ (in

press).

Currently, the monitoring modeling and research workgroup of the Mississippi

River/Gulf of Mexico Task Force is drafting a Monitoring Modeling and Research

Strategy, to include information gathered at a workshop held in October 2002 and

attended by over 100 expert scientists and managers from government agencies,

universities, and the private sector. This strategy will identify priorities for monitoring, modeling and research in the Mississippi watershed and the Gulf of Mexico,

as well as priorities for coordination, reporting, and resource needs.

The National Research Council report, Clean Coastal Water: Understanding and

Addressing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution (2000), identifies the need for federal

leadership to support and coordinate the research and development needed to reduce and reverse the effects of nutrient over-enrichment. That report makes specific

recommendations for federal action: including, monitoring in coastal and inland

areas; improving models for understanding nutrient effects and forecasting trends;

and expanding and targeting research to improve understanding of the causes and

impacts of nutrient over-enrichment.

These efforts among others have helped identify monitoring, modeling and research needs, as well as the associated needs to coordinate ongoing activities related

to hypoxia in coastal waters. The current challenge is improving coordination among

numerous involved agencies and filling important needs and gaps in current activities within limited resources.

In summary, harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are important problems for the

Nation. They occur where human activities from broad inland areas reach and affect

coastal receiving waters. As a result, a key component of a successful solution is coordinated monitoring, modeling and research activities. This will join our efforts to

understand the processes and factors that control the sources and causes of excess

nutrient and related chemical loads with the processes that cause recurring harmful

algal blooms and hypoxia in coastal waters. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee

to advance this joint progress and coordination by acknowledgement and support of

both coastal and inland monitoring, modeling and research.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will

be pleased to answer any questions you and other Members of the Subcommittee

might have.

ADDENDUM: Short-term actions and time-frames proposed in the Action

Plan to achieve the long-term goals (The Action Plan, p. 13):

#1 By December 2000, the Task Force with input from the States and Tribes

within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, will develop and submit a

budget request for new and additional funds for voluntary technical and financial assistance, education, environmental enhancement, research, and

monitoring programs to support the actions outlined in the Action Plan;

#2 By Summer 2001, States and Tribes in the Basin, in consultation with the

Task Force, will establish sub-basin committees to coordinate implementation of the Action Plan by major sub-basins, including coordination among

smaller watersheds, Tribes and States in each of those sub-basins;

#3 By Fall 2001, the Task Force will develop an integrated Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Research Strategy to coordinate and promote necessary research and

modeling efforts to reduce uncertainties regarding the sources, effects (including economic effects in the Gulf as well as the basin), and geochemical

processes for hypoxia in the Gulf;

#4 By Spring 2002, Coastal States, Tribes and relevant Federal agencies will

greatly expand the long-term monitoring program for the hypoxic zone, including greater temporal and spatial data collection, measurements of

macro-nutrient and micro-nutrient concentrations and hypoxia as well as

measures of the biochemical processes that regulate the inputs, fate, and

distribution of nutrients and organic material;

#5 By Spring 2002, States, Tribes and Federal agencies within the Mississippi

and Atchafalaya River Basin will expand the existing monitoring efforts

within the Basin to provide both a coarse resolution assessment of the nutriVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

ent contribution of various sub-basins and a high resolution modeling technique in these smaller watersheds to identify additional management actions to help mitigate nitrogen losses to the Gulf, and nutrient loadings to

local waters, based on the interim guidance established by the National

Water Quality Monitoring Council;

#6 By Fall 2002, States, Tribes and Federal agencies within the Mississippi and

Atchafalaya River Basin, using available data and tools, local partnerships,

and coordination through sub-basin committees, described in #2 above, will

develop strategies for nutrient reduction. These strategies will include setting reduction targets for nitrogen losses to surface waters, establishing a

baseline of existing efforts for nutrient management, identifying opportunities to restore flood plain wetlands (including restoration of river inflows)

along and adjacent to the Mississippi River, detailing needs for additional

assistance to meet their goals, and promoting additional funding;

#7 By December 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), in cooperation

with States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies, will, if authorized by the

Congress and funded in the fall of 2001, complete a reconnaissance level

study of potential nutrient reduction actions that could be achieved by modifying COE projects or project operations. Prior to completion of the reconnaissance study, the COE will incorporate nitrogen reduction considerations,

not requiring major modification of projects or project operations or significant new costs, into all project implementation actions;

#8 By January 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

Clean Water Act permitting authorities within the Mississippi and

Atchafalaya River Basin will identify point source dischargers with significant discharges of nutrients and undertake steps to reduce those loadings,

consistent with action #6 above;

#9 By Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

States and Tribes within the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin with

support from federal agencies, will increase assistance to landowners for voluntary actions to restore, enhance, or create wetlands and vegetative or forested buffers along rivers and streams within priority watersheds consistent

with action #6 above;

#10 By Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

States and Tribes within the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, with

support from federal agencies, will increase assistance to agricultural producers, other landowners, and businesses for the voluntary implementation

of best management practices (BMPs), which are effective in addressing

loss of nitrogen to water bodies, consistent with action #6 above; and

#11 By December 2005 and every five years thereafter, the Task Force will assess the nutrient load reductions achieved and the response of the hypoxic

zone, water quality throughout the Basin, and economic and social effects.

Based on this assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions to continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise the

strategy.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. Dr. Carmichael.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE W. CARMICHAEL, PROFESSOR, AQUATIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES PH.D. PROGRAM, WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. CARMICHAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Subcommittee. This is a new experience for me, and I certainly appreciate it. Blooms of toxic or harmful microalgae are found in marine,

brackish, and freshwaters. In marine environments, where they are

commonly called the red tides, they represent a hazard being addressed by several state and Federal Government programs, including the current bill. In fresh and brackish waters, the HABs are

due to about 40 species within seven genera of the algal division

called the blue-green algae, or more correctly, Cyanobacteria. Like

marine HABs, they take many forms, ranging from massive accuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

mulations of cells to dilute, inconspicuous, but highly toxic populations.

In contrast to marine HABs, the CyanoHABs are not commonly

referred to as red tides since instead they discolor the water green,

dark green, bluish green, to reddish brown. In some instances they

even produce a massive viscous paste, as indicated in this slide

from Lake Erie in the early 1970’s when Lake Erie was said to be

dead. Of course, it wasn’t dead, only polluted. We don’t expect a return to that past situation, but as you can see in this slide, the viscous green material when it decomposes goes to the viscous greenblue, therefore, the common name blue-green algae.

These impacts from CyanoHABs include massive mortalities of

wild, including migratory birds, deer, wild sheep, and even bears;

domestic animals, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, ducks, geese, and even

family pets; and farmed fish and shellfish, especially, salmon,

trout, and shrimp; human intoxications and death from exposure

and consumption of contaminated drinking water supplies; alterations of fresh and brackish food webs through adverse effects on

microbial, invertebrate, larvae, and other life history stages of commercial and noncommercial fish species. We now even have evidence that some of these toxins, not in the same way that maybe

the red tides do, produced by CyanoHABs affect reproduction and

survival through the food web, and can move from level to level in

a manner analogous to marine HAB toxins and xenobiotics of the

chemical pollutants. The effects on reservoir, lake, pond, river, and

stream systems remain poorly understood but are clearly significant.

In some instances we have documented or are beginning to document the possibility that cyanobacteria are invasive when bringing

up the earlier bill of invasive species. Some cyanobacteria have

those characteristics. In most cases, they become dominant due to

environmental changes. As an example, this slide shows a species

called Cylindrospermopsis, which became dominant in Florida waters and now is moving to parts of the Midwest.

Most of my testimony needs to address the Great Lakes, and that

concerns possible re-emergence in the Great Lakes of the

CyanoHABs. Even though we made significant progress in 1968

through 2000 from interagency and international efforts at reduction of phosphorous, there are some indications that this effort may

be slipping, as shown near the end of this graph, you see that there

are some changes, there are some spikings, and these spikings are

corresponding with new blooms in the late 1990’s, especially, in

1995, 1996, 1998.

The increase in Lake Erie algae has also been documented.

These are seasonal averages of planktonic algae in the Western

basin, central basin, and eastern basins of Lake Erie. As you can

see, beginning in 1995, increases are taking place. Satellite reflectance images document this in the next slide from September 1995,

the dark red areas represent reflectance images indicating high

populations of algae, including the CyanoHABs.

In terms of food web changes, which is one of the key things we

are concerned with, is the zebra mussel. Recent studies indicate

that there are changes taking place that allow the zebra mussel to

select for the CyanoHABs, and especially, the ones that produce

29

the toxins, because zebra mussels are particularly picky about their

food source and reject toxic cyanobacteria. Additional changes include the invasive round gobi fish and the zooplankton

Echinogammarus, which contribute to the other invasive species,

and as a consequence, this is what we feel we are seeing in the way

of the emergence of new blooms.

With regards to hypoxia, the two are linked. The hypoxia issue

is one that is not as clear. The causes of the current increase in

CyanoHABs within the Great Lakes do not have a scientific consensus at present, but the research done to date does support the

major reason as being the invasion of the zebra mussel. In this

next slide, the zebra mussel nutrients plus the decomposition of

algae allows for recycling of phosphorous plus mixing of algal

blooms which sink and die and contribute to the decomposition

process.

The USEPA, through the Safe Drinking Water Act, has placed

the cyanobacteria and their toxins on the candidate contaminant

list in 1998 for research priority, including health research, treatment research, analytical methods research, and occurrence priorities. Much of that work has been done and we are moving on with

that program.

The necessary next steps, shown in this final slide, include

CyanoHABs and the national HAB funding agenda; identify, characterize, and prioritize the primary hazards and risks from

CyanoHABs; support a coordinated effort between academia, Government, and private agencies to address CyanoHAB rapid detection, management, and mitigation, much in the same way as we

are approaching the marine HAB’s; include a rapid response capability that allows for correct and balanced public risk communication. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Carmichael follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE W. CARMICHAEL

Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Wayne Carmichael, Professor

in the Department of Biological Sciences at Wright State University, where I have

been active in the study of toxic Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), fresh and brackish water harmful algal blooms (HABs) for 27 years. My testimony is being provided

to support the issues and questions being raised as part of the ‘‘Harmful Algal

Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendment Act of 2003.’’ I am here to provide the

perspective of an experienced research scientist who has investigated most of the

Cyanobacteria HAB (CyanoHAB) phenomena that affect fresh and estuarine waters

of the United States and many of those same phenomena that have affected some

of the world’s freshwater supplies (China, Australia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Great Britain, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway,

Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and South Africa). Internationally

I have served on the World Health Organization (WHO) Technical Group that developed the guidelines for Cyanobacteria toxins in drinking water supplies and with

the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Brazilian Ministry of

Health to set regulations for these same toxins in Brazil’s public drinking water

supplies. Within the U.S. I have been actively involved in research on the occurrence, distribution, toxicity and health impacts of toxic cyanobacteria waterblooms

and more recently in assisting with the inclusion, by the USEPA, of toxic

cyanobacteria on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) for the Safe Drinking

Water Act of 1996. In the state, local government and private sector I have assisted

with scientific framework and agency partnerships needed to attack the HAB problem in an efficient and productive manner. Thank you for the opportunity to acquaint you with the national problem of Cyanobacteria Harmful Algal Blooms

(CyanoHABs) and the steps that the scientific, government and private community

might take or are taking to address it.

30

Background

Blooms of toxic or harmful micro algae, are found in both Marine, Brackish and

Freshwaters throughout the world. In Marine environments, where they are commonly called ‘‘red tides,’’ they represent a hazard, that is being addressed by several

State and Federal Government programs—including this House bill. In fresh and

brackish waters HABs are due to about 40 species within seven genera of the algal

division called Blue-green Algae, now more correctly called Cyanobacteria. Like Marine HABs they take many forms, ranging from massive accumulations of cells, to

dilute, inconspicuous, but highly toxic populations. In contrast to marine HABs the

CyanoHABs are not referred to as ‘‘Red Tides’’ since they discolor the water dark

green to bluish green to reddish brown (and can turn the waters consistency to a

thick viscous paste). The impacts include: mass mortalities of wild (migratory birds,

deer, wild sheep and even bears) and domestic animals (cows, horses, sheep, pigs,

ducks, geese and family pets) and farmed fish and shellfish (salmon, trout, shrimp);

human intoxications and death from exposure and consumption of contaminated

drinking water supplies; alterations of fresh and brackish food webs through adverse effects on microbial, invertebrate, larvae and other life history stages of commercial and non-commercial fish species. We now have some evidence that at least

some of the toxins (Cyanotoxins) produced by CyanoHAB species affect reproduction

and survival throughout the food web, and can move from level to level in a manner

analogous to the Marine HAB toxins and xenobiotic (produced by human activities)

chemical pollutants. The effects on reservoir, lake, pond, river and stream ecosystems remain poorly understood, but are clearly significant.

Outbreaks, in 1996, of toxic Cyanobacteria in a Brazilian drinking water supply

led to the death of at least 52 persons exposed to a treated public water supply used

in kidney dialyses centers. While no human deaths have been confirmed from

CyanoHABs in U.S. waters, beginning in the mid 1990’s, an organism called

Cylindrospermopsis focused public and political attention on CyanoHAB episodes in

Florida that was alarming and disturbing to many, and that will impact how Florida transitions from its dominant use of ground water to surface waters for use as

public drinking water supplies. In the Great Lakes the invasion of the freshwater

zebra mussel has contributed to processes (now being studied) that helps select for

the dominance of toxic Cyanobacteria. These toxic Cyanobacteria blooms contribute

(as they did in the 1960’s and 70’s) to anoxia and hypoxia in certain areas of the

Great Lakes. These are but three examples to support the argument that funding

should be distributed so as to address all HAB problems, not just the ones that impact our marine ecosystems.

In the United States, the Cyanotoxins responsible for economic and public health

problems are (also see Table 1):

• Microcystins. Microcystins are a large group of livertoxic peptides (small

proteins) that are produced by a range of Cyanobacteria. They are also liver

tumor promoters. This group of cyanotoxins includes more than 65 different

structural variants of cyclic heptapeptides (consisting of seven amino acids in

a ring structure), with molecular weights in the range 800–1100. The best

characterized and one of the most toxic variants of microcystin is microcystinLR. Most of the structural variants of microcystin are highly toxic within a

narrow range, although some non-toxic variants have been identified.

Microcystins are most commonly produced by species of the genus

Microcystis, from which the toxins originally derived their name. However,

these toxins have now been shown to be produced by species of the planktonic

genera Anabaena, Microcystis, Planktothrix (Oscillatoria), Nostoc, and

Anabaenopsis, and also by a terrestrial (soil) species Haphalosiphon

hibernicus, indicating the potential for widespread occurrence in the environment. The majority of human and animal microcystin-related poisonings

worldwide are nevertheless associated with the presence of Microcystis.

Microcystins are the most significant drinking water quality issue, in relation

to Cyanobacterial blooms, in the U.S. including the Great Lakes. Microcystins

are produced predominantly by Microcystis aeruginosa. They can occasionally

be produced by Anabaena spp. and Planktothrix.

A chemically and functionally related group of livertoxic peptides called the

Nodularins are found in some of the worlds’ brackish water supplies (Baltic

Sea, Australian and New Zealand brackish lakes and estuaries). To date they

have not been identified in U.S. brackish waters.

• Saxitoxins. There are three types of Cyanobacterial neurotoxins, anatoxin a,

anatoxin a-(s) and the saxitoxins. The saxitoxins include saxitoxin,

neosaxitoxin, C-toxins and gonyautoxins. The anatoxins seem unique to

Cyanobacteria, while saxitoxins are also produced by various dinoflagellates

31

under the name of paralytic shellfish poisons (PSPs). This is an example of

a HAB toxin group which is common to both marine and freshwater HABs.

A number of Cyanobacterial genera can produce saxitoxins, including

Anabaena, Oscillatoria, Cylindrospermopsis, Cylindrospermum, Lyngbya and

Aphanizomenon.

The saxitoxins are a group of alkaloids that are either non-sulfated

(saxitoxins), singly-sulfated (gonyautoxins), or doubly-sulfated (C-toxins). The

various types of toxins vary in potency with saxitoxin having the highest toxicity. Saxitoxins exert their effect as neurotoxins by blocking nerve conduction

and causing death by respiratory arrest. Saxitoxin is a member of the CDC

Select Agent List for its potential use as bioweapon.

Saxitoxins have been recorded in only a few locations throughout the U.S.

(New Hampshire, Alabama and New Mexico). No occurrences have yet been

reported in the Great lakes. A few animal deaths have been linked to

saxitoxins in U.S. freshwaters but most poisonings are from exposures

through marine waters as the causative agent of PSPs. In temperate parts

of Australia, blooms of saxitoxin producing Cyanobacteria are very prevalent.

The first reported neurotoxic bloom of Anabaena in Australia occurred in

1972. The most publicized bloom occurred in late 1991 and extended over

1,000 km of the Darling-Barwon River system in New South Wales. A state

of emergency was declared with a focus on providing safe drinking water to

towns, communities and landholders. Thousands of stock deaths were associated with the occurrence of the bloom but there was little evidence of human

health impacts.

• Anatoxins. The other neurotoxic cyanotoxins are anatoxin-a and anatoxina(s). Both are alkaloids which cause death by respiratory paralysis. They are

both chemically and functionally different from saxitoxin. Anatoxin-a is a secondary amine alkaloid, with one natural analog Homoanatoxin-a. They are

neurotoxic by depolarizing acetylcholine receptors, leading to death by respiratory arrest. It is the second most common cyanotoxin in U.S. waters and

has been identified in a few Great Lakes water samples. It has been responsible for massive die-offs of migrating birds in the mid west and in intermittent but repeated poisonings of wild and domestic animals in several U.S.

states especially the West. Anatoxin-a(s) is an organophosphate with

toxicities similar, but more potent than, the known organophosphate pesticides. It is neurotoxic by inhibiting breakdown of acetylcholine

(anticholinesterase). It is not as common as Anatoxin-a but has been responsible for a few animal (especially domestic dogs) and bird poisonings in the

U.S.. It has not been identified to date in the Great Lakes.

• Cylindrospermopsin. Cylindrospermopsin is an alkaloid toxin with a molecular weight of 415, produced by the freshwater Cyanobacteria,

Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, Aphanizomenon ovalisporum, Umezakia

natans and Raphidiopsis. It was first characterised and named from an Australian isolate of C. raciborskii. In pure form cylindrospermopsin is predominantly a liver toxin, although extracts of C. raciborskii administered to mice

induce toxicity in the kidneys, spleen, thymus, heart and eye. Other chemical

variants of cylindrospermopsin have been isolated from C. raciborskii, including a deoxycylindrospermopsin.

Cylindrospermopsin is believed to have been the causative agent in a drinking water poisoning incident in Queensland, Australia in 1979, in which 148

people were hospitalized. C. raciborskii has been found in many water supply

reservoirs in northern, central and southern Queensland. In the U.S. C.

raciborskii has become dominant in many water supplies in Florida over the

past 10 years. To date it has not been identified in any of the Great Lakes.

Even though it is considered to be predominantly tropical/sub-tropical in

terms of habitat, it has begun to invade certain U.S. Midwest drinking water

supplies since about 2000. C. raciborskii is not a scum-forming organism, but

forms dense bands below the water surface in stratified lakes. Its toxin is

readily released into the water making it present even when cells are not apparent.

• Lyngbyatoxins. Lyngbyatoxins are produced by a few genera of marine

Cyanobacteria. As such they are not a hazard for freshwater supplies. They

are potent contact irritants and skin tumor promoters and are mainly a problem as a cause of swimmers itch from recreational waters. There is one reported occurrence of this toxin in Florida coastal waters.

32

Testimony on specific questions provided by the House Subcommittee:

1) Provide an overview of the most pressing water quality issues that exist

today in the Great Lakes regarding the increase in occurrences of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

CyanoHABs have a wide array of economic impacts, including the costs of conducting routine monitoring programs for public drinking and recreational water supplies, short-term and long term losses from aquacultured shrimp and fish stocks, reductions in seafood sales, losses of submerged aquatic vegetation, bottom-up impacts

on tourism and tourism-related businesses, and medical treatment of exposed populations. These economic losses are difficult to estimate, and fluctuate dramatically

from year to year since toxic waterblooms are an intermittent occurrence as weather

and water conditions change. An estimate of CyanoHAB costs to the entire United

States has not been done, but as with Marine HAB events they can be significant.

The nature of the CyanoHAB problem has changed considerably over the last

three decades in the United States. In the 1970’s the main CyanoHAB threat was

as an intermittent but repeated cause of wild and domestic poisonings in lakes,

ponds and reservoirs. Lake Erie was experiencing massive blooms of Cyanobacteria

which caused significant economic problems but the presence of cyanotoxins was not

known at the time and therefore not considered a factor in the harmful effects from

these waterblooms. Improved control of point source nutrient inputs and other

sound water management problems led to a significant decrease in Cyanobacterial

nuisance water blooms in the western basin of Lake Erie. Since this time more investigations (and improved detection methods) into the toxicity of Cyanobacteria

and the toxins they produce, made it clear that poisonings of Cyanobacteria were

more frequent and widespread than previously thought. In addition the increased

use and manipulation of freshwater supplies led to more widespread nutient enrichVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

ment and changes that selected for conditions in which Cyanobacteria waterblooms

can dominate. Virtually every state has now documented recurrent harmful or toxic

Cyanobacteria species, whereas 30 years ago, the problem was much more scattered

and sporadic. Few would argue that the number of toxic waterblooms, the economic

losses from them, the health impacts and the number of toxins and toxic

Cyanobacteria species have all increased dramatically in recent years in the United

States and around the world.

A common assumption, that is largely true, is that pollution or other human activities are responsible for this expansion with geographic factors such as length of

season and seasonal variations in weather being able to moderate or exacerbate this

cause. Scientists are also much better at detecting known toxins and finding new

ones than ever before, in part because analytical instruments and methods are vastly improved and because there is rapid and efficient communication throughout the

world. The finding of Cylindrospermopsin in many of Florida’s lakes and rivers was

made easier by its identification first in Australia followed by good scientific communication and interaction among scientists. The re-emergence of CyanoHABs in the

Great Lakes may have its root cause in the invasion by zebra mussels but the link

to toxins came about because of new methods of detection and good communication

among scientists working in diverse fields. As with Marine HABs massive

waterblooms of CyanoHABs are strongly linked to pollution, as the input of sewage

to inland waters will stimulate ‘‘background’’ populations of Cyanobacteria by supplying them with nutrients, allowing the populations to grow faster and longer.

Harmful or toxic species will thus be more abundant and more noticeable. The sudden appearance of CyanoHABs can be viewed as a visible and dramatic warning of

the dangers that arise from decades of abuse of our inland waters—the canary in

the coal mine analogy.

It is clear then that the expansion of the CyanoHAB problem is in part a matter

of perception or increased awareness, and in part a matter of the actual growth of

the problem. In other words, years ago we were not aware of the size or complexity

of the CyanoHAB problem, but as we became better at detecting toxins and recognizing CyanoHAB phenomena, we more clearly defined the extensive boundaries of

the problem. On top of this apparent increase there has been genuine growth in the

problem due to such factors as pollution, manipulation of water systems for agricultural, residential and municipal water use and aquaculture. The fact that some of

the increase is simply a result of better detection or more observers does not diminish the seriousness of the CyanoHAB problem. It needs to be given attention and

research in a manner similar to that for the Marine HABs.

The causes of the current increase in CyanoHABs within the Great Lakes do not

have a scientific consensus. The research done to date supports the major reason

as being the invasion by zebra mussels. A summary of how this may work is as follows:

• High phosphorus led to massive waterblooms in the 1960’s and 70’s

• Controls on external P loading implemented by early 1980s (Water quality

agreement between Canada and the USA Great Lakes neighboring states)

• Recovery of Lake Erie by late 1980s

• Invasion by zebra mussels late 1980s

• Recurrence of nuisance blooms by late 1990s

The zebra mussel invasion continues to colonize hard and soft substrates in the

Great Lakes. It continues to change ecosystem function and leads to higher

Cyanobacteria populations through high particle filtration rates along with selective

rejection of colonial cyanotoxin producing Cyanobacteria. These cyanotoxin producing organisms lead to the problems of water quality being addressed by this testimony.

The problem with hypoxia and even anoxia in the Great Lakes is not new but

the recent increase may be at least partly due to algae populations changing to a

dominance of Cyanobacteria. The recent hypoxic areas are largely confined to Lake

Erie. A summary of this problem is given below (kindly provided by Prof. David Culver–Ohio State University).

Anoxia in Central Lake Erie

The Problem: Lake Erie water quality affects drinking water, swimming, and fish

survival

High availability of phosphorus decreases Lake Erie water quality. Low water

quality increases the amounts of taste and odor causing compounds and even toxic

compounds from Cyanobacteria in drinking water. Toxic Cyanobacteria tend to float

34

to the surface in later summer and can be blown to shore, increasing the likelihood

they will be taken in by potable water intakes and causing risks for swimmers, and

for wildlife, livestock, and pets that may drink from the shore of the lake. Toxic

Cyanobacteria have been shown to negatively affect the food chain upon which fish

depend. Bacterial contamination from combined sewer overflows similarly affects

these groups.

Causes: The thin Central Basin hypolimnion makes it susceptible to anoxia

The cool layer at the bottom of the lake (the hypolimnion) receives too little light

for much photosynthesis, and is cut off from atmospheric oxygen because it is denser

than the warm layer (epilimnion) floating on top. Because of the shape of Lake Erie,

its central basin hypolimnion is only 2 or 3 m deep, whereas its epilimnion is 18

m deep. As the lake decreases to water levels closer to the long-term average, the

hypolimnion can become even thinner. Algae and animals produced in the

epilimnion die and release feces that settle into the hypolimnion, where they decompose, consuming oxygen. The more nutrients available in the epilimnion, the greater

the algal growth there. The more algae produced, the faster the rate of consumption

of oxygen in the hypolimnion. It is a race between the rate of consumption of oxygen

and the occurrence of the total circulation of the lake in September, which is caused

by cooling of the surface waters.

Effects: Low oxygen in the Central Basin bottom waters decreases fish habitat

Most fish species cannot tolerate oxygen levels less than 3 ppm (e.g., walleye, yellow perch), and some require 4 ppm or more. Because the central basin is very flat,

an increase in the area where concentration at the bottom is less than 3 ppm will

greatly decrease the area useable by game fish and small fish upon which they depend for food. Lower concentrations yet will kill the benthic insects (e.g., mayflies)

and plankton that these fish eat.

Effects: Low oxygen in the Central Basin bottom waters recycles phosphorus, producing more algae

Phosphate ions in the sediments are bound by iron and clays fairly well under

aerobic conditions. When sediments become anoxic, however, the ferric iron is reduced to ferrous iron and the phosphate is then much more soluble and diffuses out

of the sediment. This phosphate can be mixed up into the surface waters when the

lake circulates in September, causing additional algal growth.

Effects: Algae decreased in abundance from 1970 to 1997, but have increased since

then

Central Basin algae biomass declined from 3 to 0.6 g/m3 from 1970 to 1997, but

2001 abundances (2.0 g/m3 ) are now as high as they were in the early 1980s, suggesting that water quality improvements are being reversed. This is all reflected in

the planktonic animals in the lake. Algae increases are made up in part by toxic

strains of Cyanobacteria, which had become rare in the early 1990s. EPA phosphorus data also show this trend. There is no evidence that increases in inputs from

the watershed have occurred, although accurate estimates of inputs are difficult to

obtain.

Possible Causes: Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus

Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus and nitrogen in algae that otherwise

would have settled to the sediments and stayed there. They consume algae all year

round, providing continuous recycling of nutrients that can encourage algal growth.

Their effects will be particularly felt in the western basin and near shore, but these

waters also flow into the central basin where the anoxic hypolimnion occurs.

Possible Causes: Quagga mussels are replacing zebra mussels

Quagga mussels (another introduced species) are replacing zebra mussels in the

whole lake. Our preliminary data suggest quagga mussels excrete more phosphate

and ammonia than do zebra mussels for equivalent-sized individuals.

Possible Causes: Combined sewer overflows bypass nutrient removal at sewage treatment plants

Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to the lake are increased by storm-induced overflows from combined storm water and sanitary sewers.

Solutions: zebra or quagga mussels cannot be removed

There is no way to remove zebra or quagga mussels from the lake.

Solutions: decrease human input of nutrients

35

If recycling by animals in the lake is increasing, our only solution is to decrease

inputs of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, from point and non-point sources. As

the human population increases in the Lake Erie watershed, it will require even

greater efforts to decrease nutrient inputs.

Solutions: support better nutrient modeling of the lake

Scientific studies of the interactions among water circulation, nutrient inputs, and

the plants and animals in the lake are hampered by incomplete information on the

sources and amounts of nutrients coming in from rivers and direct discharge into

the lake. Increase efforts in monitoring inputs of nutrients, especially phosphorus

and nitrogen into the lake.

2) To what extent is research on freshwater harmful algal blooms funded

by private entities and what benefit does it provide to them. To what extent are federal research programs focused on the appropriate issues in

order to be most effective in understanding harmful algae blooms.

The problems of CyanoHABs are addressed by several private and public groups

and agencies. Historically the lead public agency has been the USEPA. They funded

a conference on the topic in 1980 but no programs or policies were produced and

further funding was limited. In the 1980’s DOD through USAMRID funded research

related to an understanding of basic toxicology, detection and decontamination of

Cyanotoxins. The ECOHAB program formed in the 1990’s was directed almost solely

toward Marine HABs and no significant funding was made to the issue of

CyanoHABs. During this time other countries did make significant efforts toward

funding of CyanoHAB research and toward a national program of coordinated research. This was most notable in Australia where a national algal task force was

formed and still operates. Their efforts are largely responsible for the information

available on public health consequences, monitoring, management and mitigation of

CyanoHABs published by WHO in 1999 (Chorus and Bartram 1999). In Europe the

EU is currently funding several multinational efforts at these same goals. The new

research on Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins in the U.S. is largely being funded by

the USEPA (as needed for the Candidate Contaminant List work through the Safe

Drinking Water Act) and some state Health Agencies (i.e., Florida through funding

from the State Harmful Algae Task Force). Other recent projects are funded by

MERHAB, the National Sea Grant Program and the Lake Erie Protection Fund. Private funding has largely come through the American Water Works Research Foundation (AwwaRF). This work is in direct support of foundation member water utilities who need to be able to respond better to taste and odor and toxin events of

Cyanobacteria. In all of these efforts there is little coordination of projects. This

could be one of the key ways that the current HAB legislation could be of assistance.

It is possible that the national plan formed for Marine HABs could be model for this

effort (National Plan for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae—Anderson et al.,

1993).

Another related need is for skilled research teams with the equipment and facilities required to attack the complex scientific issues involved in CyanoHAB phenomena. Like the Marine HAB funding program, this argues for funding that does

not ebb and flood with the sporadic pattern of CyanoHAB outbreaks or that focuses

resources in one region while others go begging. There needs to be an equitable distribution of resources that is consistent with the scale and extent of the national

problem, and that is sustained through time. This is the only way to keep research

teams intact, forming the core of expertise and knowledge that leads to scientific

progress. To achieve this balance, we need a scientifically based allocation of resources, not one based on political jurisdictions.

Another need is for targeted funding programs which recognize that management

of CyanoHAB phenomena requires expertise in many disciplines ranging from toxicology and public health to freshwater ecology and basic lake/reservoir management.

This means that like the Marine HAB effort, coordination from NOAA in partnership with the National Science Foundation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Environmental Health and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is needed.

The Centers for Disease Control and Human Studies Divison within the USEPA

are both pursuing a modest effort at epidemiology and public health. Toxin production by several CyanoHAB species can seriously impact wild and domestic and pose

threats to human health, yet our epidemiological and toxicokinetics knowledge of

these toxins is limited. There is however insufficient federal support to address all

toxins, toxic species, modes of action, detection methods, and impacts on coastal resources, food webs and humans. Acute single-dose lethality of toxins has been studied extensively, but chronic and/or repeated exposure to Cyanotoxins, which is a

36

more realistic phenomenon, has not been adequately examined. There are also new

toxins, such as those associated with the recent Cylindrospermopsis outbreaks,

whose toxins may be genotoxic but whose health effects remain uncharacterized.

These knowledge gaps prevent researchers from devising antidotes or effective treatments which may alleviate or lessen the symptoms.

A final program need reflects the fact that when unexpected CyanoHAB outbreaks

occur, the state and federal response has often been confused, uncoordinated, slow,

and contentious. Illnesses and deaths from CyanoHABs have occurred in other countries and conditions are becoming right for their occurrence in the U.S. A ‘‘rapid response’’ similar to what has been developed with Marine HABs, that will allow scientists and regulators to investigate unexpected CyanoHAB outbreaks, is needed.

This requires both funding and leadership. A related need is for a public risk communication strategy to provide up-to-date, accurate information on CyanoHAB outbreaks for the public, journalists, the medical community, and the fisheries industry.

3) What technologies exist or could be developed in the near future to

monitor for and to control and mitigate harmful algal blooms in the

Great Lakes.

Since the 1980’s good methods have been developed to detect Cyanotoxins. The

three major detection methodologies are biological, physicochemical and biochemical.

Biological methods include the use of small animals (i.e., mouse, fish, invertebrates)

and microbial (i.e., bacteria). These methods provide initial screening data on the

presence and sometimes type (i.e., signs of poisoning) of toxin but are generally less

sensitive and certainly less qualitative than the other two methods. Now that chemical and toxicological information is available for the cyanotoxins, physicochemical

and biochemical methods of detection are being used. The more common of these

include chromatographic (TLC, HPLC), mass spectral using FAB, ESI and SIM and

nuclear magnetic resonance. These physicochemical methods are sensitive and are

of high utility for qualitative analysis. The biochemical methods are replacing the

bioassays as a rapid screening procedure and have an added advantage in that they

are very sensitive. These methods include immunoassays (especially ELISA) and enzyme assays. The biochemical assays are less qualitative than the physicochemical

assays but are just as sensitive and more rapid making them particularly useful to

screen environmental samples. Newer methods for monitoring and screening that

could be developed are based upon genetic and biosensor probes.

Although these methods are all good research tools none have been developed for

rapid monitoring applications. In a workshop sponsored by the USEPA in May of

2001 this point was emphasized in the final report. Other points mentioned were:

• Analytical standards are needed for all algal toxins, except Saxitoxins which

are already available through FDA and the NRC in Canada.

• Some Microcystins are commercially available but there is need for the other

toxins (Anatoxin-a, Cylindrospermopsin) to become commercially available.

• ELISA assays are needed for Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a.

• Molecular and genetic based probes are needed.

• Analytical methods need to be made into standard methods.

• Acute and chronic effects of algal toxicity need to be studied.

• Sampling should take place in raw water, finished water, and storage reservoirs.

• Low and high level chronic biotoxin studies need to be performed.

4) Provide written comments and suggestions on the draft reauthorization

bill.

The ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003’’ represents a significant effort to expand the ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998.’’ This expansion is an overdue acknowledgement

that the fresh and brackish water HAB organisms, represented primarily by the

Cyanobacteria, represent a significant hazard to the safety and quality of the nations freshwater supplies. Specific points for the draft bill text are to be sure and

include a reference to all U.S. freshwaters (not just the Great Lakes) in qualifying

for inclusion in the acts revisions. For example page 3 line 24 onto page 4 line 1—

ecosystems (including the Great Lakes and other inland waters).

Overview

The diverse and sporadic nature of the CyanoHAB phenomena throughout the

U.S. pose an additional challenge to the development of an expanded national HAB

37

program. Nevertheless, the combination of planning, coordination, and a highly compelling topic with great societal importance have set the stage for cooperation between officials, government scientists and academics in a sustained attack on the

CyanoHAB problem. The rate and extent of progress from here will depend upon

how well different federal agencies can work together, how much funding support

is provided, and on how effectively the skills and expertise of government and academic scientists can be targeted on priority topics. In this testimony, I have tried

to provide an overview of the status of the CyanoHAB problem, emphasizing the

challenges as well as the significant progress that has been made in understanding

the nature of the problem which can be used as the foundation toward implementing a national program. The CyanoHAB community in the U.S. is small compared with its counterpart in Europe, Australia and Japan. However the existence

of a strong U.S. Marine HAB effort and the availability of well trained scientists

and government officials well-positioned to undertake the additional HAB challenges make this expanded national program well worth the effort. It will however

be successful only if a coordinated, multi-faceted interagency effort can be implemented to focus research personnel, facilities, and financial resources on the diverse

goals of this expanded comprehensive national strategy.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members may have.

Literature citations

Anderson, D.M., Galloway, S.B., and Joseph, J.D. 1993. Marine Biotoxins and

Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Tech.

Report, WHOI 93–02. Woods Hole, MA. 59pp.

Carmichael, W.W. 1997. The Cyanotoxins. In Advances in Botanical Research (ed.

Callow, J.) 27, 211–256 Academic Press, London.

Carmichael, W.W. 2001. Health Effects of Toxin Producing Cyanobacteria: ‘‘The

CyanoHABS,’’ Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7(5):1393–1407.

Carmichael, W.W., Azevedo, M.F.O., An, J.S., Molica, R.J.R., Jochimsen, E.M., Lau,

S., Rinehart, K.L., Shaw, G.R., Eagelsham, G.K. 2001. Human Fatalities from

Cyanobacteria: Chemical and Biological Evidence for Cyanotoxins. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(7):663–668.

Carpenter, E.J., Carmichael, W.W. 1995. Taxonomy of Cyanobacteria. In

Hallegraeff, G.M. et al. (eds.) Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae pp. 373–

80. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 33 UNESCO.

Chorus, I., Bartram, J. (eds.) 1999. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their

Public Health Consequences, Monitoring and Management. World Health Organization, E&FN Spon, Routledge, London.

Hallegraeff, G.M., Anderson, D.M., Cembella, A.D. (eds.) 1995. Manual on Harmful

Marine Microalgae 551 pp. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 33 UNESCO.

Jochimsen, E.M., Carmichael, W.W., An, J.S., Cardo, D.M., Cookson, S.T., Holmes,

C.E.M., Antines, M.b. de C., Filho, D.A. de Meb, Lyra, T.M., Burreto, V.T.S. ,

Azevedo, S.M.F.O. and Jarvis, W.R. 1998. Liver Failure and Death Following

Exposure to Microcystin Toxins at a Hemodialysis Center in Brazil. New Eng.

J. Medicine. March 26, 1998, V. 338(13):873–878.

Ressom R., Soong, F.S., Fitzgerald, J., Turczynowicz, L., Saadi, O.E., Roder, D.,

Maynard, T., Falconer, I. (eds.) 1994. Health Effects of Toxic Cyanobacteria

(blue-green algae), National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian

Govt. Pub. Service, Canberra.

Turgeon, D.D., Sellner, K.G, Scavia, D. and Anderson, D.M. 1998. Status of U.S.

Harmful Algal Blooms: Progress towards a National Plan. NOAA.

Yoo, R.S., Carmichael, W.W., Hoehn, R.C., Hrudey, S.E. (eds.) 1995. Cyanobacterial

(Blue-green Algal) Toxins: A Resource Guide 229 pp. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, Denver.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. Didn’t that look like

a particularly tasty substance? Dr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF DONALD M. ANDERSON, SENIOR SCIENTIST,

BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, MASSACHUSETTS

Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with a

very brief introduction to marine harmful algal blooms or HABs.

Among the thousands of species of microscopic algae at the base of

the marine food chain—these are the ‘‘blades of grass’’ of the

38

ocean—are a few dozens which produce potent toxins. These species make their presence known in a variety of ways, sometimes

through massive blooms that discolor the water, sometimes

through mass mortalities of wild fish, like these in Texas or these

in Florida. We have human intoxications and even death from contaminated shellfish or fish, death of seabirds, whales, marine mammals, and marine animals of all kinds, and even aerosolized toxins

that drive tourists and coastal residents from the beaches.

These problems affect every coastal state in the U.S., but an important consideration is the trend through time, which is very disturbing as seen in this image. The top panel shows the situation

30 years ago and the problems we recognized with HABs at that

time. The bottom panel shows the situation now. We, clearly, have

many more areas affected by many more types of toxins and HAB

impacts. And to address this pressing national problem, scientists

and agency officials have worked together to formulate and implement research programs.

I have been asked to comment, what have we learned, what tools

have we developed for managers, and what are the next steps.

First of all, with respect to what have we learned, an example from

the Gulf of Maine. We now have identified the origins of the toxic

cells that are responsible for the paralytic shellfish poisoning episodes in that region by mapping out the locations of dormant resting cysts in bottom sediments. These are seed beds or accumulation

zones, and we have identified a number of them, and these are the

locations from which the cells germinate and populate the water

column with swimming toxic cells which then multiply and cause

the annual toxicity. We also know that the Bay of Fundy serves as

an incubator or source for the toxic cells that ultimately escape and

enter into the Gulf of Maine, as you see in this image map of the

toxic organisms.

You also see that we have an offshore accumulation of toxic cells.

Prior to these programs, we had no knowledge of offshore origins

for these blooms, and through these studies, the recurrent, selfseeding, and propagating nature of this regional paralytic shellfish

poisoning problem has been elucidated.

Now, if we look down to Florida, we find that similar studies

have revealed the locations of toxic cells offshore in the Gulf of

Mexico and the manner in which they are transported onshore.

Studies of nutrient uptake by the red tide organisms in Florida

suggest a fascinating link between Gulf of Mexico red time blooms

and, believe it or not, dust storms from the Sahara. These are just

a few of the many advances in our understanding that have accrued from the past five years and there are really many more.

What tools have we developed? Well, new technologies are urgently needed to facilitate the detection and identification of HAB

cells and toxins, and one very useful technology is shown in this

image using ‘‘probes’’ that we use to label only the HAB cells of interest so they can be detected visually, electronically, or chemically.

Progress has been rapid and probes of several different types are

available for many of the harmful algae. These probes are now

being incorporated into a variety of different assay systems, including some that can be mounted on buoys and left unattended while

39

they robotically sample the water and test for HAB cells. Information is now being collected that can be used to make HAB forecasts.

Another type of bloom detection is possible using remote sensing

data from satellites. Satellite images are being used to track toxic

red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Maine. In the Gulf

of Mexico, bloom forecast bulletins like the one you see here are

now being provided to affected states. Again, these are just a few

examples of many.

Finally, what steps are needed from here. The support provided

to HAB research through HABHRCA has had a tremendous impact

on our knowledge of HAB phenomena and on the development of

tools. I believe federal funds are focused in the appropriate way

and on appropriate issues in this regard. I would state first of all

that ECOHAB support—this is one of the major programs that has

been supported through this program—should be sustained and expanded, as should MERHAB and another program that I will mention in a second, called Oceans and Human Health. I should say,

though, that support for research on freshwater cyanobacteria

should definitely be supported, but with new and separate funds.

These are separate problems, marine and freshwater HABs.

One program that should be expanded is a partnership between

the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and NSF

to create Centers for Oceans and Human Health. This expansion

is best accomplished through additional funds to these agencies as

well as through the involvement of other agencies with interests in

that topic. Finally, it is also apparent that a program on prevention, control, and mitigation of HABs is needed as proposed in your

legislation, and I fully support such a program.

To conclude, let me say that the legislation before you is a critical part of a coordinated national program that has been effective

and productive, and I commend you for your support of it and your

efforts to change it. The HAB scientific community is fully capable

of undertaking the new challenges in that legislation. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD M. ANDERSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Donald M. Anderson, a

Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where I have been active in the study of red tides and harmful algal blooms

(HABs) for 25 years. I am here to provide the perspective of an experienced scientist

who has investigated many of the harmful algal bloom (HAB) phenomena that affect

coastal waters of the United States and the world. I am also Director of the U.S.

National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, and have been actively involved in formulating the scientific framework and agency partnerships that

support and guide our national program on HABs. Thank you for the opportunity

to acquaint you with the national problem of HABs, the present status of our research progress, and the future actions that are needed to maintain and expand this

vibrant and important national program.

BACKGROUND

Among the thousands of species of microscopic algae at the base of the marine

food chain are a few dozen which produce potent toxins. These species make their

presence known in many ways, sometimes as a massive ‘‘bloom’’ of cells that discolor

the water, sometimes as dilute, inconspicuous concentrations of cells noticed only

because they produce highly potent toxins which either kill marine organisms directly, or transfer through the food chain, causing harm at multiple levels. The impacts of these phenomena include mass mortalities of wild and farmed fish and

shellfish, human intoxications or even death from contaminated shellfish or fish, alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

terations of marine trophic structure through adverse effects on larvae and other

life history stages of commercial fisheries species, and death of marine mammals,

seabirds, and other animals.

Blooms of toxic algae are commonly called ‘‘red tides,’’ since the tiny plants sometimes increase in abundance until they dominate the planktonic community and tint

the water with their pigments. The term is misleading, however, since toxic blooms

may be greenish or brownish; non-toxic species can bloom and harmlessly discolor

the water; and, conversely, adverse effects can occur when some algal cell concentrations are low and the water is clear. Given the confusion, the scientific community

now uses the term ‘‘harmful algal bloom’’ or HAB.

HAB phenomena take a variety of forms. With regard to human health, the major

category of impact occurs when toxic phytoplankton are filtered from the water as

food by shellfish which then accumulate the algal toxins to levels that can be lethal

to humans or other consumers. These poisoning syndromes have been given the

names paralytic, diarrhetic, neurotoxic, azaspiracid, and amnesic shellfish poisoning

(PSP, DSP, NSP, AZP, and ASP). All have serious effects, and some can be fatal.

Except for ASP, all are caused by biotoxins synthesized by a class of marine algae

called dinoflagellates. ASP is produced by diatoms that until recently were all

thought to be free of toxins and generally harmless. A sixth human illness,

ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP) is caused by biotoxins produced by dinoflagellates

that grow on seaweeds and other surfaces in coral reef communities. Ciguatera toxins are transferred through the food chain from herbivorous reef fishes to larger carnivorous, commercially valuable finfish. Another human illness linked to toxic algae

is called Possible Estuary–Associated Syndrome (PEAS). This vague term reflects

the poor state of knowledge of the human health effects of the dinoflagellate

Pfiesteria piscicida and related organisms that have been linked to symptoms such

as deficiencies in learning and memory, skin lesions, and acute respiratory and eye

irritation—all after exposure to estuarine waters where Pfiesteria-like organisms

have been present (Burkholder and Glasgow, 1997). Yet another human health impact from HABs occurs when a class of algal toxins called the brevetoxins becomes

airborne in sea spray, causing respiratory irritation and asthma-like symptoms in

beachgoers and coastal residents, typically along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico.

The documented effects are acute in nature, but studies are underway to determine

if there are also long-term consequences of toxin inhalation.

Distribution of HAB Phenomena in the United States. With the exception of

DSP and AZP, all of the poisoning syndromes described above are known problems

within the U.S. and its territories, affecting large expanses of coastline (Fig. 1). PSP

occurs in all coastal New England states as well as New York, extending to offshore

areas in the northeast, and along much of the west coast from Alaska to northern

California. Overall, PSP affects more U.S. coastline than any other algal bloom

problem. NSP occurs annually along Gulf of Mexico coasts, with the most frequent

outbreaks along western Florida and Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina

and Alabama have also been affected intermittently, causing extensive losses to the

oyster industry and killing birds and marine mammals. ASP has been a problem

for all of the U.S. Pacific coast states. The ASP toxin has been detected in shellfish

on the east coast as well, and in plankton from Gulf of Mexico waters. Human

health problems from Pfiesteria species (PEAS) are thus far poorly documented, but

have affected laboratory workers, fishermen, and others working in or exposed to

estuarine waters in several portions of the southeastern U.S. CFP is the most frequently reported non-bacterial illness associated with eating fish in the U.S. and its

territories, but the number of cases is probably far higher, because reporting to the

U.S. Center for Disease Control is voluntary and there is no confirmatory laboratory

test. In the Virgin Islands, nearly 50 percent of the adults are estimated to have

been poisoned at least once, and some estimate that 20,000–40,000 individuals are

poisoned by ciguatera annually in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands alone.

CFP occurs in virtually all sub-tropical to tropical U.S. waters (i.e., Florida, Hawaii,

Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and many Pacific Territories). As tropical fish

are increasingly exported to distant markets, ciguatera has become a worldwide

problem.

41

Economic and Societal Impacts. HABs have a wide array of economic impacts,

including the costs of conducting routine monitoring programs for shellfish and

other affected resources, short-term and permanent closure of harvestable shellfish

and fish stocks, reductions in seafood sales (including the avoidance of ‘‘safe’’ seafoods as a result of over-reaction to health advisories), mortalities of wild and

farmed fish, shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation and coral reefs, impacts on

tourism and tourism-related businesses, and medical treatment of exposed populations. A conservative estimate of the average annual economic impact resulting

from HABs in the U.S. is approximately $50 million (Anderson et al., 2000;

Hoagland et al., 2002). Cumulatively, the costs of HABs exceed a billion dollars over

the last several decades. These estimates do not include the application of ‘‘multipliers’’ that are often used to account for the manner in which money transfers

through a local economy. With multipliers, the estimate of HAB impacts in the

United States easily exceeds $100 million per year. Individual bloom events can

equal or exceed the annual average, as occurred for example in 1997 when fish kills

associated with blooms of Pfiesteria occurred on Maryland’s eastern shore. Consumers avoided all seafood from the region, despite assurances that no toxins had

been detected in any seafood products. The aggregate impact from this single event

(including lost seafood sales and revenues for recreational boat charters) was $50

million.

Recent Trends. The nature of the HAB problem has changed considerably over the

last three decades in the U.S. Virtually every coastal state is now threatened by

harmful or toxic algal species, whereas 30 years ago, the problem was much more

scattered and sporadic (Fig. 2.). The number of toxic blooms, the economic losses

from them, the types of resources affected, and the number of toxins and toxic species have all increased dramatically in recent years in the U.S. and around the

world (Anderson, 1989; Hallegraeff, 1993).

42

43

The first thought of many is that pollution or other human activities are the main

reason for this expansion, yet in the U.S. at least, many of the ‘‘new’’ or expanded

HAB problems have occurred in waters where pollution is not an obvious factor.

Some new bloom events likely reflect indigenous populations that have been discovered because of better detection methods and more observers rather than new species introductions or dispersal events (Anderson, 1989).

Other ‘‘spreading events’’ are most easily attributed to dispersal via natural currents, while it is also clear that man may have contributed to the global HAB expansion by transporting toxic species in ship ballast water (Hallegraeff and Bolch,

1992). The U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, and the International Maritime Organization

are all working toward ballast water control and treatment regulations that will attempt to reduce the threat of species introductions worldwide.

Another factor underlying the global expansion of HABs is the dramatic increase

in aquaculture activities. This leads to increased monitoring of product quality and

safety, revealing indigenous toxic algae that were probably always present (Anderson, 1989). The construction of aquaculture facilities also places fish or shellfish resources in areas where toxic algal species occur but were previously unknown, leading to mortality events or toxicity outbreaks that would not have been noticed had

the aquaculture facility not been placed there.

Of considerable concern, particularly for coastal resource managers, is the potential relationship between the apparent increase in HABs and the accelerated eutrophication of coastal waters due to human activities (Anderson et al., 2002). As

mentioned above, some HAB outbreaks occur in pristine waters with no influence

from pollution or other anthropogenic effects, but linkages between HABs and eutrophication have been frequently noted within the past several decades (e.g.,

Smayda, 1990). Coastal waters are receiving massive and increasing quantities of

industrial, agricultural and sewage effluents through a variety of pathways. In

many urbanized coastal regions, these anthropogenic inputs have altered the size

and composition of the nutrient pool which may, in turn, create a more favorable

nutrient environment for certain HAB species. Just as the application of fertilizer

to lawns can enhance grass growth, marine algae can grow in response to various

types of nutrient inputs. Shallow and restricted coastal waters that are poorly

flushed appear to be most susceptible to nutrient-related algal problems (Fig. 3).

Nutrient enrichment of such systems often leads to eutrophication and increased

frequencies and magnitudes of phytoplankton blooms, including HABs. There is no

doubt that this is true in certain areas of the world where pollution has increased

dramatically. It is perhaps real, but less evident in areas where coastal pollution

is more gradual and unobtrusive.

44

It is now clear that the worldwide expansion of HAB phenomena is in part a reflection of our ability to better define the boundaries of an existing problem. Those

boundaries are also expanding, however, due to natural species dispersal via storms

or currents, as well as to humanassisted species dispersal, and enhanced HAB population growth as a result of pollution or other anthropogenic influences. The fact

that part of the expansion is a result of increased awareness should not temper our

concern. The HAB problem in the U.S. is serious, large, and growing. It is a much

larger problem than we thought it was a decade or more ago.

PROGRESS AND STATUS OF OUR NATIONAL PROGRAM ON HABS

For many years, U.S. researcher and coastal managers recognized, but struggled

through piecemeal and fragmented efforts, to address the problems of HABs. Now,

however, elements of a national program on HABs have been formulated and implemented at a scale that has clearly had a significant impact on our understanding

of these phenomena and our ability to manage their impacts. A pivotal planning

document entitled Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan (Anderson

et al., 1993) identified numerous impediments to progress in the HAB field and

made specific recommendations to address those impediments. These impediments

have been addressed to varying degrees with funding programs targeting specific

topic areas within the broad field of HABs and their impacts. In 1994, NSF, together with NOAA, co-sponsored a workshop on the Ecology and Oceanography of

Harmful Algae. The participants, a group of 40 academic and government scientists,

and program officers from numerous federal agencies attended and developed a coordinated research strategy. The resulting plan, ECOHAB: The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms: A National Research Agenda (Anderson, 1995)

provided the framework needed to increase our understanding of the fundamental

processes underlying the impacts and population dynamics of HABs. This involved

a recognition of the many factors at the organismal level that determine how HAB

species respond to, and potentially alter their environment, the manner in which

HAB species affect or are affected by food-web interactions, and how the distribution, abundance, and impact of HAB species are regulated by the environment.

45

The ECOHAB Program identified major research themes that encompass national

priorities on HAB phenomena. It was subsequently established as a competitive,

peer-reviewed research program supported by an interagency partnership involving

NOAA, NSF, EPA, ONR, and NASA. Research results have been applied through

another program, Monitoring and Event Response (MERHAB) to foster innovative

monitoring programs and rapid response by public agencies and health department

to safeguard public health, local economies, and fisheries.

Projects funded through ECOHAB include regional studies on the biogeochemical,

ecological, and physical processes that contribute to bloom formation and maintenance, and individual targeted studies that examine specific biological and physical

processes that regulate the occurrence of specific HABs. Large, multi-investigator

regional ECOHAB studies have been undertaken in the Gulf of Maine for paralytic

shellfish poisoning, the Gulf of Mexico for fish kills, aerosolized toxins and neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, the shallow bays and lagoons of eastern Long Island for

destructive brown tides, the mid-Atlantic states for Pfiesteria and related organisms,

and, more recently, the U.S. west coast for Pseudo-nitzschia and domoic acid poisoning and Hawaii for macroalgal (seaweed) overgrowth. In addition, several dozen

smaller research projects have been initiated in many states and regions, covering

a wide array of HAB organisms and topics.

RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRESS

With the advent of ECOHAB, MERHAB, and other national HAB programs, resources have been directed towards the goal of scientifically based management of

coastal waters and fisheries that are potentially impacted by HABs. These programs

are little more than five years old, but they have already made a significant contribution to HAB management capabilities in the U.S. Here I will highlight advances in our understanding of HAB phenomena, as well as some of the programderived technological developments that are providing new tools to coastal resource

managers in regions impacted by HABs.

Enhanced understanding of HAB dynamics

In areas studied by the multi-investigator ECOHAB-funded regional research

projects, HAB phenomena are now far better understood than was the case just five

years ago when the program began. Knowledge is also increasing for HABs in other

areas through smaller, targeted research projects, but at a slower pace because of

the lower investment of resources. In the Gulf of Maine, the focus of the ECOHAB–

GOM program, the probable origins of toxic Alexandrium cells responsible for PSP

outbreaks have been identified by mapping the locations of dormant resting cysts

in bottom sediments. Cysts in several accumulation zones or ‘‘seedbeds’’ germinate

in the spring and re-populate the water column with swimming Alexandrium cells,

which then multiply and cause the annual PSP outbreaks. A large cyst accumulation zone in the Bay of Fundy, in conjunction with a hydrographic feature called

an ‘‘eddy’’ that retains bloom cells near the mouth of the Bay are now known to be

critical in the Alexandrium dynamics for the entire Gulf of Maine region. This is

because the retained bloom can serve as the ‘‘incubator’’ or source for cells that ultimately escape the Bay and enter the coastal waters of Maine, where they proliferate

as they are transported along the coast. Those cells that do remain in the Bay form

the new cysts that fall to bottom sediments and are then available to start new

blooms in subsequent years. In this manner, the recurrent, self-seeding and ‘‘propagating’’ nature of the regional PSP blooms has been elucidated. ECOHAB–GOM researchers also discovered large concentrations of toxic Alexandrium cells in deeper,

offshore waters, and demonstrated the mechanisms by which these blooms form and

are intermittently delivered to shore and the intertidal shellfish. Before the program

began, these offshore populations were unknown, and researchers had assumed that

Alexandrium populations in shallow waters were largely responsible for the observed shellfish toxicity.

In the Gulf of Mexico, the ECOHAB–Florida program identified similar transport

and delivery mechanisms for the toxic Karenia cells that kill fish and cause many

other problems in the coastal zone. In particular, the Karenia cells are now thought

to be transported onshore in deeper waters through wind events that cause

‘‘upwelling.’’ Special bathymetric features of the ocean bottom can facilitate this

transport and focus cell delivery to areas known to be the sites of recurrent blooms.

Studies of nutrient uptake by Karenia suggest a fascinating link between red tide

blooms and dust storms from the Sahara. These dust clouds travel across the Atlantic and deposit dust into Gulf of Mexico waters, stimulating the growth of a different

kind of algae called Trichodesmium that then releases nutrients in a form that

Karenia can utilize. This is a complex, multi-step and multi-organism interaction

leading to Karenia blooms, but there are a number of supporting datasets that supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

port the hypothesized linkages. Related studies are suggesting that the ultimate demise of the Florida Karenia blooms is a lack of phosphorus. This has obvious implications to policy decisions concerning pollution and water quality in the region.

Consistent with the identification of ‘‘source regions’’ for Gulf of Maine and Gulf

of Mexico HABs, researchers in the Pacific Northwest have identified an area west

of Puget Sound (another eddy) that appears to accumulate toxic diatoms responsible

for outbreaks of amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), a debilitating illness that includes permanent loss of short-term memory in some victims. Other programs have

been equally productive in identifying underlying driving mechanisms for HAB

blooms, such as the Brown Tide Research Initiative that focused resources on brown

tide blooms in New York and New Jersey. These dense accumulations of tiny

Aureococcus anophagefferens cells turn the water a deep brown, blocking sunlight

to submerged vegetation, and altering the feeding behavior of shellfish. These

blooms have been linked to certain types of nutrients that seem to favor the causative organism—in particular ‘‘organic’’ forms of nitrogen that are preferred by the

brown tide cells, and give it a competitive advantage in certain locations.

Research has also revealed a great deal about the Pfiesteria blooms that periodically affect the southeast states. Here again, certain nutrient conditions seem to

favor Pfiesteria blooms, especially those associated with chicken and hog farming operations. Identification of the Pfiesteria toxin(s) continues to be elusive, but serious

health effects have been documented among humans and laboratory animals exposed to bloom waters, and the list of species linked to fish kills and possible human

health effects has grown considerably through the regional research efforts.

These are but a few of the advances in understanding that have accrued from the

past five years of funding support at the national level. Equally important are the

discoveries that provide management tools to reduce the impacts of HABs on coastal

resources. Management options for dealing with the impacts of HABs include reducing their incidence and extent (prevention), stopping or containing blooms (control),

and minimizing impacts (mitigation). Where possible, it is preferable to prevent

HABs rather than to treat their symptoms. Since increased pollution and nutrient

loading may enhance the growth of some HAB species, these events may be prevented by reducing pollution inputs to coastal waters, particularly industrial, agricultural, and domestic effluents high in plant nutrients. This is especially important

in shallow, poorly flushed coastal waters that are most susceptible to nutrient-related algal problems (Fig. 3). As mentioned above, research on the links between

certain HABs and nutrients has highlighted the importance of nonpoint sources of

nutrients (e.g., from agricultural activities, fossil-fuel combustion, and animal feeding operations). Outbreaks of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay and the NeusePamlico estuary in North Carolina have been linked to wastes from chicken and hog

farming operations. This in turn has led to policy changes that have been enacted

in these watersheds to control these non-point sources. In these instances, agency

officials faced with these controversial policy decisions were provided with scientific

justification for nutrient reductions that derived from research through ECOHAB

and other programs.

The most effective HAB management tools are monitoring programs that involve

sampling and testing of wild or cultured seafood products directly from the natural

environment, as this allows unequivocal tracking of toxins to their site of origin and

targeted regulatory action. Numerous monitoring programs of this type have been

established in U.S. coastal waters, typically by state agencies. This monitoring has

become quite expensive, however, due to the proliferation of toxins and potentially

affected resources. States are heavily struggling with flat or declining budgets

versus the need to monitor for a growing list of HAB toxins and potentially affected

fisheries resources. Technologies are thus urgently needed to facilitate the detection

and characterization of HAB cells and blooms.

One very useful technology that has been developed through recent HAB research

relies on species- or strain-specific ‘‘probes’’ that can be used to label only the HAB

cells of interest so they can then be detected visually, electronically, or chemically.

These probes can be in the form of antibodies that bind to specific proteins on the

cell surface of the targeted HAB species, or they can be short segments of synthetic

DNA that bind to particular genes or gene transcripts inside the HAB cells.

Progress has been rapid and probes of several different types are now available for

many of the harmful algae, along with techniques for their application in the rapid

and accurate identification, enumeration, and isolation of individual species. One example of the direct application of this technology in operational HAB monitoring is

for the New York and New Jersey brown tide organism, Aureococcus

anophagefferens. The causative organism is so small and non-descript that it is virtually impossible to identify and count cells using traditional microscopic techniques. Antibody probes were developed that bind only to A. anophagefferens cells,

47

and these are now used routinely in monitoring programs run by state and local

authorities, greatly improving counting time and accuracy.

Through ECOHAB, MERHAB, and other programs, probes are being incorporated

into a variety of different assay systems, including some that can be mounted on

buoys and left unattended while they robotically sample the water and test for HAB

cells. Clustered with other instruments that measure the physical, chemical, and optical characteristics of the water column, information can be collected and used to

make ‘‘algal forecasts’’ of impending toxicity. These instruments are taking advantage of advances in ocean optics, as well as the new molecular and analytical methodologies that allow the toxic cells or chemicals (such as HAB toxins) to be detected

with great sensitivity and specificity. A clear need has been identified for improved

instrumentation for HAB cell and toxin detection, and additional resources are

needed in this regard. This can be accomplished during development of an integrated Ocean Observing System for U.S. coastal waters, and through a targeted research program on HAB prevention, control, and mitigation. These are needed if we

are to achieve our vision of future HAB monitoring and management programs—

an integrated system that includes arrays of moored instruments as sentinels along

the U.S. coastline, detecting HABs as they develop and radioing the information to

resource managers.

Another type of cell or bloom detection is possible using remote sensing data from

satellites. This has great potential in monitoring the development and movement of

blooms over larger spatial and shorter time scales than those accessible through

shipor land-based sampling. There is great promise in the use of both ocean color

and sea surface temperature sensors in this regard, but considerable work is needed

to bring this potential to fruition in the coastal waters where HABs occur. As demonstrated in the ECOHAB-Gulf of Maine research program, satellite images based

on sea surface temperature are proving useful in tracking water masses that impinge on coastal shellfish beds, carrying toxic algae that can quickly render those

shellfish dangerous to human consumers (Fig. 4). Likewise, satellite images of ocean

color are now used in the Gulf of Mexico to detect and track toxic red tides of

Karenia brevis. Based on research results from the ECOHAB-Florida program,

bloom forecast bulletins are now being provided to affected states in the Gulf of

Mexico by the NOAA National Ocean Service Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. The bulletins (see http://coastwatch.noaa.gov/hab) are based on the integration of several data sources: satellite ocean color imagery; wind data from coastal

meteorological stations; field observations of bloom location and intensity provided

by the states of Florida and Texas; and weather forecasts from the National Weather Service. The combination of warning and rapid detection is a significant aid to

the Gulf states in responding to these blooms.

48

A long-term goal of HAB monitoring programs is to develop the ability to forecast

or predict bloom development and movement. Prediction of HAB outbreaks requires

physical/biological coupled numerical models which account for both the growth and

behavior of the toxic algal species, as well as the movement and dynamics of the

surrounding water. Numerical models of coastal circulation are advancing rapidly

in the U.S., and a number of these are beginning to incorporate HAB dynamics as

49

well. A model developed to simulate the dynamics of the organism responsible for

paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) outbreaks in the Gulf of Maine is relatively far

advanced in this regard, and is now being transitioned from academic use towards

an operational mode. A similar model is under development for Gulf of Mexico

HABs. Considerable work remains before PSP or Florida red tide forecasts are truly

operational for coastal resource management purposes, but progress has been rapid

as a result of ECOHAB support, and prospects are bright.

Other practical strategies to mitigate the impacts of HAB events include: regulating the siting of aquaculture facilities to avoid areas where HAB species are

present, modifying water circulation for those locations where restricted water exchange is a factor in bloom development, and restricting species introductions (e.g.,

through regulations on ballast water discharges or shellfish and finfish transfers for

aquaculture). Each of these strategies requires fundamental research such as that

being conducted in our national HAB program. Potential approaches to directly control or suppress HABs are under development as well—similar to methods used to

control pests on land—e.g., biological, physical, or chemical treatments that directly

target the bloom cells. One example is work conducted in my own laboratory, again

through ECOHAB support, using ordinary clay to control HABs. When certain clays

are dispersed on the water surface, the tiny clay particles aggregate with each other

and with other particles, including HAB cells. The aggregates then settle to the

ocean bottom, carrying the unwanted HAB cells from the surface waters where they

would otherwise grow and cause harm. As with many other new technologies for

HABs, initial results are quite promising and small-scale field trials are underway,

but continued support is needed to fully evaluate benefits, costs, and environmental

impacts.

Another intriguing bloom control strategy is being evaluated for the brown tide

problem. It has been suggested that one reason the brown tides appeared about 15–

20 years ago was that hard clams and other shellfish stocks have been depleted by

overfishing in certain areas. Removal of these resources altered the manner in

which those waters were ‘‘grazed’’—i.e., shellfish filter large quantities of water during feeding, and that removes many microscopic organisms from the water, including natural predators of the brown tide cells. If this hypothesis is valid, a logical

bloom control strategy would be to re-seed shellfish in the affected areas, and to restrict harvesting. Pilot projects are now underway to explore this control strategy

in Long Island.

In general, bloom control is an area where very little research effort has been directed in the U.S. (Anderson, 1997), and considerable research is needed before

these means are used to control HABs in natural waters given the high sensitivity

for possible damage to coastal ecosystem and water quality by the treatments. As

discussed below, this could be accomplished as part of a national program on HAB

prevention, control, and mitigation.

PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS

The support provided to HAB research through ECOHAB, MERHAB, Sea Grant,

and other national programs has had a tremendous impact on our understanding

of HAB phenomena, and on the development of management tools and strategies.

Funding for ECOHAB is modest, but it is administered in a scientifically rigorous

manner that maximizes research progress. Several five-year ECOHAB regional research projects are winding down, and new ones are beginning in other regions.

This is an equitable way to share resources nationally, but it assumes that five

years of funding is all that is needed to understand and mitigate the regional HAB

problems, and this is certainly not the case. HAB phenomena are complex oceanographic phenomena, and a decade or more of targeted research are needed for each

of the major poisoning syndromes or regions. ECOHAB support for regional studies

must be sustained and expanded, and this will require a commitment of resources

well in excess of those currently available. Underlying this recommendation is the

recognition that we need to form multiple skilled research teams with the equipment and facilities required to attack the complex scientific issues involved in HAB

phenomena. Since HAB problems facing the U.S. are diverse with respect to the

causative species, the affected resources, the toxins involved, and the oceanographic

systems and habitats in which the blooms occur, we need multiple teams of skilled

researchers and managers distributed throughout the country. This argues against

funding that ebbs and floods with the sporadic pattern of HAB outbreaks or that

focuses resources in one region while others go begging. I cannot emphasize too

strongly the need for an equitable distribution of resources that is consistent with the

scale and extent of the national problem, and that is sustained through time. This

is the only way to keep research teams intact, forming the core of expertise and

knowledge that leads to scientific progress. To achieve this balance, we need a sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
50

entifically based allocation of resources, not one based on political jurisdictions. This

is possible if we work within the guidelines of the National Plan and with the interagency effort that has been guiding its implementation.

ECOHAB cannot address all of the HAB research needs, so we also envision a

parallel series of programs which focus on other aspects of the national problem.

The following HAB programs are either ongoing, or planned at the national level.

Oceans and Human Health. One that is currently being implemented recognizes

the important links between oceans and human health, and in particular, the emergence of HABs as recurrent and serious threats in this regard. This focus is entirely

complementary to the ecology and oceanography focus of ECOHAB. The first step

towards a comprehensive program in this area is a partnership between the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NSF’s Ocean

Sciences Division called Centers for Oceans and Human Health (COHH) (NIEHS

and NSF, 2002). In general terms, this program is intended to provide linkages between members of the ocean sciences and biomedical communities through support

of interdisciplinary research in areas where improved understanding of marine processes and systems has potential to reduce public health risks and enhance existing

biomedical capabilities. HABs are one of the three research areas receiving special

emphasis in this program, and research needs have been identified in such areas

as toxin genetics, biosynthesis and function, and human exposure and effect assessment, among many others. In its initial phase, four OHH centers will be created,

but this is far from the number that would ultimately be needed for an efficient national network. Sustained and increased support for the COHH program will be of

great value to the HAB National Plan. The partnership between NIEHS and NSF

clearly needs to be expanded in order to provide support to a network of sufficient

size to address the significant problems under the COHH umbrella. This is best accomplished through additional funds to these agencies, as well as through the involvement of other agencies with interests in oceans and human health, including,

for example, NOAA, EPA, NASA, and CDC. In this context, it is of note that

NOAA’s FY03 appropriation includes an item for Oceans and Human Health under

NOAA’s Ocean Health Initiative. Since this is in the Ocean and Coastal Partnership

Programs section of the budget, it represents a wonderful opportunity for interagency cooperation on a very important program. I would emphasize the need to allocate these NOAA funds through a peer-reviewed, competitive, extramural effort

coordinated with other national HAB programs, including ECOHAB, MERHAB, and

especially the NIEHS/NSF COHH initiative. These latter two agencies have taken

the lead in this topic area, and their commitment to high-quality science and willingness to cooperate speak strongly for the important role they could play in coordinating such an interagency partnership. Another OHH need is for interdisciplinary

training of the scientists working on oceans and human health issues, since an educational element is not addressed in the NIEHS/NSF COHH program at present.

We also need targeted funds for research on OHH themes, separate from the funds

supporting the Centers, as well as for Study Sections or review panels that are appropriately constituted to review NSF and NIEHS applications in the OHH field.

At present, the existing Study Sections and panels do not have the requisite expertise and mandate to address funding priorities for OHH topics.

Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Looking again to the National Plan, it is

apparent that other funding initiatives are needed to address program elements

that are not covered by the ECOHAB, MERHAB and OHH programs. It will thus

be necessary to convene focused workshops to refine and develop key issues to the

levels needed by program managers to define specific programs—an approach analogous to that used to produce the ECOHAB science agenda (Anderson, 1995). One

such workshop has already been held, and a science plan for a program on Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms published by Sea Grant

(Cammen et al., 2001). The rationale for this program is that much of the focus of

past HAB research has been on fundamental aspects of organism physiology, ecology, and toxicology, so little effort has been made to address more practical issues

such as bloom prediction, resource management strategies, or even direct bloom control (Anderson, 1997). A funding program focusing on these practical aspects of HAB

management is thus needed, as recommended by experts and resource managers in

a report by Boesch et al. (1997). Funds intended for ecological, toxicological, epidemiological, or oceanographic studies (e.g., ECOHAB, COHH) should not be diverted

to a new initiative on prevention, control and mitigation, as many mechanisms and

processes remain poorly understood. New, targeted funds are necessary.

A U.S.–European Union program on HABs. For decades, HABs have been studied on both sides of the Atlantic, but largely in separate, isolated research programs.

51

For the first time, joint research in Europe and the U.S. is being considered to address these problems of mutual concern, through financial support from the European Commission (E.C.) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). It is now

well recognized and accepted that our understanding of the population dynamics of

organisms, their impacts, and the potential management implications, is dependent

on working within a global arena. Although HAB impacts may be local, solutions

may be found in distant locales. In recognition of the importance of scientific collaboration among nations, the European Commission and the U.S. National Science

Foundation signed an agreement in October 2001 to foster such collaboration, and

HABs were highlighted as one of the scientific areas of collaboration under this

agreement. A workshop was recently convened to bring together scientists from both

sides of the Atlantic to collectively assess the state of the science, to identify gaps

in our knowledge, and to develop an international plan for cooperative, comparative

studies. A plan has been formulated and is currently being finalized and evaluated

by agency officials and scientists in the E.U. and the U.S. Support in this type of

bilateral program should be a high priority in the future, and multi-national efforts

such as the Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (GEOHAB)

program should be supported as well.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The diverse nature of HAB phenomena and the hydrodynamic and geographic

variability associated with different outbreaks throughout the U.S. pose a significant constraint to the development of a coordinated national HAB program. Nevertheless, the combination of planning, coordination, and a highly compelling topic

with great societal importance has initiated close cooperation between officials, government scientists and academics in a sustained attack on the HAB problem. The

rate and extent of progress from here will depend upon how well the different federal agencies continue to work together, and on how effectively the skills and expertise of government and academic scientists can be targeted on priority topics that

have not been well represented in the national HAB program. The opportunity for

cooperation is clear, since as stated in the ECOHAB report (Anderson, 1995), ‘‘Nowhere else do the missions and goals of so many government agencies intersect and

interact as in the coastal zone where HAB phenomena are prominent.’’ The HAB

community in the U.S. has matured scientifically and politically, and is fully capable

of undertaking the new challenges inherent in an expanded national program. This

will be successful only if a coordinated interagency effort can be implemented to

focus research personnel, facilities, and financial resources to the common goals of

a comprehensive national strategy.

In summary:

HABs are a serious and growing problem in the U.S., affecting every coastal

state. HABs impact public health, fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and coastal

aesthetics. HAB problems will not go away and will likely increase in severity.

A coordinated National HAB Program has been formulated and partially implemented, but additional program elements need to be implemented, especially

those directly addressing public health and prevention, control, and mitigation

issues.

State agencies are doing an excellent job protecting public health and fisheries,

but those monitoring programs are facing growing challenges. Needs for the future include new technologies for HAB monitoring and forecasting and incorporation of these tools into regional Ocean Observing Systems.

HABs are just one of many problems in the coastal zone that are affected by

nutrient inputs and over-enrichment from land. They represent a highly visible

indicator of the health of our coastal ocean. More subtle impacts to fisheries and

ecosystems are likely occurring that are far more difficult to discern.

Recommendations:

Sustain and enhance support for the national HAB program

— Sustain and enhance support for the ECOHAB, MERHAB and OHH

programs, and implement new programs, such as Prevention, Control

and Mitigation of HABs and the E.U.–U.S. Program on HABs

— Encourage interagency partnerships, as the HAB problem transcends

the resources or mandate of any single agency

Support methods and instrument development for land- and mooring-based cell

and toxin detection, and for bloom forecasting (e.g., through a program on HAB

52

Prevention, Control and Mitigation and through instrument development support for the Ocean Observing System).

Incorporate HAB monitoring into an integrated U.S. Ocean Observing System

Support long-term water quality and HAB monitoring programs in coastal waters

Implement agriculture and land-use policies that reduce point and non-point

source pollution loadings to coastal waters.

PENDING LEGISLATION

I would like to conclude with comments on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia

Research Amendments Act of 2003.

My first comment is that I am fully supportive of the effort to expand the national

HAB program to include a focus on freshwater HABs. I share the concerns of Dr.

Carmichael and many others that freshwater lakes, ponds, and streams are increasingly impacted by blooms of toxic algae, and that these blooms are associated with

a significant threat to public health. I need to stress, however, that marine HAB

problems are far from resolved, are different in many ways from freshwater systems, and therefore that separate funding programs are needed. We must add freshwater HAB research to the national agenda, not replace marine programs with new

initiatives focused on freshwater. I realize this is not the intention of the Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003, but difficult choices

will likely arise if new funding resources are not appropriated for freshwater HAB

research.

Second, I support the need for scientific assessments on freshwater HABs, on a

research plan to reduce impacts from HABs, and on hypoxia. The freshwater assessment is new and necessary for program development and implementation, an update on the hypoxia issue is timely, and a new report that drives the implementation of a prevention, control and mitigation program for HABs is needed as well.

My only comment here is that the Task Force specified in the legislation is composed entirely of federal agency representatives. There is considerable expertise and

perspective to be gained by formally including some academic partners in the assessment effort.

I concur with the need for regional scientific assessments of hypoxia and HABs,

but am not convinced that local assessments are needed. The HAB problem is quite

diverse, with many different toxic organisms, affected resources, and affected regions. Many of these blooms transcend jurisdictional boundaries separating states

or other entities. If assessments are requested at a scale below the regional level,

inefficiencies and redundancies will result, and resources and personnel to conduct

those assessments may be stretched too thin.

Finally, I want to re-emphasize the need for appropriations that are commensurate with the scale of this reauthorization. The national HAB program is well-established and productive, but it needs additional resources if new topics, responsibilities and tasks are added through this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to

offer information that is based on my own research and policy activities, as well as

on the collective wisdom and creativity of numerous colleagues in the HAB field. I

would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members may have.

Literature citations:

Anderson, D.M. 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:513–514.

Anderson, D.M. (Ed.). 1995. ECOHAB: The ecology and oceanography of harmful

algal blooms—A research agenda. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 66 pp.

Anderson, D.M. 1989. Toxic algal blooms and red tides: a global perspective. pp. 11–

16, in: T. Okaichi, D. M. Anderson, and T. Nemoto (eds.), Red Tides: Biology,

Environmental Science and Toxicology, Elsevier: New York, Amsterdam, London.

Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. 1993. Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Tech. Report,

WHOI 93–02. Woods Hole, MA. 59 pp.

Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Karou, and A.W. White. 2000. Estimated annual

economic impacts resulting from harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the United

States. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report, WHOI 2000–

11. 99 pp.

Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, T.E.

Whitledge. 1997. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation. Science for Solutions. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 10, Special Joint Report with the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

53

Burkholder, J.M. and H.B. Glasgow, Jr. 1997. The ichthyotoxic dinoflagellate

Pfiesteria piscicida: Behavior, impacts and environmental controls. Limnology

and Oceanography 42:1052–1075.

Cammen, L., D.M. Anderson, and Q. Dortch. 2001. Prevention, Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan. Report for Congress, National

Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Silver Spring, MD. 24 pp.

Hallegraeff, G.M. 1993. A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global

increase. Phycologia 32:79–99.

Hallegraeff, G.M. and C.J. Bolch. 1992. Transport of diatom and dinoflagellate resting spores via ship’s ballast water: implications for plankton biogeography and

aquaculture. Journal of Plankton Research 14:1067–1084.

Hoagland, P., D.M. Anderson, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2002. Average annual economic impacts of harmful algal blooms in the United States: some preliminary

estimates. Estuaries 25(4b):677–695.

Smayda, T. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence

for a global epidemic. In: Grane ́li, E., B. Sundstrom, L. Edler, and D.M. Anderson (eds.), Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Elsevier, New York. pp. 29–40.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Mr. Ayres.

STATEMENT OF DAN L. AYRES, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND

WILDLIFE

Mr. AYRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today. I confess I am a little out of uniform without my hip boots and my raincoat, but I am

glad to be here.

I would like to share with you how harmful algal bloom or HAB,

events affect us on the Pacific coast and how federal involvement

has made a difference. Along the coast of Washington State, the

razor clam and Dungeness crab fisheries are the most affected as

a result of HAB events that produce the toxin domoic acid. As the

shellfish feed on the toxic algae, they are not affected, but they do

concentrate the toxins in their tissues. When human consumers eat

these shellfish, they then ingest the toxins, and that can cause severe illness and/or death. This hearing is an especially timely issue

for us because our razor clam fisheries have been closed since October due to high levels of domoic acid.

This closure represents an estimated $10 million loss to the already depressed economies of our small coastal communities. This

is the third extended closure of this key fishery because of domoic

acid since 1991. In addition, our coastal Dungeness crab fisheries,

with an expected value to the fishermen of nearly $60 million this

season, have been closed in one area with the possibility of additional closures in the near future.

In Washington State, two agencies work closely to monitor HAB

events, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department

of Health. At Fish and Wildlife, we regularly collect samples of

shellfish and transport them to the Department of Health laboratory. They analyze the toxin levels in these shellfish tissues and report back to us. When those levels require action, staff from both

agencies work quickly to notify affected stakeholders. For a razor

clam closure, this can include State employees staffing roadblocks

to turn back harvesters headed to our 60 miles of razor clam beaches.

Since 2000, Washington State has been the recipient of grant

monies from NOAA’s MERHAB Program. I should note that ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
54

gressman Baird was instrumental in helping us secure these funds.

This funding has allowed us to set up a plankton monitoring program to augment our current testing of shellfish tissue. Our technicians collect plankton samples from waters surrounding and adjacent to razor clam beaches and Dungeness crab grounds. They then

analyze these collected samples and determine the presence of

plankton species and toxic cells. This monitoring gives State and

Tribal fishery managers advanced notice of pending problems with

HAB events and allows us to provide stakeholders time to adjust

their activities to avoid serious disruptions.

Washington’s MERHAB grant has also allowed us to be part of

a larger collaborative effort of State, Tribal, Federal, and private

partners under the umbrella of the Olympic Region Harmful Algal

Bloom project or ORHAB. The ORHAB project has allowed both

State and Tribal technicians to receive training in the complicated

field of plankton identification from more renowned scientists. The

ORHAB partners are working to develop the implementation—develop and implement rapid detection technologies and are currently

field testing MIST kits. This technology allows the promise of allowing field staff to determine the presence of toxins in shellfish

tissue without having to wait for time consuming laboratory analysis.

ORHAB partners are also working to develop the use of satellite

imagery together with instruments on a series of moored buoys to

track the movement of plankton cells from offshore to near shore

waters. Recently, several of Washington’s ORHAB partners successfully secured a separate 5-year multi-million dollar grant from

NOAA’s ECOHAB program. This work will provide even better

tools to predict HAB events. While State agencies are not directly

involved in this extended study, we will directly benefit.

How then will these new technologies help State fishery managers like me? The answer is that the sooner we know of an impending problem with a HAB event, the sooner we can react. Currently, the plankton monitoring we provide, or we collect, provides

us with about a 2-week heads-up, giving us time to notify harvesters and coastal business owners of a pending problem. However, the promise of larger scale technologies, like offshore instrument buoys and satellite telemetry, is truly exciting. If as a fishery

manager I had two months notice, I could adjust season openings

to take advantage of at least some harvest opportunities before the

shellfish ingest the toxins and fisheries must close. That would

greatly lessen the blow to the various stakeholders who depend on

these fisheries.

The State of Washington is grateful for the attention paid by the

Federal Government to assist us with these HABs, especially the

NOAA fishery scientists who have worked closely with our fishery

managers since 1991. This close collaboration between researchers

and managers has been very effective.

Luckily, though the highest level of domoic acid ever found in

razor clams was reported in Washington in 1998, to date, there

have been no deaths or serious illnesses attributed to a HAB event

along our outer coast. Yet, the economic impacts of the fishery closures necessary to protect public health have been significant.

While we would like nothing better than to have the threat preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
55

1 Eating of fish, shellfish containing domoic acid causes the human illness known as amnesic

shellfish poisoning (ASP). Symptoms include vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and abdominal cramps

within 24 hours of ingestion. In more severe cases, neurological symptoms develop within 48

hours and include headache, dizziness, confusion, disorientation, loss of short-term memory,

motor weakness, seizures, profuse respiratory secretions, cardiac arrhythmia, coma. People

poisoned with very high doses of the toxin can die. There is no antidote for domoic acid. Research has shown that razor clams accumulate domoic acid in edible tissue (foot, siphon and

mantle) and are slow to depurate (purify) the toxin. Research has also proven that cooking or

freezing affected fish or shellfish tissue does not lessen the toxicity. 2The consumption of crab viscera is a common practice of some consumers putting them at

risk of severe illness.

sented by HABs disappear, we know that is unlikely. Therefore, it

remains our goal to provide safe and productive shellfish harvest

opportunities for the citizens of our State while maximizing economic benefits created by that harvest as we continue to learn to

manage our shellfish fisheries around the very real threat of harmful algal blooms.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ayres follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN L. AYRES

I am pleased to submit this prepared testimony to Members of the Subcommittee

on Environment, Technology and Standards of the United States House of Representatives. This testimony will provide the Subcommittee’s Members details on

the problems that various Washington State stakeholders have with the continued

presence of harmful algal bloom (HAB) events that occur along the Pacific Coast of

the state.

These stakeholders include: the thousands of recreational fishers who participate

in the extremely popular razor clam fishery; the hundreds of business owners who

greatly benefit from the money spent by clam diggers that stay overnight or pass

through Washington’s small coastal communities; the many tribal fishers who harvest razor clams for both commercial and subsistence purposes; the 200 licensed

Dungeness crab fisherman whose livelihood depends on this highly valued commercial product; the owners of the crab processing and distributing facilities and their

hundreds of employees; and lastly, the state agency fisheries biologists charged with

managing these important activities around the constant threat posed by HAB

events.

The coastal razor clam and Dungeness crab fisheries are the most affected as a

result of HAB events that produce the toxin, domoic acid.1 Razor clams that feed

on the harmful algae are not themselves affected, but concentrate the toxins in their

meat tissue. When human consumers eat this meat, they also ingest the toxins that

can then cause severe illness or death. Because Dungeness crab often feed on razor

clams, they also ingest and concentrate the toxin in their viscera.2

As I write this, the entire razor clam fishery in Washington State is closed, as

it has been since October 2002, due to high levels of domoic acid. This represents

an estimated $10 million loss to the already depressed economies of these small

coastal communities. This is the third year-long closure of this key fishery due to

elevated domoic acid levels since 1991. In addition, the coastal Dungeness crab fishery—with an expected ex-vessel value (price paid to the fisherman) of nearly $60

million dollars this season (December 10, 2002 through September 15, 2003)—has

been closed in one area, with the possibility of additional closures in the near future.

Two Washington State agencies work closely to monitor for HAB events. The

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages the fisheries while

the Washington Department of Health (WDOH) biotoxin program is charged with

protecting public health by monitoring marine toxins found in the tissue of shellfish

harvested in these fisheries. WDFW collects regular samples of both razor clams

and Dungeness crab and transports them to the WDOH Public Health Laboratory

in Seattle. WDOH then analyzes the toxin levels in the shellfish tissues and reports

back to WDFW. When those levels require action, staffs from both agencies work

to quickly notify affected stakeholders as soon as possible. For a razor clam closure,

this can include WDFW enforcement and biological staff physically staffing roadblocks to turn back harvesters headed to the 60 miles of razor clam beaches found

along the Washington coast.

Since the summer of 2000, Washington State has been the recipient of a grant

from NOAA Centers for Coastal Ocean Science MERHAB (Monitoring and Event

56

3ORHAB partners include: National Marine Fisheries Service/Northwest Fisheries Science

Center, Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), Makah Tribe, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary,

Washington Department of Health (WDOH), Washington Department of Ecology, University of

Washington’s Olympic Coast Natural Resources Center and School of Oceanography, Pacific

Shellfish Institute, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, and the Saigene Corporation. 4The first three years of ORHAB Project work has received a total of $1.45 million in support

from MERHAB, with the hope of an additional $1.2 million in support over the next two years. 5Several federal agencies currently collaborate to sponsor the Ecology and Oceanography of

Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB), a national research program studying HABs in the coastal

waters of the U.S. This five-year ECOHAB Northwest project totals $8.7 million and is specifically sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National

Science Foundation.

Response for Harmful Algal Blooms) Program. This additional funding has allowed

WDFW shellfish managers to set up a plankton-monitoring program to augment

clam testing on the beach. A federally funded state-employed technician makes regular collections of plankton samples from waters adjacent to productive razor clam

beaches and Dungeness crab grounds. This technician then analyzes the collected

samples to determine the presence of plankton species and toxic cells, which in sufficient numbers, could lead to a HAB event. The data received from this monitoring

program has allowed managers to have advance notice of pending problems with

HAB events allowing WDFW to provide all affected stakeholders time to adjust their

activities and make business plans to avoid the serious disruptions that have occurred in past years.

Washington State’s MERHAB grant has also allowed WDFW to be a part of the

larger collaborative effort of several State, Tribal, Federal and private partners

under the umbrella of the Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom (ORHAB) Project.

Other ORHAB participants3 are funded4 either directly by MERHAB or by a

MERHAB grant funneled through NOAA–Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science

Center (NWFSC) in Seattle. The ORHAB project has allowed state and tribal technicians to receive high-quality training from world-renowned scientists at both

NWFSC and the University of Washington. Besides providing local (State and Tribal) technicians with instruction in the complicated field of plankton identification,

ORHAB has also brought the advanced expertise of other partners to the table to

look at additional ways of monitoring for HAB events.

One major goal of the ORHAB project has been to develop and implement rapid

detection technologies to complement current monitoring strategies to offer the best

protection from human exposure to toxins. Currently WDFW and other ORHAB

partners are field-testing ‘‘MIST’’ kits. This technology offers the promise of allowing

field staff to determine the presence of toxins in shellfish tissue without having to

wait for the current time-consuming transport of samples to a distant laboratory

and the subsequent testing that occurs on their arrival.

A satellite remote sensing component of the ORHAB project has facilitated the development of satellite/GIS tools to enhance the monitoring of HAB events along the

outer Washington coast. Satellite imagery has already been successful in delineating

and tracking water masses associated with toxin-producing organisms off of our

shoreline. This technology holds great promise in determining whether a toxic bloom

will move into the near shore environment and increase toxin levels in shellfish.

ORHAB partners are working closely with federal scientists from the Olympic

Coast National Marine Sanctuary to develop a series of moored buoys along the

Washington coast. These buoys will carry equipment to measure seawater temperatures and salinity levels at various depths and some will carry current meters and

instruments to measure chlorophyll levels. These parameters will help track the

movement of harmful algal blooms from offshore to near shore waters. A variety of

funding sources have been used to develop and maintain these buoys. This work

also holds the promise of providing managers advance notice of pending HAB

events.

In August of 2002, several of our ORHAB partners successfully secured a fiveyear, multi-million dollar grant from ECOHAB program.5 This work will dovetail

with the work begun by ORHAB, providing even better tools to predict HAB events.

While neither the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife nor the Washington

Department of Health are directly involved in this ECOHAB Pacific Northwest

study, we will be direct beneficiaries of the science that is generated.

How will these new technologies help state fishery managers on a day-to-day

basis as we decide whether to open or close fisheries based on the presence or absence of marine toxins? The answer is that the sooner we know of an impending

problem with a HAB event, the sooner we can react. The plankton monitoring data

we currently collect provides us about a two week ‘‘heads-up’’ so we can notify clam

harvesters and coastal business owners that the season may not open on time, or

57

6 HAB events also impact the inland marine waters of Washington’s Puget Sound, where in

1942 three deaths were attributed to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Since then, PSP closures have been an annual event in Puget Sound, with sporadic PSP illnesses being reported.

In 1978, a PSP bloom in the Whidbey Island area of Puget Sound set a world record for PSP

toxin in shellfish, registering over 30,000 micrograms in mussels.

there may be an early closure. The information also gives us an idea of the geographical scope of a pending problem, helping us understand whether it is a coastwide event or more localized. All of this enhances our current ability to manage

these fisheries. However, the promise of larger scale technologies like offshore moorings equipped to provide real-time monitoring of key HAB predictors and satellite

telemetry that could monitor oceanographic conditions that may lead to HAB events

is truly exciting. If, as a fishery manager, I had two-months notice of a pending

problem, it could then be possible to re-adjust season openings to take advantage

of at least some harvest opportunities before the toxin is ingested by the shellfish

and the fisheries must close. These harvest opportunities would lessen the blow to

the various stakeholders who depend on these fisheries.

The State of Washington is grateful for the attention paid by the federal government to assist us with these harmful algal blooms. NOAA–Fisheries scientists from

the NWFSC have worked closely with WDFW fisheries managers since the closure

faced in 1991 when domoic acid was first found in razor clam tissue. With no funding assistance from the State, these experts came alongside us to help us understand the scope and nature of the HAB event we were experiencing. These same

federal scientists have played a key role in forming the ORHAB collaboration and

assisting us in securing the MERHAB funding. The MERHAB staff has been outstanding in monitoring our activities including highlighting our current work on

their web site.

Even though the highest level of domoic acid ever found in razor clams was reported in Washington State in 1998, to date there have been no deaths or serious

illnesses attributed to a HAB event along our outer coast.6 However, the economic

impacts of the closures necessary to protect human health have been significant.

There is nothing we would like better than to have the threat presented by harmful

algal blooms disappear; however, that is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, it remains the goal of WDFW to continue to provide safe and productive shellfish harvest opportunities for the citizens of our state and to maximize the economic benefits of those harvest opportunities, as we continue to learn to manage our shellfish

fisheries around the very real threat of harmful algal blooms.

DISCUSSION

INPUT ON THE PROPOSED BILL

Chairman EHLERS. I thank you and the other witnesses for the

testimony; it is very helpful. At this point, we will open the questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes.

First, a general question to every member of the panel about the

draft bill which you have seen. And I would like you to very briefly

answer the following questions. Do you believe the funding levels

in the draft bill will be adequate? And secondly, should other agency activities be specified, and if so, which ones? And finally, does

the bill overlook anything important? We will go down the line

again; we will start with Dr. Scavia.

Dr. SCAVIA. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at the bill right now

and haven’t had a chance to really dig into the funding question,

but we will get back to you on that. I do want to comment, though,

on other agencies. One of the things that has been very successful

in our ECOHAB program was the partnership with EPA, NSF,

ONR, and NASA. That partnership program has been very, very

helpful. And I think at least recognizing other agencies involved in

this is probably a good thing to do.

As far as anything that is overlooked, not really, but there is one

thing that I think might be worth putting a little more attention

58

to, and that is the hypoxia side of this Harmful Algal Bloom and

Hypoxia Research Control Act. A lot of the focus has been on harmful algal blooms and we have made a lot of progress here. Most of

the focus on hypoxia has been in the Gulf of Mexico, and I think

we really do need to look at a national perspective and a national

program in that area.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Groat.

Dr. GROAT. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior is reviewing the bill, but from a science monitoring research

modeling point of view, I think it would be helpful to the community if the bill had some citation, if not by agency responsibility,

necessarily, but to the importance of those activities in supporting,

understanding, and management of the problem. I don’t see language of that type in there now, and would just suggest as an emphasis on the science role that that might be placed there.

Other than that, I support what Don Scavia said. I think the hypoxia issue is one that requires the broadest amount of understanding of both the inputs and the effects, and in that sense, in

the monitoring emphasis I made before, points out the value of the

monitoring system. And if we are going to understand hypoxia and

raise the concern about it to the appropriate level, then we will

have to improve the monitoring capabilities to do that.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Carmichael.

Dr. CARMICHAEL. Mr. Chairman, since the CyanoHABs or the

freshwater HABs are a new addition to the bill, I guess my emphasis would be to concur with Dr. Anderson, that it would be most

appropriate to have additional funding simply because these are

additional problems that are now being integrated and asked of the

general HAB question. So that would be my primary comment

there.

Secondly, with regards to agencies, since the current HAB project

is a NOAA project, that we need to be sure that other agencies that

can integrate and move into this, who can cover the freshwater situation appropriately, like the U.S. EPA through the Safe Drinking

Water Act, and other agencies, too.

In terms of projects that might be overlooked, no, I concur. I

think the general topics are appropriate and I hope that they will

be supported. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Anderson.

Dr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate again what Dr. Carmichael just said, that in terms of the funding, I do believe that

we need to make sure that the freshwater program is supported,

but also, that it is not supported at the expense of the marine HAB

program. These are very different phenomena. There certainly are

similarities in approaches and technologies that are in common,

but the phenomena are different and need to be recognized that

way.

I would also say that we have in the ECOHAB program a very

productive program that I think needs to be not only sustained, but

even enhanced. There are many proposals for excellent science

every year that are turned down and there is just much more to

be done than is presently fundable with the program. So I would

even vote for some enhancement. On the other agency activities, I

would mention again that there is a program on Oceans and

59

Human Health that I think should be considered. We have planned

in the United States a coherent program that started with ecology

and oceanography of these blooms. That is the ECOHAB program.

Then we moved to what is in your legislation as prevention, control, and mitigation. Another element, though, that is missing is,

the human health and epidemiology side of HABs. NIEHS and

NSF have started down that path and I think some good work

could be done to forage partnerships to extend that activity.

So that is the only part of what has been overlooked, we should

work towards an epidemiology or a human health emphasis to complement the other ecology, and oceanography, and prevention, control, and mitigation programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. Yes. Mr. Ayres.

Mr. AYRES. Thank you. I don’t really feel qualified to answer

your first two questions, but I can make a comment on what I

think might be overlooked, perhaps, with all due respect to the

very qualified scientists here with me at the panel. As a local manager, what I would like to see is the bill be strengthened, its language be strengthened so that the research that is done is providing tools and understanding to the local level, and some of that

was discussed earlier, so that managers like myself around the Nation have those tools to better understand, predict, and maybe even

some day down the road, control these harmful algal blooms. As we

are faced with closing fisheries and having to affect the economies

of these local communities to such a great extent, it would be nice

to be able to come back and say, we have tools, we are doing a better job of this, this is helping us.

And the ORHAB project that we have been working with in

Washington State, with that close collaboration between federal

scientists, university scientists, and managers like myself, and

managers from Tribal governments, working together not only to

perform the research, but in the design phase of that research, so

that research is directed in a manner that tools are provided in the

end that help actually the people on the ground and the people in

those communities that are so close or so desperately affected.

We have been looking in Washington State at some local funding,

State funding, trying to continue the ORHAB work that we have

started. There has been a bill before our State legislature to add

a surcharge to a shellfish license that would help to continue the

plankton monitoring work we have done. Like most states, Washington is in dire budget straits right now, and so I am not sure of

the status of that bill. I think it did not pass out of the State Senate, and whether it will be revived at a later date, I don’t know,

but it has brought the attention of our State Government fully to

it, and they are looking at ways to continue that work as well.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. And let me just say, if any of you

wish to amplify your remarks on that or have other suggestions on

the bill, feel free to correspond with us at any time.

I will now recognize Congressman Baird for his five minutes.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chairman. My good friend, Mr. Gutknecht, and I were at the budget hearing until 2 a.m. last night,

and so one of the things I am quite cognizant of is that the federal

60

budget is going to be about $482 billion in deficit next year. And

hence, if we are going to fund programs, we need to know that the

public is getting their return on investment. Do we have any estimates of the cost—and maybe you did it earlier and I just missed

it—but the cost of harmful algal blooms to the economy nationwide?

Dr. ANDERSON. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I would choose to

answer that one, in part, because I am one of the authors of the

study that the Chairman mentioned earlier about the economic impacts being on the order of $50 million a year. I want to emphasize

that that is an extraordinarily conservative estimate. Some of you

may have worked with economists, for me, it was an eye opener

about how conservative they can be. In this particular case, the estimate doesn’t include the multipliers, for example, that are often

used to track the way money moves through an economy. And in

any case, the estimate there, though, is if we stretch it out over

time, as much as $1 billion over a decade or so.

What is more important, though, is that individual events can

dwarf that annual average. There was a Pfiesteria outbreak right here in this region that had an order of $40 to $50 million economic

impact from that single outbreak alone. We have heard some numbers this morning from the west coast about the Dungeness crab

and the razor clams that are, again, going to clearly push that annual estimate up for these years. So yes, we have numbers, but are

being very, very prudent, I think, and cautious about how high we

drive them, but they are significant.

RESEARCH AND POSSIBLE TREATMENTS FOR HABS

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. Mr. Ayres’ slides, I think, illustrated that

point I made about the number of folks coming to the coast. Mr.

Ayres also made, I think, a very legitimate point about the need

to coordinate our research with management. As a scientist myself,

I understand the need for basic research, but as a Representative,

people want to say, what comes out of it? What are we learning to

do? In other words, if you are the manager, it is not enough to just

say we are going to close the beach until nature takes its course.

What are we learning about how we can control these blooms? And

I will open that up to whomever.

Dr. SCAVIA. I will respond to part of that. When we began the

overall program, we started with ECOHAB, which focused on understanding the ecology and oceanography and developing some

probes and tools that people might use. A couple of years into that,

we added the MERHAB program, which is our way of tying that

long-range research into applications, into the State managers on

the ground. We are applying those tools, whether it is a satellite

image that helps track where the bloom is going to landfall, or if

it is new tools to actually try to monitor and get early warnings

to the State managers. We have moved in that direction.

Most of the MERHAB projects that are funded are actually funding of joint activities between scientists and managers, like Mr.

Ayres was talking about, so that we actually bring those people together. So we have been moving in that direction. I think Dr. Anderson’s summary gives some more examples of the kinds of tools

that we have been able to develop to have those early warnings.

61

But most of our effort to date has been focused on the ability to

detect the blooms earlier and perhaps help mitigate the impacts.

We have not been able to invest very much in the control part of

this. Dr. Anderson and others have been developing programs and

developing—suggesting projects that we might actually be able to

move into that direction to try to control them. Ultimately, we

want to——

Mr. BAIRD. Is there anything promising at all, herbicides, pesticides, natural——

Dr. SCAVIA. I will defer that to Dr. Anderson.

Dr. ANDERSON. Yes. Thank you. The topic of control of blooms is

a very, very controversial one as you can imagine, because people

are very concerned about whether the treatment might be worse

than what is being treated. I will say, though, that I am very hopeful that with the bill the Chairman was mentioning before that you

were marking up on invasive species, that I hope that we actually

can force, in a sense, a change in the mindset of not only scientists,

but managers and others, that we actually do need to take a

proactive attack on many of these organisms in our coastal waters,

not just HAB species, but these invasive species. That truly will require a mindset change. We do not have any national program or

national mandate for this type of control of aquatic organisms. The

Agricultural Research Service has that responsibility on land, but

we do not have that in the ocean.

So to go back to your question about promising technologies, in

my own laboratory, I have put my laboratory where my mouth is

with respect to bloom control. We are looking into strategies using

something as simple as clay, which we disperse on the surface of

the water, and it flocculates and removes red tide cells and carries

them to the bottom. It is a promising approach that is used in

other countries. We are much more cautious here about when we

can use it, where we can use it, but that is just one example of several that I think could be developed if the prevention, control, and

mitigation part of your legislation goes forward.

Mr. BAIRD. I concur with that. Could I ask Mr. Ayres if he wants

to make a brief comment on that, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly?

Mr. Ayres, anything to add to that?

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS OF TREATMENT

TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. AYRES. Well, I am certainly not the expert that Dr. Anderson

is, and I guess I share that concern that he expressed at the beginning of his statement just now, that we do have concerns about the

whole ecology, and anything that is going to affect plankton also

affects—potentially, could affect the good plankton. And clearly, the

razor clams and the Dungeness crabs that we are so concerned

about depend on those plankton for their very livelihood. So you

know, at the State of Washington, and I am sure most any other

local government, take really close looks at any kind of control efforts to make sure that there be no—as he said earlier, no worse

effect of the cure than the cause.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the panel and I thank the Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Gutknecht from Minnesota.

62

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up

with Dr. Anderson and any of the other panel members who want

to respond to this. You mentioned about using the clay as a potential treatment. How much do we know about what the effects may

be of the algae sinking down to the bottom, perhaps making matters worse at the bottom?

And then secondly, what are the other technologies that you are

looking at that may be successful? Because I do agree we have to

become much more aggressive. Just containing these things, in my

opinion, is not really an answer.

Dr. ANDERSON. Yes. Thank you. First of all, you have highlighted

exactly why it takes time to go through these types of strategies

for controlling blooms. The public is out there saying give us a

method. First, we have to answer exactly your question, what are

the impacts of the sedimented cells and toxins? Thus far, at least,

with the clays that we are using, we are finding that the effects

are no different than they might be from the actual red tide or

bloom itself. We have a difficult situation of what are we really trying to compare our impacts to? Do you compare it to a pristine situation where nothing is happening or do you compare it to what the

real impacts of the red tide are? And that is one of the ongoing arguments that we are struggling with. But we are aware of those

kinds of issues, and thus far at least, the way I put it, with the

work we are doing, we have not found a ‘‘show stopper’’ yet that

has made us say this research should be abandoned. We think it

still has promise.

With respect to other technologies that might be out there, that

is one of the reasons we need a program like prevention, control,

and mitigation—to get people to begin to be creative in thinking

about these issues. If we think about biological control, there are

possibilities with viruses, that are very specific for certain organisms that are naturally occurring in the environment. There are

bacteria that are also destructive, that can destroy some of these

HAB species. There are parasites. These are all naturally occurring

organisms; you don’t need to engineer them, but you might need

to manipulate them the same way one does bioremediation for oil

pollution, for example.

And I could go on and on. There are strategies that one could use

that are simply pragmatic. Sometimes on the west coast, they move

fish cages out of the way of a bloom. If you could provide advance

warning with certain moored devices and instruments that detect

what is in the water and then tell the fishermen that they need

to do something to move their cages, you don’t actually have to destroy the bloom, but you can mitigate the impacts from it.

So I believe that if we put the intellectual capacity that exists

in this country to work on this problem, we can come up with mitigation and control strategies.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Are you working with any of the big chemical

companies, because I am aware, for example, in my home State of

Minnesota, the wild rice people have developed a fairly interesting

herbicide that seems to work pretty well and does not affect the environment. Are you familiar with that?

Dr. ANDERSON. I am familiar with those kinds of approaches. In

truth, there is no effort that I know of in the U.S. right now that

63

is looking at chemicals to control HAB species. Again, the bias is

that it seems so difficult to find the magic bullet that will only hit

the species you are interested in. It is one thing if you have a field

of broccoli where you have one type of plant that you can protect

and everything else is invasive, you don’t want it there. In the

ocean, there are hundreds of species of algae that are there that

are co-occurring with the one you want and many other organisms

as well, and it is very hard to think of a chemical that can go and

attack that one species. But it is possible to think of organisms—

as I mentioned, viruses, bacteria, and so forth, which have that

specificity. So I think there is promise there.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you. Yes, Dr. Groat.

Dr. GROAT. The parallel with invasive species here is so striking,

how once they are upon us, how harmful algal blooms invasive species, how challenging the control process is, how complicated the

systems are, and how difficult it is to invoke the P-word, the prevention-word. Whereas, in hypoxia, the fundamental driving forces

behind it are better understood, and we understand that we can

control by preventing, and we can put the scientific understandings

of those processes into a management strategy. It would be fortunate and happy if we could do the same thing for invasives or for

harmful algal blooms, but I would hope that in answer to Mr.

Baird’s question about supporting management, that where we do

understand mechanisms, particularly, where it leads to prevention,

that management strategies would rely heavily on the science that

supports that and do as much in the prevention area as we can because the control is so difficult and so expensive.

Dr. CARMICHAEL. Yes. Let me offer an interesting perspective

with regard to the freshwater HABs. Freshwater HABs, of course,

as you have seen in these photos, can be quite extensive. And in

terms of treating those, water utilities can handle those, but at

great expense, tens of thousands of dollars a day to handle one of

those kinds of blooms. So in terms of treatment, there may be processes already in place; they just are quite expensive. So that with

the freshwater HABs, the emphasis, I believe, is on watershed

management prevention, and control, and monitoring at this point,

nutrients. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. I am sorry. One quick comment. For the specificity that you are looking for, you may eventually need some genetic engineering here to find precisely which gene is causing the

problem and seeing if you can’t address that particular issue. Barring that, I think you have an impossible problem of trying to kill

off the harmful algae without killing all the rest. And so it is going

to take a very specific type of approach.

THE INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON HARMFUL ALGAL

BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA

One more question. What has been your experience with the effectiveness of the interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms

and Hypoxia? Do you think it should be continued, and if so, do you

think there should be any changes to its charter? I will leave that

open to anyone who wishes to comment. Dr. Scavia.

Dr. SCAVIA. I guess I will start with that. I think the Task Force

that was created in this Act was effective in putting together and

64

delivering the three scientific assessments that have been delivered

and are coming. I think the Task Force has done a good job in helping to coordinate the science programs, and I think that should be

continued.

I do want to point out that early on, those of us on the science

side of the government recognized that the Task Force created

under NSTC was probably not the appropriate group to actually

develop an action plan for the management strategies dealing with

the Gulf of Mexico. And the President’s science advisor and head

of EPA at that point in time agreed that EPA would lead and create another Task Force to deliver that action plan, and that is

what happened.

So one of the things that might be worth considering is establishing or creating a Task Force that could deal with receiving the

scientific input and developing implementation and action plans in

response to that.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. That is helpful. Would a cross

cutting budget approach be helpful, too, in this issue?

Dr. SCAVIA. I think so. There is a lot—there is a fair amount

being done that you heard about here. There is more that is being

done that we haven’t heard about, and I think that sort of look

would be useful.

Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Anderson, you had a question, too?

Dr. ANDERSON. Just a quick comment. In my written testimony,

I mentioned something that concurs with what Dr. Scavia just said,

which is that on the science side, my recommendation about the

Task Force would be to include more academic input. I found that

with the last one that all the agency representatives worked hard,

but there is a great deal of perspective and experience in the academic community that I think could have been tapped a little better.

Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Groat.

Dr. GROAT. Going along with what Dr. Scavia said, I think one

of the strengths of the Task Force as it was implemented between

EPA and the NSTC was the fact that it did bring both the people

who use the information to manage, as well as the scientists, together. The State interest and the tribes were involved in that, and

I think if we are sincerely interested in facilitating that transfer of

knowledge to management, then that kind of a task force is an important one that is more broadly representative. I would concur

with scientists, but also with local managers and state managers

being involved to a large degree.

Chairman EHLERS. Any other comments? If not, you have heard

the bells, and you are probably aware that the Members of Congress are very Pavlovian. The bells ring and we run to the Floor

and vote. And so we have two votes occurring on the Floor very

shortly.

I believe you covered the topic very well. We may send you additional follow-up questions and ask you to respond in writing for the

record, and we hope we will be able to introduce this bill soon and

get it passed into law and do an even better job of attacking the

problem that you have devoted a good share of your lives to. So

thank you very, very much. Your testimony has been extremely

65

helpful and I really appreciate you coming here for this Hearing.

Thank you again. With that, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(67)

Appendix 1:

BIOGRAPHIES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND ANSWERS TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS

68

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONALD SCAVIA

As Chief Scientist of NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Dr. Scavia is responsible

for the quality, integrity, and responsiveness of NOS’s science programs, and for ensuring that NOS’s operations and resource management are based on solid science

and technology. He also represents NOS and NOAA on several interagency and

intergovernmental committees addressing a range of environmental issues. He is

Associate Editor for journals of the Ecological Society of America and the Estuarine

Research Federation, and has served on the Boards of Directors for the American

Society of Limnology and Oceanography and the International Association for Great

Lakes Research.

Before becoming the NOS Chief Scientist, Dr. Scavia had been Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and Director of NOAA’s Coastal Ocean

Program. In those positions, he managed a wide range of coastal and Great Lakes

programs in NOS research laboratories and monitoring and assessment offices, as

well as its primary extra mural research program.

Between 1975 and 1990, Dr. Scavia was with NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental

Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where his research focused on ecosystem modeling and field and laboratory studies on nutrient cycling, bacteria and

phytoplankton production, food-web dynamics, and biological-physical coupling at all

scales.

Dr. Scavia holds Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees in Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of Michigan. He

has published over 60 articles in the primary literature and led development of dozens of interagency scientific assessments and program development plans.

69

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Donald Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Questions submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. How do resource managers gain access to satellite data used to predict and

model harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? Is there a charge to obtain this information and for the data interpretation? Should we expand our use of satellites

for this purpose, and if so, how?

A1. Satellite imagery, combined with other data sets, is an inexpensive and effective tool for use in monitoring and predicting Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). Gulf

of Mexico HAB bulletins produced by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) are provided to managers in the Gulf of Mexico region. These bulletins include satellite images, wind data, available cell counts (provided by the states), and analysis. NOAA

strives to produce data in common forms that address the needs and limited resources of the managers. State managers from all five Gulf States, in turn, regularly

provide data and information that are used to improve the accuracy and timeliness

of the bulletins. NOAA has made these Gulf of Mexico HAB bulletins operational,

and believes these bulletins should be expanded nationwide.

The Gulf of Mexico effort is an effective model. At the onset, NOAA worked with

state managers to assure that our products would make their jobs easier. To be successful in tracking and forecasting bloom conditions, it became clear that in addition

to satellite imagery, meteorological data, National Weather Service 3–5 day marine

forecasts, state monitoring data, and numerical models were needed. HAB analysis

and forecasting can become as sophisticated as forecasting hurricanes. In conjunction with Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal (ECOHAB) and Monitoring

and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) research efforts, NOAA

has begun to assess how HAB bulletins can be expanded to the West Coast. We will

continue to work with local and regional managers to blend relevant data, models,

and analyses to address each HAB problem. More research is necessary before satellite data can be successfully incorporated into predictions and models of hypoxia.

There is no cost to users for the NOAA HAB bulletins. Managers in the Gulf of

Mexico region gain access to current bulletins through e-mail and to previous bulletins and related data sets at several NOAA websites. However, NOAA annually

spends $200K purchasing imagery needed for HAB-related issues and spends about

$50K to produce the bulletins for the Gulf of Mexico. The satellite imagery from the

SeaWiFS ocean color satellite is purchased through a license from OrbImage, Inc.

NOAA’s license allows use of the data for all civilian Federal, State, and local government needs and operations. NOAA spends $200K for east and west coast imagery; over 50 percent of it will be used for HABs. NOAA’s CoastWatch program

spends about $15K to produce the HAB satellite products. The National Ocean Service (NOS) spends about $35K to create the bulletin: $28K for analysis, which includes communication with State managers, and $7K for production of the bulletin.

These bulletins are routinely improved by adding information developed through

MERHAB and ECOHAB. These efforts to better address the needs of State managers, to improve the quality and accuracy of the bulletins, and to address new HAB

events costs about $150K per year.

Questions submitted by Democratic Members

Q1. The National Assessment of Coastal HABs includes the finding that natural

events such as storms and ocean currents have contributed to the increase in

HAB events. What changes in storm frequency and patterns and what changes

in ocean currents have occurred that have promoted the increase in HAB events?

A1. Research into the relationships among HAB events and changes in regional circulation and weather patterns is still in progress, and the needed long-term data

sets to address these questions comprehensively are not yet available. It is also important to note that in many cases, blooms initiated or transported onshore by currents or weather events may then be enhanced by the presence of increased nutrient

levels (usually anthropogenic) in coastal waters. We do have some examples of suspected interactions between HAB formation and major weather events.

For example, a single hurricane in 1972 ‘‘inoculated’’ the waters of southern New

England with cysts of the paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) organism,

Alexandrium. Since that event, the patterns of the now resident populations of

70

Alexandrium are linked to large- and small-scale circulation patterns in the Gulf of

Maine. Coupled numerical-biological models, simulating the circulation in the Gulf

of Maine and the growth characteristics of Alexandrium have been used to simulate

some of these interactions. For the next three years, ECOHAB will support the refinement and testing of these models to more accurately simulate and forecast

bloom patterns. Those models, along with monitoring data, are necessary to understanding how the patterns in Gulf of Maine circulation and weather will influence

the frequency and location of PSP events.

On the west coast, blooms of the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia can cause amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), resulting in economic impacts to coastal economies and public

health concerns. The circulation of the West Coast is dominated by upwelling and

storm tracks. The frequency and intensity of El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillations (i.e.,

ENSO events) influence the patterns of upwelling and the frequency and intensity

of storms. Upwelling events bring nutrient-rich, deeper water near the coast and

move surface waters offshore; storms tend to move surface water onshore. In the

Pacific Northwest, inter-decadal patterns of ENSO events are related (via atmospheric forcing) to shifts in the dominance of either the Alaska Current or California

Current. The dominance of these currents influences near-shore circulation, storm

patterns, and ultimately the biological processes in coastal waters.

A 5-year ECOHAB study initiated in 2002 is examining the dynamics of ASP

bloom formation, including how variability in upwelling and storm frequency influence the formation and location of the persistent Juan de Fuca eddy. This eddy, located off northwest Washington State, is an upwelling feature favorable for

phytoplankton growth, including species that can produce ASP toxin. This study is

testing the hypothesis that ASP events in northern Washington are largely caused

by Pseudo-nitzschia growing in the Juan de Fuca eddy and subsequently transported to near-shore waters by storms. Investigators are looking at the variability

in this eddy (size, location, intensity) and at the timing and frequency of storms

with respect to presence of the ASP organism and toxin.

Since 1991, observations of the extent and frequency of Pfiesteria-related fish kills

has been documented in the Neuse Estuary, North Carolina. In 1996, this region

was hit with two hurricanes. For that year, and two years following, Pfiesteria fish

kills dropped significantly. Three hurricanes passed through this area in 1999 along

with a 500-year flood; this region has not experienced a Pfiesteria-related fish kill

since. These preliminary observations suggest that variability in hurricane activity

and rainfall in the mid-Atlantic may be a major influence on the occurrence of

Pfiesteria blooms and that understanding that variability may allow for some forecasting capability.

Several lines of research and field observation have shown that under conditions

of regional warming (and global warming), the growth rates of cyanobacteria increase. Toxin-producing species of cyanobacteria have caused problems in some

lakes (including the Great Lakes) and estuaries. This and other factors related to

weather trends (e.g., rainfall and nutrient loads) will be important to understanding

and forecasting cyanobacteria bloom events in lakes, estuaries, and reservoirs.

Q2. Your written testimony states that it may be possible to control HAB blooms

with bio-control agents or other biocidal methods. We have had mixed results

controlling pests in terrestrial systems and there have often been unforeseen ecological and human health problems associated with this type of management approach. What has been the reaction of fisheries communities and resource managers to dealing with HAB events in this way?

A2. Resource managers and fisheries communities are concerned about the unintended consequences of manipulating the environment. They are concerned that

anything released or sprayed into the marine environment might negatively impact

their target species or region’s habitat, or open them to liability issues.

Biological control agents for HABs are still very much in the research stage. Several general approaches are being explored, but all require careful examination of

not only efficacy, but environmental impact, including impacts to valued resources.

At this time, there is no generally applied treatment for controlling HABs, other

than reducing anthropogenic nutrient loading. Other methods being explored include the use of specific bacterial or viral agents, removal of HABs by grazing organisms such as zooplankton, shellfish or other benthic organisms (e.g., sessile

ascidians), application of herbicides, and physical removal methods such as

flocculation of harmful algae by application of clay minerals to surface waters or

vacuuming techniques to remove macroalgae. The viral method is promising as it

can be made species-specific, however there are both biological and policy risks to

this approach. The flocculation method, using clay, has been applied in Asia with

some success but more research into types of clays, amounts, and effects on benthic

71

organisms must be done. There is a current ECOHAB project investigating clays as

removal agents. These approaches may have promise in practical application, but

clearly a great deal of research, testing, and public education must precede any application to a field situation. The ECOHAB program continues to solicit proposals

related to the prevention, control, and mitigation of HABs.

Q3. Your written testimony states in the summary of findings for the Assessment of

Coastal Harmful Algal Blooms that ‘‘management options are limited at this

time.’’ What is limiting the management options? How can this research program be focused to expand our management options?

A3. HAB Management options fall into three categories: prevention, control, and

mitigation. These options are currently limited by a series of scientific uncertainties

and policy hurdles. Each is outlined below.

Prevention. Prevention requires a solid understanding of the causes of HABs and,

while a cause-and-effect relationship exists between increased pollution and nutrient loading and an incidence of some HAB species, it may not apply to all. In the

case of HABs that are fueled by elevated nutrient loads, reducing those inputs may

reduce the frequency and/or severity of bloom events. However, additional research

is needed to determine the extent of nutrient reduction needed to accomplish functional results. In most other cases, prevention is largely unattainable at this time

for a variety of reasons, including the fact that bloom initiation of many species occurs offshore and that we still do not understand many of the factors leading to

bloom initiation. The ECOHAB research has increased the understanding of the dynamics of, and our ability to model, some HABs; however research is still needed

on many of the existing and newly emerging problem species. Increased emphasis

is needed on developing these models and improved monitoring techniques to support HAB forecasting.

Control. Impediments for control options (e.g., methods to manipulate or terminate

blooms once they occur) are outlined in response to the above question. Attempts

to use chemicals to directly control HAB cells encounter many logistical problems

and environmental objections. Chemicals are likely to be nonspecific, indiscriminately targeting all co-occurring algae and other organisms along with the target

algal species. Chemical application and other options, such as flocculent or biological

controls need additional research to determine their wider impacts to the coastal

ecosystem.

Mitigation. Mitigation includes efforts to avoid or reduce the impacts of a bloom

by modifying human behavior (e.g., recreation, harvest) during a bloom event. These

options are currently the most effective ways to reduce human health risks, ecosystem damage, fisheries losses, and declines in tourism due to algal blooms. Mitigation options include forecasting bloom development and movement, monitoring HAB

cells and toxins, and responding rapidly to HAB events. ECOHAB research on better models and detection techniques for organisms and toxins have been incorporated into some State and local monitoring programs to improve mitigation. It is

also important to provide resources, in addition to those research results, to State

or local agencies to support their incorporation into the monitoring programs. The

MERHAB program provides that support. MERHAB also supports event-response

capabilities within affected regions to ensure trained and equipped personnel are

able to mobilize quickly, conduct appropriate sampling and testing, and communicate effectively during HAB events. With faster, less expensive, and more reliable

detection methods for HAB cells and toxins, and stronger mechanisms in place to

respond to outbreaks, programs will be better able to mitigate the impact of HABs

on vital resources and will protect public health.

72

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHARLES G. GROAT

On November 3, 1998, Dr. Charles G. Groat became the 13th Director of the U.S.

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Dr. Charles G. (Chip) Groat is a distinguished professional in the earth science

community with over 25 years of direct involvement in geological studies, energy

and minerals resource assessment, ground-water occurrence and protection, geomorphic processes and landform evolution in desert areas, and coastal studies.

Dr. Groat received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology (1962) from the University of Rochester, a Master of Science in Geology (1967) from the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. in Geology (1970) from the University of Texas at Austin.

Among his many professional affiliations, Groat is a member of the Geological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American

Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He has

also served on over a dozen earth science boards and committees and has authored

and contributed to numerous publications and articles on major issues involving

earth resources and the environment.

Dr. Charles G. Groat was born in Westfield, New York, March 25, 1940. He currently resides in Reston, Virginia, with his wife, Barbara. He has two grown children.

73

74

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Charles G. Groat, Director, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Q1. How do resource managers gain access to satellite data used to predict and

model harmful algal blooms and hypoxia? Is there a charge to obtain this information and for the data interpretation? Should we expand our use of satellites

for this purpose, and if so, how?

A1. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does not currently have a project involving

the systematic use of satellite data to model and predict harmful algal blooms

(HAB) and hypoxia in coastal waters. The potential use of satellite imagery as a

modeling and research tool is high, and routine use of satellite imagery offers the

potential for daily spatial mapping as a monitoring tool for the coastal zone.

There are at least three avenues for resource managers to get satellite data to

monitor HAB. First, Government owned systems such as the National Ocean and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) weather satellites, the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration’s (NASA) experimental Terra, Aqua and EO–1 and the

USGS Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 (although the Landsats may not be in currently

accessible). Second, ‘‘restricted distribution’’ systems such as NASA’s SeaWiFS (Seaviewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor) that provide data to approved researchers.

Third, commercial systems include Digital Globe, Space Imaging’s Ikonos and international sources. Each of these broad categories has its own pricing policy. In general, Government systems feature open distribution and have low fees for the data,

usually based on the cost that the agency incurs in producing a product. The ‘‘restricted distribution’’ category is typified by ‘‘free’’ data that only a small number

of pre-approved users can obtain. Commercial operators will usually sell data to any

customer, although the ability to share the data with a wide community typically

comes at an additional price. Government and ‘‘restricted distribution’’ for the most

part distribute calibrated, validated, and specially registered imagery to the broad

user community leaving the interpretive work to the end user based on their specific

application or research objective (e.g., HAB modeling or monitoring). Some agencies

produce higher-level applied products as a part of their core mission. For example,

NOAA provides an online bulletin on HAB conditions, which includes interpreted remote sensing imagery, in the Gulf of Mexico to the management community. Numerous commercial firms offer satellite data processing and analysis services including the companies that operate commercial satellites. Both NOAA and NASA may

be able to provide additional information.

Research has shown that satellites can provide essential information on these

phenomena. The cost of data and satellites has been a barrier to expanded use of

the current systems. And, limited use of the data slows the progress of the science

required to more effectively monitor, model and predict harmful algal blooms. Every

harmful algal bloom that occurs does not lead to hypoxia. Hypoxia can occur following a non-harmful algal bloom. The critical research questions that the federal

government agencies are addressing include what organism is blooming, is it harmful, what caused the bloom, and how can we distinguish harmful versus non-harmful algal blooms via satellites while monitoring and modeling the conditions that

lead to their development and demise. Applications include support for decisions regarding at what level of blooming organism should shellfish beds be closed, and

what are the implications of harmful algal species for commercial fisheries.

EPA’s Gulf of Mexico Program is facilitating a Hazardous Algal Bloom Observing

System (HABSOS) collaborative case study and feasibility pilot with EPA, NASA,

NOAA, NAVY, and the Gulf State Health Agencies. The study is nearing completion

and early successes indicate that it is technically feasible and practical to expect to

more effectively predict, detect, and forecast the movement of specific hazardous

algal blooms such as Red Tides through an integration of the physical and biological

science monitoring programs of the Federal and State agencies. Additionally, the

Gulf of Mexico Program is working to link the current Red Tide Monitoring and Reporting systems of the six Mexican States bordering the Gulf of Mexico into

HABSOS to extend its capability. Implementation of an operational Gulf HABSOS

framework will require strategic investments in State and Federal near and offshore

monitoring infrastructure.

In an upcoming annual issue of the ‘Pulse of the Estuary,’ a report of the regional

monitoring program for San Francisco Bay, USGS scientists utilize a satellite image

from the NASA’s SeaWiFS Project showing a coastal algal bloom occurring at the

same time a red tide occurred inside San Francisco Bay. The authors suggest that

events offshore can propagate into the Bay. The article demonstrates the value of

75

routine use of satellite imagery for biological process studies and water-quality monitoring.

Q2. The addendum to your testimony provided a list of short-term actions the Gulf

of Mexico Task Force had developed to meet its long-term goal of reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Each action has a proposed time frame for completion. Please provide a list of the status of these actions and, if applicable, an

explanation of why they are not on schedule.

A2. Significant progress has been made on the short-term actions identified in the

Action Plan of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task

Force. Although the original timeline has not been rigidly maintained, the Task

Force has been actively pursuing these short-term actions and its long-term goals.

Since publication of the Action Plan in January 2001, the Task Force did not meet

in 2001, but met twice in 2002, in February and December. It has formed separate

workgroups to address specific issues, including: management implementation and

coordination, three areas of management action (nonpoint source, point source and

restoration), finance and budget, and monitoring, modeling and research. These

workgroups currently are active. The Task Force’s Coordinating Committee, which

staffs the Task Force and fulfills the role of the management implementation and

coordination workgroup is scheduling monthly conference calls to ensure continued

progress, and the next Task Force meeting is being planned.

Short-term actions and time-frames proposed in the Action Plan (The Action Plan,

p. 13) are listed with a description of the status of each as follows:

#1 By December 2000, the Task Force with input from the States and Tribes

within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, will develop and submit a

budget request for new and additional funds for voluntary technical and financial assistance, education, environmental enhancement, research, and

monitoring programs to support the actions outlined in the Action Plan;

Status: A budget plan has not been placed into official interagency review through

the National Science and Technology Council mechanism which would be necessary

prior to any action being taken. The President’s budget funds actions within the Action Plan, as described below.

#2 By Summer 2001, States and Tribes in the Basin, in consultation with the

Task Force, will establish sub-basin committees to coordinate implementation

of the Action Plan by major sub-basins, including coordination among smaller watersheds, Tribes and States in each of those sub-basins;

Status: Sub-Basin Committees have formed in the Lower Mississippi River SubBasin, the Upper Mississippi River Sub-Basin, and Arkansas Red-White Sub-Basin.

Groups have stepped forward as leaders in the Ohio River Sub-Basin and the Missouri River Sub-Basin. The Lower Mississippi Sub-Basin Committee had its first

meeting in late 2002, and the other Committees are planning meetings in 2003. Discussions are ongoing among States, Tribes and other watershed-based organizations

regarding establishment of other sub-basin committees. Developing an additional

level of coordination among States and Tribes associated with large sub-basins within the Mississippi River Basin that cross numerous State and other jurisdictional

boundaries presents new challenges. States can be included in several sub-basins,

requiring their participation in multiple new committees. Other organizational entities exist, and there is a need to complement and take advantage of all existing organizational structures and not duplicate efforts.

#3 By Fall 2001, the Task Force will develop an integrated Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Research Strategy to coordinate and promote necessary research and

modeling efforts to reduce uncertainties regarding the sources, effects (including economic effects in the Gulf as well as the basin), and geochemical processes for hypoxia in the Gulf;

Status: The Task Force’s Monitoring, Modeling and Research Workgroup co-chaired

by the USGS and NOAA organized a workshop held in St. Louis on October 16–

18, 2002. The workshop brought together over 100 technical and management specialists from State and Federal governments, universities and other organizations,

to gather information for development of a Monitoring, Modeling, and Research

Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy is to describe a framework for science activities that will support management decision-making related to achieving the three

major goals of the Action Plan—improving water-quality conditions in the Mississippi River Basin, reducing hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and protecting the social and economic fabric of the communities that depend on the goods

and services provided by the Basin and the Gulf. A draft Monitoring, Modeling and

76

Research Strategy was submitted by the Workgroup to the Task Force Coordinating

Committee on April 15, 2003.

#4 By Spring 2002, Coastal States, Tribes and relevant Federal Agencies will

greatly expand the long-term monitoring program for the hypoxic zone, including greater temporal and spatial data collection, measurements of macronutrient and micro-nutrient concentrations and hypoxia as well as measures

of the biochemical processes that regulate the inputs, fate, and distribution

of nutrients and organic material;

Status: NOAA has expanded its support for monitoring of the extent of the hypoxic

zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico, as well as increased activities to disseminate

that information in a timely manner. In addition to continuing the monitoring efforts supported since 1985, NOAA support to the academic community includes

higher-frequency observations and biogeochemical and ecological process studies to

relate the results of the monitoring program to impacts on the coastal ecosystem.

The framework described in the Monitoring, Modeling and Research Strategy will

guide future improvements in long-term monitoring of the hypoxic zone.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is planning surveys to obtain

seasonal data to address the priority monitoring needs identified in the Hypoxia Action Plan and the National Hypoxia Assessment report. These surveys will be completed during April 2003, July-August 2003, and October-November 2003. The objectives of these monitoring surveys are to fill important data gaps, particularly in relation to boundary conditions between near shore and offshore zones, as well as

first-order ecosystem process uncertainties, such as phytoplankton/carbon relationships with dissolved oxygen, light interaction and attenuation, water column and

sediment oxygen demand, and sediment/nutrient fluxes.

#5 By Spring 2002, States, Tribes and Federal Agencies within the Mississippi

and Atchafalaya River Basin will expand the existing monitoring efforts

within the Basin to provide both a coarse resolution assessment of the nutrient contribution of various sub-basins and a high resolution modeling technique in these smaller watersheds to identify additional management actions

to help mitigate nitrogen losses to the Gulf, and nutrient loadings to local

waters, based on the interim guidance established by the National Water

Quality Monitoring Council;

Status: The USGS has focused water-quality monitoring in the Mississippi River

Basin conducted by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network

(NASQAN) on addressing monitoring needs identified in the Monitoring, Modeling

and Research Strategy. NASQAN collects water-quality data at a sufficient frequency and with suitable protocols for calculation of nutrient loads, information essential for understanding how nutrient sources affect receiving waters including the

Gulf of Mexico. NASQAN monitoring will focus on the level 1 and level 2 (of 4 levels) monitoring requirements identified in the Monitoring, Modeling and Research

Strategy. (Level 1 monitoring estimates loads near the downstream ends of the entire Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, and level 2 monitoring estimates loads

at the downstream end of the major Sub-Basins.) The USGS has tested alternative

monitoring approaches to provide improved resolution of temporal changes in nutrient loads entering the Gulf of Mexico-information essential to models that relate

hypoxic zone size to nutrient inputs.

The USGS also has undertaken pilot surveys with selected States to evaluate potential synergies from augmenting existing State water-quality monitoring stations

to help satisfy the requirements for monitoring loads at representative watersheds

(monitoring-level 3 watersheds, within Sub-Basins). USGS also has developed a system for serving nutrient load data on the Internet, and is modifying our normal

water-year based schedule for releasing results so that information on nutrient

loads entering the Gulf during the spring can be released before the summer

hypoxic zone measurements, providing that information in a more timely manner

to a range of researchers who are developing models to predict the size of the

hypoxic zone.

The USGS has developed and improved the SPARROW model for the Mississippi

River Basin, which provides a means of extrapolating information from smaller watersheds to all watersheds of similar size throughout the Basin. This modeling approach used data from the 1980s and early 1990s to provide information on sources

and distribution of loads throughout the Mississippi Basin and locations where loads

from smaller upstream watersheds are most likely to reach the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, there are not sufficient nutrient-load monitoring stations on smaller watersheds to update this modeling approach to allow development of a high resolution

modeling technique to guide management actions at that scale.

77

#6 By Fall 2002, States, Tribes and Federal Agencies within the Mississippi and

Atchafalaya River Basin, using available data and tools, local partnerships,

and coordination through sub-basin committees, described in #2 above, will

develop strategies for nutrient reduction. These strategies will include setting

reduction targets for nitrogen losses to surface waters, establishing a baseline

of existing efforts for nutrient management, identifying opportunities to restore flood plain wetlands (including restoration of river inflows) along and

adjacent to the Mississippi River, detailing needs for additional assistance to

meet their goals, and promoting additional funding;

Status: Development of sub-basin nutrient reduction strategies is a principle goal

of the Sub-Basin Committees. Several actions are being taken to make available the

information that is most useful to sub-basin committees for developing nutrient reduction strategies.

The USEPA is working with the Sub-Basin Committees to develop Geographical

Information System (GIS) tools to combine available information in map form to facilitate targeting management actions in areas where they will do the most good.

The type of information that will be depicted includes nutrient loads for smaller watersheds (within each sub-basin), the location of possible wetland restoration sites,

Clean Water Act Section 319 existing and proposed projects, and projects receiving

Farm Bill funding. The GIS tool will be available for use by the Sub-Basins Committees for future planning.

The USGS is monitoring at the mouth of each Sub-Basin, calculating annual loads

and serving that data on the Internet in a timely manner. This information will provide a baseline of current nutrient loads and a means for each Sub-Basin Committee

to evaluate temporal changes and the performance of their nutrient reduction strategies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) jointly are leading the Task Force’s Restoration Management Actions

Workgroup; this workgroup will support development of nutrient reduction strategies through identification of opportunities to restore floodplains and wetlands.

#7 By December 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), in cooperation

with States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies, will, if authorized by the

Congress and funded in the fall of 2001, complete a reconnaissance level

study of potential nutrient reduction actions that could be achieved by modifying COE projects or project operations. Prior to completion of the reconnaissance study, the COE will incorporate nitrogen reduction considerations, not

requiring major modification of projects or project operations or significant

new costs, into all project implementation actions;

Status: The reconnaissance level study identified in this action item was neither

authorized nor funded by Congress and did not take place. However, the COE Mississippi Valley Division is taking steps to incorporate nitrogen reduction considerations into a number of project planning and implementation actions. Of major importance in this regard is the ongoing work, being done in partnership with the

State of Louisiana, to develop a large-scale project for restoration of Louisiana

Coastal wetlands. Nutrient reduction will be a factor considered in planning for this

work.

#8 By January 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

Clean Water Act permitting authorities within the Mississippi and

Atchafalaya River Basin will identify point source dischargers with significant discharges of nutrients and undertake steps to reduce those loadings,

consistent with action #6 above;

Status: The Task Force’s Point Source Management Actions Workgroup, lead by the

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and USEPA, has begun to identify

significant point sources discharging into the Mississippi River and to develop alternatives for reducing their nutrient loads. This Workgroup currently is focusing on

two major opportunities. The first opportunity is to promote expanded use of a technique developed and tested by the chemical company, BASF, in Louisiana, that resulted in significant reductions in their nitrogen discharge through an inexpensive

modification of their wastewater treatment system. Other possible facilities with different waste streams are being identified for pilot testing. The second opportunity

is to promote a system of nutrient trading within the Basin that facilitates achieving the most economical nutrient load reductions.

#9 By Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

States and Tribes within the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin with

support from Federal agencies, will increase assistance to landowners for volVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:39 Aug 06, 2003 Jkt 085516 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS03\031303\85516 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
78

untary actions to restore, enhance, or create wetlands and vegetative or forested buffers along rivers and streams within priority watersheds consistent

with action #6 above.

Status: The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is providing cost share

assistance to private landowners in a variety of projects designed to restore, create

or enhance wetland and riparian habitats to benefit a variety of wildlife species and

providing ancillary benefits in reducing nutrient content of runoff from these areas.

In the USFWS Southeast and Northeast regions, at least 10,000 acres of wetlands

and over 60 miles of riparian habitat have been restored, created or enhanced in

the Mississippi River Basin since completion of the Action Plan in 2001.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is providing assistance to benefit

water-quality improvements in the Gulf of Mexico. Some recent efforts occurring in

Texas and Louisiana include the following:

• Little Cedar Bayou (Texas) Restoration—Restoration of areas suffering from

marshland subsidence and erosion has occurred through trapping of sediment

and vegetating barren areas using adaptive wetland species.

• Carbon Sequestration—Work in cooperation with several industry groups involves the planning for the sequestration of large quantities of carbon using

Tall Grass Prairie species.

• Galveston Bay Estuary Program—Several projects to help mitigate nutrient

enrichment and eutrophication of the Estuary through wetlands construction

for nonpoint source pollution control.

• Habitat Restoration—Exploring ways to restore large areas of coastal emergent marsh wetlands for the Gulf Coast.

Additionally, through the 2002 Farm Bill, conservation programs have received

increased funding which will be employed to accelerate the voluntary participation

of private landowners in implementing resource conservation activities. Many of

these activities include wetland restoration, enhancement and creation, and address

nutrient runoff from agricultural nonpoint source areas by developing buffers along

rivers and streams. Efforts also continue to identify the most effective and feasible

conservation practices to reduce nitrogen loadings from nonpoint sources and to help

landowners implement solutions derived from locally led efforts throughout the Mississippi River Basin.

#10 By Spring 2003, or on time frame established by the sub-basin committees,

States and Tribes within the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, with

support from Federal agencies, will increase assistance to agricultural producers, other landowners, and businesses for the voluntary implementation

of best management practices (BMPs), which are effective in addressing loss

of nitrogen to water bodies, consistent with action #6 above; and

Status: The USDA supports many efforts throughout the Mississippi River Basin

to assist private landowners to address water-quality concerns. In cooperation with

its State and local conservation partners, USDA has for many decades used a multiprogram, locally led approach in helping landowners to address agricultural and silvicultural resource concerns in the Basin. Each day, USDA’s local and State staffs

are working with farmers, ranchers, and other landowners in planning and implementing conservation practices and systems that reduce the flow of nutrients and

sediment to streams and rivers in the Basin. Recent data indicates over 70 percent

of the total funds of the most widely used USDA conservation programs authorized

in the 1996 Farm Bill were expended in the 31 Mississippi River Basin States for

conservation activities.

In addition to the technical and financial assistance through conservation programs, USDA is involved in other conservation initiatives that address nutrient enrichment concerns in the Gulf of Mexico. Two examples include:

• The Lower Mississippi Valley Initiative (LMVI) was developed by the conservation districts of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,

and Tennessee in consultation with State and local partners. The LMVI’s objectives are to increase public awareness of the importance of agriculture,

produce strategies to reduce agricultural runoff, and assess the effects of implemented conservation practices.

• The Mississippi River Stewardship Initiative (MRSI) is a public-private partnership to reduce sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River

Basin. Its objectives are to identify major sources of sediments and nutrients,

increase and target financial and technical assistance, develop new solutions,

79

create a basin-wide monitoring network, and provide outreach and coordination.

The USDA can provide additional information on these activities. The 2002 Farm

Bill conservation provisions are the foundation for USDA’s continuing efforts on nutrient management in the Mississippi River Basin.

#11 By December 2005 and every five years thereafter, the Task Force will assess

the nutrient load reductions achieved and the response of the hypoxic zone,

water quality throughout the Basin, and economic and social effects. Based

on this assessment, the Task Force will determine appropriate actions to

continue to implement this strategy or, if necessary, revise the strategy.

Status: This action is pending. The USGS plans to conduct a re-evaluation of the

sources and loads of nutrients within the watersheds of the Mississippi River Basin.

This analysis, however, will not have the same resolution as the baseline (1980–

1996) analysis conducted during 1998–99 as part of the science assessment mandated by the Harmful Algal Bloom Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA)

of 1998. Fewer monitoring stations currently are being operated within the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Basin than during the baseline period.

80

81

82

83

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONALD M. ANDERSON

Senior Scientist, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods

Hole, Massachusetts 02543

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970

M.S., Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976

Ph.D., Aquatic Sciences, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, 1977

Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1991–present

Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1983–1991; tenure 1987

Assistant Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1979–1983

Postdoctoral Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1978–1979

Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil Engineering,

1978

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography

Phycological Society of America

International Society for the Study of Harmful Algae

SELECTED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES, WORKSHOPS, AND DISTINCTIONS:

Recipient, Stanley W. Watson Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, 1993

Recipient, NOAA Environmental Hero Award (1999)

Director, NATO Advanced Study Institute on the Physiological Ecology of Harmful

Algal Blooms, Bermuda, 1996

Chairman, SCOR Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms (1992–1996)

Director, U.S. National Office on Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms

(1993–present)

Scientific Advisor, U.S. Delegation to the IOC/FAO Intergovernmental Panel on

Harmful Algal Blooms (1992–present)

Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR), a Joint Institute of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (1999–present)

Member, Scientific Steering Committee, GEOHAB (The Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms) (1998–present)

Member, NRC Committee on the Causes and Management of Coastal Eutrophication

International Organizing Committee, Toxic Marine Phytoplankton Conferences

(1989–present)

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries of the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate 105th Congress,

Second Session, May 20, 1998

Testimony for U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2002; prepared White Paper on

Harmful Algal Blooms for inclusion in the Commission’s report ‘‘Oceans and

Human Health’’

Chairman, Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Harmful Algal Blooms, Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission (1989)

U.S. Representative, Working Group on Phytoplankton and Management of their

Impacts, International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) (1989–

present)

U.S. Representative, WESTPAC Task Team on Red Tides, Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission (1985–present)

Mission Leader, United Nations Development Program, ‘‘Regional Collaborative Scientific Programme on Marine Resource Development and Management in

Southeast Asia,’’ (April 1990)

Instructor, Red tide training program, Brazil. April 1979. World Health Organization

Member, PICES Working Group #15, Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (1999–

present)

Editorial Board: Protist (1999–present)

Advisory Committee Member, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,

School of Science (2002–2003)

Academic Consultant for the Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environmental

Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2002–2007).

84

PATENTS:

Genetic markers and methods of identifying Alexandrium (Dinophyceae) species.

U.S. Patent No. 5,582,983. 12/10/96

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS:

1993 Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Tech. Rept.

WHOI–93–02. Report of the ICES/IOC Study Group on the Dynamics of

Harmful Algal Blooms.

1994 Anderson, D.M. Red tides. Scientific American 271:52–58.

1995 Anderson, D.M. Toxic red tides and harmful algal blooms: A practical challenge in coastal oceanography. U.S. National Report to the ILJGG American

Geophysical Union, pp. 1189–1200.

1995 Anderson, D.M. ECOHAB—The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal

Blooms: A National Research Agenda. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Woods Hole, MA. 66 pp.

1995 Anderson, D.M. Identification of harmful algal species using molecular probes:

an emerging perspective. In: Harmful Marine Algal Blooms, Lassus, P., G.

Arzul, E. Erard, P. Gentien, C. Marcaillou (eds.), Technique et Documentation—Lavoisier, Intercept Ltd., pp. 3–13.

1997 Anderson, D.M. Bloom dynamics of toxic Alexandrium species in the northeastern United States. Limnol. & Oceanogr. 42:1009–1022.

1997 Anderson, D.M. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388:513–514.

1997 Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Homer, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, T.E.

Whitledge. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention,

Control and Mitigation. Science for Solutions. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program,

Decision Analysis Series No. 10, Special Joint Report with the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation.

1998 Luttenberg, D., D. Anderson, K. Sellner, and D. Turgeon. National Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms in U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 38 pp.

1998 Turgeon, D.D., K.G. Sellner, D. Scavia, and D.M. Anderson. Status of U.S.

Harmful Algal Blooms: Progress Towards a National Program. NOAA, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 22+ pages.

1998 Anderson, D.M. Physiology and bloom dynamics of toxic Alexandrium species,

with emphasis on life cycle transitions. pp. 29–48, in: The Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms, Anderson, D.M., A.D. Cembella and G.M.

Hallegraeff [Eds.], Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.

1999 Anderson, D.M., Kulis, D.M., Keafer, B.A., and Berdalet, E. Detection of the

toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense (Dinophyceae) with oligonucleotide

and antibody probes: variability in labeling intensity with physiological condition. J. Phycol. 35: 870–883.

2000 Turner, J.T., G.J. Doucette, C.L. Powell, D.M. Kulis, B.A. Keafer, and D.M.

Anderson. Accumulation of red tide toxins in larger size fractions of

zooplankton assemblages from Massachusetts Bay, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

203:95–107.

2000 Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. Estimated Annual

Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Tech. Rept., WHOI 2000–11. (99 pp)

2001 Anderson, D.M. Phytoplankton blooms. pp. 2179–2192, in: Steele, J. S. Thorpe,

and K. Turekia (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences. Academic Press, Ltd.,

London, U.K.

2001 Cammen, L., D.M. Anderson, and Q. Dortch. Prevention, Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Research Plan. Report for Congress, National

Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 24 pp.

2002 Anderson, D.M., P.M. Glibert, and J.M. Burkholder. Harmful algal blooms and

eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries

25(4b): 562–584.

2002 Hoagland, P., D.M. Anderson, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. Average annual economic impacts of harmful algal blooms in the United States: some preliminary

estimates. Estuaries 25(4b):677–695.

In addition to the above list, Dr. Anderson is author or co-author of over 150 other

publications and 7 books.

85

86

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist, Department of Biology, Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institution

Following my testimony before your subcommittee at the hearing on Harmful

Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Strengthening the Science, I was asked to respond to

several questions. Those questions and my written responses are given below. First,

however, I would like to offer one comment on the legislation you are seeking to

reauthorize. One concern I have about the present state of NOAA funding for HABs

is that NOAA has repeatedly taken funds intended for competitive, peer reviewed

extra mural programs and used those funds to address internal needs. In fact, this

is happening again in the FY03 appropriations related to harmful algal blooms, in

that NOS is seeking to use over B of this year’s ECOHAB new start funds to support

a NOAA laboratory in Beaufort, NC. This not only diminishes NOAA’s ability to access the expertise and experience of the academic community in addressing specific

issues like HABs and hypoxia, but makes the partnership between NOAA and the

external community unstable and unpredictable. Efforts to expand the marine HAB

program to include freshwater cyanobacterial blooms in the Great Lakes will obviously be much more difficult with the small pool of funds remaining this year. If

there are ways in this bill or otherwise to prevent NOAA from reallocating targeted

funds to meet internal needs, it would serve the broader community well.

Now, the questions I was asked, and my responses follow. I want to acknowledge

assistance from Drs. Patricia Glibert, Wayne Carmichael, and John Heisler in these

responses.

Q1. For many years NSF has funded work on nutrient cycling, biogeochemistry and

eutrophication in freshwater systems. Through past NSF research and the work

at the Northern Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research site, don’t we

actually know quite a bit about the relationship between nutrient inputs and

algal blooms in freshwater systems?

A1. Yes, we have learned a great deal about the linkages between nutrients and

algal blooms, but that does not mean we fully understand the role nutrients play

in toxic blooms, or the bloom dynamics that might occur in massive systems such

as the Great Lakes. The only LTER in the Great Lakes region is in Wisconsin,

studying Lakes Mendota, Monona, etc. near Madison, and some small lakes in

northern Wisconsin. The largest lake under study is Lake Mendota, (39.2 km22 surface area) compared to Lake Erie at 25,820 and Lake Michigan at 57,850 km22. One

could therefore argue that the physical and biological processes involved in the

Great Lakes are not adequately sampled by LTER work in Lake Mendota, as it is

1000 times smaller.

In addition, NSF Ecology/Ecosystems has, traditionally, funded freshwater

limnological work that has included HABs. However few if any projects have been

exclusively on HABs. As is true for marine HABs, most would argue that it is very

difficult (and potentially misleading) to draw generalizations about toxic blooms

from observations made on other species. In the marine realm, we know that coastal

eutrophication leads to increased algal biomass, but that increased biomass does not

necessarily lead to a harmful algal bloom in the sense of a toxin producing species.

For example, the brown tides that devastated the scallop fisheries on Long Island

seemed to start when the nutrient inputs to LI bays were reduced. Similarly, in

freshwater systems, we know there is a link between nutrient input and

cyanobacterial blooms, but nutrient increases do not necessarily result in toxic

blooms. Lake Erie was heavily ‘‘polluted’’ with nutrients in the 1960s and 1970s, but

those years were not associated with massive toxic blooms. Lake Onondaga in Syracuse receives discharge form the metro sewage treatment plant and is

hypereutrophic, yet microcystin (a cyanobacterial toxin) levels are very low. In contrast, nearby Oneida Lake has lower nutrient inputs but much higher microcystin

levels. Obviously, cyanobacterial HABs are not simply due to high nutrient levels

and other factors are needed to explain a species’ dominance, including its toxicity.

This is perhaps a situation where we should be careful not to blindly accept past

findings or broad generalizations as dogma. The limitation of primary production in

lakes by phosphorus availability is a central tenet of modern day Great Lakes limnology, yet, exceptions to this are common. Likewise, we should not be too quick to

assume that all algae and cyanobacteria respond similarly to nutrient enrichments.

Q2. How should an expansion of the HAB and hypoxia research programs at NOAA

to freshwater systems be designed to complement on-going research on freshwater systems through NSF’s program?

87

A2. The ideal approach here would be to establish a program analogous to the

ECOHAB program, or to proceed directly through the ECOHAB program, which is

already a partnership between NOAA and NSF, though it presently focuses predominantly (but not exclusively) on marine HABs. A framework for cooperation thus

exists between NSF and NOAA on HAB issues, and only needs to be expanded to

facilitate the transfer of information on the types of projects that are or have been

funded by each agency, and to coordinate future funding decisions. In this instance,

a different NSF division might need to become involved, as the present partnership

is with the NSF Biological Oceanography program, given the marine HAB focus of

ECOHAB.

Another consideration is the type of research grant that is awarded. I believe it

would be a mistake to tie freshwater HAB funding to LTER programs, and foresee

more productivity from individual investigator or team grants lasting 3–5 years

each, and focusing exclusively on HABs and the factors that regulate their occurrence. There is much to be gained from multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary

projects similar to the regional research programs funded by ECOHAB. Freshwater

HABs, like marine HABs, require research teams with expertise in organismal biology, physiology, ecology, grazing dynamics, hydrodynamics, water chemistry, and

numerical modeling, to name just a few. Other than for LTERs, which address far

broader issues than just HABs, this multidisciplinary approach has not been attempted on the smaller scale freshwater issues studied to date.

Q3. What more do we need to know about the causes of HABs in freshwater to begin

addressing the problem in these systems?

A3. A number of issues still must be resolved before effective management of freshwater systems impacted by HABs can be achieved. Here I highlight a few key questions for further study, but a more comprehensive list of priority topics should be

generated through community workshops such as the one convened to develop the

science plan for ECOHAB.

1. Why do specific strains of phytoplankton bloom in some situations and not

in others? What determines the community composition or structure among

different cyanobacterial species?

There is no doubt an influence of nutrients on cyanobacterial bloom dynamics, but there is no clear answer in the literature as to whether it is total

P, Total N:P, or molar N:P that are the major factors. Moreover, new work

is suggesting that bioavailability and chemical speciation, not simply concentration, are the important parameters regulating bloom dynamics. More

work is clearly needed in this area.

2. How do factors such as UV, viruses, trace elements, etc. influence the onset

of HAB events and their subsequent demise?

While some literature exists in these areas, there is by no means sufficient

understanding of these issues to allow effective bloom management. In

order to understand the dynamics of a bloom event, information on the mortality of the cells (grazing, viral lysis, UV effects, etc.) is as critical as information on the factors regulating bloom formation.

3. Which cyanobacterial species produce toxins, what are the chemical and

pharmacological properties of those toxins, and how do they affect freshwater

ecosystems and threaten human health?

Cyanobacteria are prolific producers of secondary metabolites of various

types, and many of these are toxic. Novel toxins undoubtedly remain undiscovered, and others still need to be explored to understand the environmental conditions that enhance or reduce toxicity, as well as their ecosystem and human health effects.

4. What parameters must be quantified to allow predictive modeling of

cyanobacterial blooms?

There is at present minimal predictive capability for cyanobacterial blooms

using numerical models, yet there is great management value in such models should they be developed. Efforts are therefore needed to identify the

key biological, chemical, and physical variables that must be parameterized

and modeled for effective predictive models of freshwater HABs.

As I mentioned above, this is just a short list out of many research questions that

remain unanswered for freshwater HABs.

88

Q4. How do the levels of funding available for freshwater systems through NSF’s

program compare to the levels of funding currently available for the HAB and

hypoxia programs?

A4. This is not a question I can answer, as it would require knowledge of the many

different types of NSF-sponsored freshwater research programs across several divisions (Ecology, Systematics, etc.). All I would point out is that virtually none of ongoing freshwater research at NSF focuses directly on HAB species.

Q5. The final recommendation in your written testimony is that we: ‘‘implement agriculture and land-use policies that reduce point and non point source pollution

loadings to coastal waters.’’ To what extent has the research done through the

HAB program defined the reductions in loading that will be necessary to reduce

the frequency and severity of these blooms in coastal regions?

A5. This question asks for a degree of quantitation that cannot yet be provided and

which may never be possible in general terms. Many coastal managers would like

to have HAB scientists define specific nutrient loading thresholds above which

HABs may become significant concerns, and below which their watershed could

function without harmful outbreaks. It is clear, however, that different HAB species

respond differently to the same nutrient inputs, that the hydrodynamics of watersheds will alter dilution rates and thus the net effect of pollution loads, and that

the complex interactions among co-occurring organisms in the water and sediments

can have profound effects on the bloom dynamics of a particular species. Nutrient

loadings that reduce the probability of a bloom of one HAB species in one location

might still be high enough to support a different species in a different location. The

best that we can provide at this stage are statements that highlight important concepts or linkages that are emerging, and that guide scientists and managers to the

proper types of site-specific studies, which can then begin to provide specific nutrient loading recommendations. I’m sorry I cannot be more specific here, but such is

the state of our knowledge after essentially only five years of study into the problem.

During those five years, new insights have been gained into the relationships between nutrient loadings and a number of important U.S. HAB species. Much—if not

all—of this research has been conducted under the auspices of the ECOHAB program. The following highlights some of the understanding that has been achieved:

1. For some HAB species, new data has been obtained supporting the relationship between nutrient loading and their outbreaks. For example, in Chesapeake Bay, Pfiesteria spp. can be correlated with specific sites receiving

heavy agricultural runoff. We cannot as yet specify the actual loadings that

lead to outbreaks, but the nutrient differences between sites where outbreaks are frequent versus those where blooms seldom occur will provide

guidance in this regard. These types of comparative analyses are ongoing in

several locations, though they are constrained by the lack of Pfiesteria

blooms in recent years. This underscores an important point—that even

when nutrients exceed a particular species’ threshold, a bloom may not

occur.

2. New data have been obtained demonstrating that the form of nutrient supplied may impact the extent to which HAB species may proliferate. Thus in

addition to total nutrient load, the chemical composition of that nutrient

must be understood. Accordingly, reductions in nutrient loading must take

into account how the reductions may impact the relative composition of the

nutrient pool, as the potential exists to worsen the problem by altering nutrient ratios. One also needs to assess the ability of the local HAB species to

utilize different nutrient sources. This requires site-specific studies.

3. Significant understanding has been gained with regard to the biology of specific HAB species, and how they respond to nutrients under different environmental conditions. For example, a species may have one response in cool

water, and another when the water is significantly warmer. Again, knowledge of total nutrient load is not sufficient; rather, the timing or seasonality

of that load is also critical.

4. Knowledge has been obtained regarding the relative response of specific HAB

species to nutrients when other competing non-HAB species are present. Numerical models are under development to further explore these dynamics.

These models are being developed for certain HAB species, and can be eventually applied to other species, but only after they have been studied to provide the quantitative data on which to base the model (i.e., to parameterize

them).

89

5. We now have much better knowledge of the sediment as a reservoir for HAB

species that can respond to nutrient pulses or other conditions.

The above statements are largely based on experimental laboratory studies, and

these are difficult to extrapolate to the conditions prevailing in coastal waters. In

the U.S., there have been few opportunities to study and quantify the effects of specific nutrient (pollution) reductions on HAB proliferations in natural waters, as

there are few U.S. cases in which such nutrient reductions have occurred. Such information would begin to provide the type of quantitative information on loading reductions requested by this question. There are, however, examples from elsewhere

in the world (e.g., Black Sea, Seto Inland Sea, etc.) where such efforts have led to

significant reductions in algal bloom incidence. The significant lessons from those

studies are that:

1. Agricultural runoff can directly affect bloom magnitude and frequency in

coastal waters located far from the site where fertilizers were applied. The

trend is very worrisome, given the projections for increased fertilizer usage

for U.S. agriculture in the immediate future.

2. Reductions in both point- and non-point-source pollution have resulted in decreases in HAB incidence. In the Seto Inland Sea of Japan, for example, pollution reductions to B of 1974 levels eventually resulted in reductions in

bloom frequency to about B of the 1974 levels.

3. Nutrient reductions may not lead to immediate reductions in HABs, as ecosystems may be permanently altered and it is not always possible to return

to the biological communities that prevailed when waters were cleaner.

4. Different degrees of success are likely with different HAB species and with

different environments, depending on the degree of nutrient loading, the individual biology of the HAB species, and other factors.

5. Sediments may retain nutrients for long periods of time. Therefore, long time

scales may be involved to remove all the nutrients from particular ecosystems.

The HAB community recognizes the need to offer more specifics to those desiring

to define acceptable nutrient loading thresholds, but also recognizes that this will

require focused research that builds from the base established by ECOHAB. This

would logically fall under a program on HAB Prevention, Control, and Mitigation,

as proposed in your legislation. A recent scientific conference sponsored by the EPA

began the process of examining HAB events throughout the U.S. to identify the linkages between HABs and nutrients, and to identify the key issues that need to be

addressed to provide useful information to managers. As one participant put it,

‘‘Most of the pieces of the puzzle are there—now it’s just a matter of putting them

together.’’ The EPA workshop was the first step in what is hoped will be a national

effort to attack this question on both regional and site-specific bases. For the moment, HAB scientists and managers of impacted waters unanimously agreed to the

following statements as the foundation for a new, coordinated effort on HABs and

nutrients:

Degraded water quality from increased nutrient pollution promotes the

development and persistence of many HABs and is one reason for their

expansion in the U.S. and the world.

Management of nutrient inputs to the water shed can lead to significant reductions in HABs.

These are admittedly general statements, but they represent a consensus, and

will be used to drive science forward to provide the information the managers need.

I hope these responses adequately address your concerns.

90

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAN L. AYRES

Dan L. Ayres is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist who leads the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) coastal shellfish unit based in Montesano and

Willapa Bay. He manages Washington’s razor clam fishery and oversees the unit’s

work managing the coastal Dungeness crab, pink shrimp and spot prawn fisheries,

the Willapa Bay oyster reserves and research projects in Willapa Bay.

Dan is a life-long resident of the coastal Washington area and began his career

with WDFW in 1980. A University of Washington graduate, he belongs to the National Shellfisheries Association and the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists.

91

92

1Since the summer of 2000, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been the

recipient of a grant from NOAA Centers for Coastal Ocean Science MERHAB (Monitoring and

Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms) Program. 2The primary component of the razor clam diet is the surf zone diatom Asterionellopsis

socialis.

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dan L. Ayres, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Shellfish Lead,

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Question submitted by Democratic Members

Q1. The current HAB and hypoxia program was supposed to do research on assessment, prevention, and control of HABs. Much of the work to date has focused

on assessment. In the reauthorization how would you rank these broad areas of

research in order of priority from the coastal community’s perspective: continuing assessment work, developing and testing control methods, and developing and testing prevention strategies? What concerns do the fishing and recreational communities have regarding the development and implementation of

control strategies for HABs?

A1. From the perspective of Washington State’s coastal communities the most important areas of research, ranked in order of priority, are developing and testing

control methods, followed by developing and testing prevention strategies, and finally, continuing assessment work.

In our federally funded work1 here along the Washington coast our current strategy has focused on technologies that will provide an early warning of pending harmful algal bloom (HAB) events. This work has been successful in providing fishery

managers, shellfish harvesters and communities that depend on that harvest, time

to prepare for the fishery closures that result from HAB events. However, this strategy has not eliminated the economic disruption experienced by small coastal communities as a result of these fishery closures. The promise that comes with the notion of possible control and prevention strategies and the hope of ending the fishery

closures associated with HAB events is very appealing to fishery users, community

members and fishery managers alike. That said, it is also important to point out

the concerns associated with such strategies. Everyone involved wants to be sure

that as we move down the road toward possible control and prevention strategies

that we don’t ‘‘cut off our nose to spite our face.’’ Many of the same conditions that

promote the growth of harmful algal blooms also promote the growth of beneficial

algal blooms. These beneficial algae are critical to the very survival of the shellfish

species that are so important to these coastal communities. Razor clams are filter

feeders; and their primary food source is the community of surf zone algae.2 Any

control or prevention measure that negatively affects the health of this algal community would be devastating to the large populations of razor clams on the Washington coast. In addition, the multi-million dollar commercial aquaculture industries

found in the coastal estuaries of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor could also be heavily impacted by anything that negatively effects the beneficial algal blooms the

shellfish (oysters and hardshell clams) they raise depend on. Any future research

into control and prevention strategies of harmful algal blooms must be designed to

carefully assess any unintended secondary impacts before such strategies are implemented.

Questions submitted by Representative Brian Baird

Q1. Mr. Ayres, in your experience, is there a need for interaction between the research community and local and state managers? Could you provide some examples of what has worked in Washington State and what problems you have encountered?

A1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) coastal shellfish managers have long enjoyed excellent interaction with federal and university HAB researchers. This has allowed us to work together throughout a research project, from

the design phase to completion. A good example of this was a project we worked

on in 1999 with NOAA-Fisheries researchers from the Northwest Fishery Science

Center (NWFSC) in Seattle, Washington. As the fishery managers, we had questions

about the variance in biotoxin levels in razor clams found at different tidal heights

along the Washington coast; and what was the best razor clam sample size when

trying to monitor biotoxin levels. Together we designed a study to try to answer

93

3Wekell, J.C., Trainer, V.L., D. Ayres, D. Simons 2002. A study of spatial variability of domoic

acid in razor clams: recommendations for resource management on the Washington Coast.

Harmful Algae 1, 35–43. 4Trainer, V.L., R. Homer and B.M. Hickey (2002) Biological and physical dynamics of domoic

acid production off the Washington USA coast, Journal of Phycology, in press. 5Links to news reports: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/84936¥toxics30.shtml; also http://

www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/r137¥toxins.htm 6Link to news report: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/117413¥redtide14.html

these questions. WDFW staff was responsible for the field collection of specimens

and NWFSC researchers analyzed those specimens. We collaborated on the documentation of the results of this research and jointly produced an article published

in the refereed journal, Harmful Algae.3 Also, as a direct result of this collaborative

research, WDFW has increased the minimum sample size for razor clam samples

collected to monitor biotoxin levels.

Q2. Mr. Ayres, Washington State has done an excellent job in monitoring harmful

algal blooms and managing fisheries when they are impacted. What can we do

proactively to reduce the number and intensity of harmful algal blooms? What

can we do to increase the relevance of research on harmful algal blooms?

A2. To actually reduce the number and intensity of harmful algal blooms will require much more research into the environmental forces that are driving these

events. Some of these forces are totally out of the control of human intervention.

Others, with enough understanding, may have some promise of being altered. For

example, researchers have learned that a ‘‘initiation site’’ (along the coast of Washington State) for domoic acid-producing algae (the diatom species Pseudonitzschia)

may exist in an oceanographic feature termed the ‘‘Juan de Fuca Eddy’’ 4 (also know

as the ‘‘Tully Eddy’’) that forms each summer at the mouth of the Strait of Juan

de Fuca. With additional research,5 it may be possible to link to the growth of these

Pseudo-nitzschia blooms with the levels of nutrients coming out of the heavily populated areas of Puget Sound and Georgia Basin. (Recent research by NOAA-Fisheries

scientists has drawn a correlation between Puget Sound region human population

growth and increases in HAB events.6 )

Finally, the best way to increase the relevance of research on harmful algal

blooms (HAB) is to tie that research as closely as possible to the management of

the resources affected by HAB events. This can be accomplished by having representative state; tribal and local fishery and health managers sit (and speak with

an equal voice) on the Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and other

similar bodies that are making decisions on when and how research funds are spent.

(95)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

96

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT E. MAGNIEN

Director, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

On behalf of the State of Maryland, I would like to thank Chairman Ehlers and

the Members of the Subcommittee for requesting this written testimony for the

hearing entitled ‘‘Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Strengthening the Science.’’

I have responded to each of the questions asked and concluded with comments on

the draft bill ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of

2003.’’

1. What kind of activities does the state of Maryland undertake to monitor

for HABs? How does the state respond when it detects an HAB event?

Over the past several years, Maryland has had to contend with several different

types of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in diverse locations and throughout much

of the year. We have built much of our HAB monitoring upon existing comprehensive monitoring programs and extended them in various ways depending upon the

nature of the HAB threat. Some of the additional HAB-related monitoring has become a regular feature of our ongoing monitoring programs. By coordinating the

HAB monitoring with existing monitoring programs such as those for water quality,

not only are efficiencies gained but the combined, more comprehensive, information

is often very useful for determining likely causes and consequences of the bloom

events. When an event occurs, however, additional resources must be brought to

bear and the response tailored to the particular HAB threat. Because of the unique

nature of many bloom events and the needed response, several representative HAB

events are reviewed below to provide a more detailed understanding of how Maryland is monitoring and responding to HAB events.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) screens 41 stations in the

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their tidal tributaries on a monthly to

twice-monthly basis for the presence of potentially harmful algal species using

standard microscopic techniques. If harmful algal species are detected in high numbers, additional samples may be taken to determine the extent of the potentially

harmful bloom and samples may be sent to research laboratories for specialized

analyses of toxins. An example of such an event occurred in the late winter—early

spring of 2002. A rare, but potentially toxic species (Dinophysis accuminata), was

detected through the screening-level monitoring at high densities in the lower Potomac River, an area of shellfish harvesting at the time. Crews were sent out to secure additional samples to determine the extent of the bloom and some of these

samples were also sent to the Food and Drug Administration for toxin testing. The

shellfish harvesting was suspended by Maryland as a precaution until the toxin

testing could be completed. Toxin was found in the algae but shellfish were determined to be safe for consumption and the waters were re-opened for harvesting.

This response is a good example of the interagency cooperation that needs to occur

during many HAB events. The DNR first detected the bloom and assisted the Departments of Environment and Health in their determination of shellfish safety

while also working with federal and academic laboratories to understand this

unique occurrence. Virginia officials were also notified and they also found high densities of the HAB species in their tributaries to the lower Potomac River. This event

is also a good example of the speed with which an investigation must be carried

out because of human health concerns and the ephemeral nature of many bloom

events.

During the summers of 2000 and 2001, we experienced high density

cyanobacterial (blue-green algae) blooms in the freshwater upper Chesapeake Bay

and its tributaries. These are very visible as bright green scums on the water surface and were reported to the DNR by citizens as well as our monitoring crews. Involved state and local government agencies were notified by DNR and additional

sampling was conducted and samples were sent to a research laboratory for toxin

testing. These tests revealed the presence of toxins and the local health department

closed swimming beaches in the affected areas. HABs in these freshwater areas will

receive increased attention in the amended Act.

In Maryland’s Atlantic Coastal Bays there are two types of harmful algae which

have caused concern for their potential to cause serious ecological damage. A brown

tide bloom organism which has devastated the scallop fishery and bay grasses on

Long Island has reached harmful bloom levels almost every year since monitoring

started in Maryland four years ago. Macroalgae, algae that form seaweed-like aggregates have also reached bloom levels in this region and threaten to smother bay

grass beds and other habitats. For both of these blooms, Maryland has instituted

97

special monitoring efforts in conjunction with researchers along the East Coast to

better understand causes and impacts.

In Maryland’s work on the many HAB species in the Chesapeake and Atlantic

Coastal Bays, it has become clear that additional monitoring and research is needed

for states to adequately detect, understand impacts, and take appropriate measures

to protect human health and environmental damage.

2. What new technologies would improve your ability to predict and respond to HABs? How would you utilize such technologies on a day-today basis?

Largely through assistance that NOAA has provided under the existing Harmful

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, Maryland has already

been able to employ new technologies in its HAB monitoring programs. The Act has

supported research to produce genetic probes that can quickly identify HAB species

that may not be amenable to traditional techniques. This is the case for Pfiesteria

which can take two weeks or more to identify with conventional labor intensive

techniques. Genetic probes can accomplish this task at a small fraction of the cost

in a matter of hours. Since 1999, Maryland has employed the genetic probe for

Pfiesteria for routine screening of waterbodies and in response to potential outbreaks.

It would be particularly helpful to Maryland if probes could be developed for additional HAB species that are difficult to identify through traditional techniques. Another critical need is the ability to rapidly identify the presence of algal toxins in

environmental samples. At this time, it takes days to weeks in order to obtain results from specialized laboratories and, in some cases, no analytical techniques exist

to determine whether or not a toxin is present. In situations where potentially toxic

species are present, Maryland would certainly utilize these tests in order to determine whether any threat to public safety existed. Ideally these tests would be relatively inexpensive and provide results in the field within a matter of minutes.

Another technology that Maryland DNR has started to use in predicting and responding to HABs is that of remotely-deployed, continuously-sampling instruments

that transmit data in real-time to our offices. The implementation of these technologies was supported by NOAA funds granted under the original Act. These instruments continuously monitor conditions that either directly or indirectly indicate

that an HAB event is imminent or actually underway. This knowledge, obtained in

real-time through wireless data transmission has been invaluable in responding

proactively to HAB events and offers even greater promise in the future if linked

to a real-time modeling and prediction system which should now be feasible with

recently developed modeling and data assimilation techniques; this would be a system analogous to current weather models that assimilate data from continuouslysampling weather instruments. These new technologies have also been extremely

valuable in revealing previously unknown environmental impacts from HABs in

many areas such as transient severe low dissolved oxygen events that cause fish

and shellfish kills. An expansion of this network to the many tributaries of the

Chesapeake and Coastal Bays would be invaluable to our ability to more cost-effectively manage HABs. With the new technology, we are also able to make this information available over the Internet so that all affected and interested parties can

have access to these data. We have started this access through a DNR web site accessible at www.eyesonthebay.net.

3. To what extent have federal programs assisted you in monitoring for

and responding to HABs?

The primary source of federal funding to Maryland for HAB-related monitoring

has been from NOAA. This funding first became available to assist the state during

the HAB outbreak experienced in the Chesapeake Bay in 1997 and has assisted in

monitoring for this organism until recently. NOAA has also supported monitoring

by state agencies and researchers in Maryland utilizing new technologies that are

allowing us to better understand the factors contributing to blooms and also their

impacts. This monitoring has revealed that there are widespread non-toxic harmful

algal blooms in the shallow waters of Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries. These

blooms are producing daily excursions of dissolved oxygen that often drop to lethal

levels, causing fish kills. Prior to monitoring with these new technologies, this phenomenon was poorly understood and greatly underestimated in Chesapeake Bay.

As described in the answer to the previous question, NOAA HAB funding for research throughout the mid-Atlantic region has also benefited Maryland through the

development of tools and techniques that are critical to our ability to effectively

monitor certain HAB species.

98

Comments on the draft bill ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research

Amendments Act of 2003’’

Overall, the draft reauthorization bill effectively brings the original Act up to date

by examining issues not specifically addressed in the first Act (freshwater HABs),

examining prevention, control and mitigation methods, updating the examination of

hypoxia in U.S. coastal waters, and providing for local and regional assessments. It

also provides modest, but critically needed, additional funding for a growing problem

that impacts almost all of U.S. coastal waters to some degree. The State of Maryland is fully supportive of these changes and believes that they will strengthen the

protection of coastal waters nationwide.

A few minor comments that we would like to see addressed include:

Line 17: following ‘‘Great Lakes’’ insert ‘‘and upper reaches of estuaries’’

Line 22: following ‘‘ecological’’ insert ‘‘, public health and recreational’’

Line 19: shouldn’t ‘‘603(f)’’ actually be ‘‘603(e)’’?

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109